the-new-spiritualities-may-june-2008

GNOSTICISM AMERICAN STYLE ❘ PAGANISM REVIVED ❘ THE SEARCH FOR THE SACRED

MODERN REFORMATION

The New Spiritualities VOLUME

1 7 , NUMBER 3 , M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 , $ 6 . 0 0

MODERN REFORMATION Editor-in-Chief Michael S. Horton Executive Editor Eric Landry Managing Editor Patricia Anders Department Editors Mollie Z. Hemingway, Between the Times William Edgar, Borrowed Capital Starr Meade, Big Thoughts for Little Minds MR Editors, Required Reading Diana Frazier, Reviews Michael Horton, Final Thoughts Staff | Editors Ann Henderson Hart, Staff Writer Alyson S. Platt, Copy Editor Lori A. Cook, Layout and Design Ben Conarroe, Proofreader Contributing Scholars Peter D. Anders James Bachman S. M. Baugh Gerald Bray Jerry Bridges D. A. Carson Bryan Chapell R. Scott Clark Marva Dawn Mark Dever J. Ligon Duncan Adam S. Francisco W. Robert Godfrey T. David Gordon Donald A. Hagner John Hannah Gillis Harp D. G. Hart Paul Helm Hywel R. Jones Ken Jones Peter Jones Richard Lints Korey Maas Keith Mathison Donald G. Matzat John Muether John Nunes Craig Parton John Piper Kim Riddlebarger Rick Ritchie Rod Rosenbladt Philip G. Ryken R. C. Sproul A. Craig Troxel Carl Trueman David VanDrunen Gene E. Veith William Willimon Todd Wilken Paul F. M. Zahl Modern Reformation © 2008 All rights reserved.

For more information, call or write us at: Modern Reformation 1725 Bear Valley Pkwy.

Escondido, CA 92027 (800) 890-7556 info@modernreformation.org www.modernreformation.org ISSN-1076-7169

1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR

$29 $22 $35 $52 $59

2008

|

volume

17

n u m be r

3

The New Spiritualities 14 Your Own Personal Jesus When spirituality becomes highly individualized, it leaves room for everything and anything, just as Paul found in Athens. Is “Gnosticism Lite” the new “American Religion”?

by Michael Horton Plus: Is Pop Culture Either?

24 The New Spirituality: Dismantling and Reconstructing Reality Is ancient paganism on the resurgence, leading us back into a “pre-Christian” world? If so, what are the urgent tasks of the church and the role of Christian witness?

by Peter R. Jones

30 Old Heresy, New Heretics: The Return of Gnosticism What does the new Gnosticism threaten and how did a long-forgotten heresy manage to return with a vengeance? Is there still reason to trust the New Testament and the Jesus found therein?

by Mark Pierson Plus: Oppresssion to Confession: The Story of an Ex-Cult Member

37 Protestant Gnosticism Reconsidered Twenty years after his major study on Gnosticism, the author is astounded by its infiltration into contemporary Christianity. What does this look like and what can the church do to combat it?

by Philip J. Lee

11 In Season Meditations on reading, preaching, and using Scripture.

by Jay Lemke COVER PHOTO BY PHOTODISC, DON BISHOP; COMPOSITE BY LORI COOK

S UBSCRIPTION I NFORMATION US US Student Canada Europe Other

TABLE OF CONTENTS may/june

2 YR $52 2 YR $63 2 YR $94 2 YR $107

In This Issue page 2 | Letters page 3 | Between the Times page 4 Borrowed Capital page 8 | Big Thoughts for Little Minds page 9 Required Reading page 41 | Reviews page 42 | Final Thoughts page 48

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3

IN THIS ISSUE

Looking for God in All the Wrong Places

R

ecent reports from the Pew Research Center (see Mollie Z. Hemingway’s “Between the Times” for more information) show that America’s religious landscape is changing rapidly and substantially: religionhopping and religion-dropping are proceeding with a speed and industry never before seen in the modern West. Meanwhile, in a recent Atlantic Monthly (March 2008), several authors declared that: a) the shifting sands of evangelicalism will make it more—not less, as is commonly believed—of a force to be reckoned with in the future; b) as religion’s economic benefits collide with intransigent religious dogmas, moderation of religious extremism is sure to follow; and c) based on the example of religious conflict in Nigeria, Christianity and Islam have found new common ground in an interfaith prosperity gospel that promises riches in this life, with little thought given to the next.

This perfect storm of religious upheaval reminds us that the Preacher of Ecclesiastes still speaks truth to our age: there truly is nothing new under the sun. Revitalized interest in all things spiritual, as well as the moderating effects of secularism, are the stuff from which the Christian church has emerged over the last 2,000 years. As Roman Catholic scholar Robert Louis Wilken explains in his seminal work, Remembering the Christian Past, our current ecclesial age faces the exact same challenges as early Christianity and it is to the early Christian apologists we must look for clues to combat the “new” spirituality.

In this issue, we want to make a beginning at identifying and classifying the new spiritual impulses that seem to be sweeping the world (and sweeping much of what is called evangelicalism along with them). To start things off, Reformed theologian and Editor-in-Chief Michael Horton shows us the difference between classical Christianity and the prevailing spirit of the age. New Testament scholar and Presbyterian professor of all things pagan, Peter Jones, takes aim at the new spirituality and its view of reality. Lutheran pastor Mark Pierson wonders what all the fuss is about as he considers the cyclical nature of heresy in his article on Gnosticism. And, we’re honored to have Presbyterian pastor and author of Against the Protestant Gnostics, Philip Lee, give us an update 20 years after the publication of that important work. Unfortunately, his news is not good.

The good news, however, is that the health of the church is not ultimately up to the church and that Christ is in the business of entering into the mess that his bride finds herself to show again what a great Savior he is. As we understand and proclaim that message, the banality of the new spiritualities becomes clear. Our hope, then, is that Christians will not fear a new dark ages of religious superstition, but will see a possibility for a renewed golden age of the church in the work and witness to those attracted by what the gods of this age have to offer.

Eric Landry 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

NEXT ISSUES July/August 2008 No Church, No Problem?

September/October 2008 Beyond Nostalgia: The Risk of Orthodoxy

LETTERS your

Author’s Reply In response to Linda Horton’s comment about my article in the November/December 2007 issue: (1) It is sound advice to make the church situation the primary criterion in considering a new community.

However, God has the final word on our choices as he modifies or changes those choices while weaving our decisions in and around other people and circumstances involved in our selection. As major reformations in our thinking occur and enlighten us to previously inconsequential issues, or as conditions change in a carefully selected church and community, it is not always possible to pick up and move to a town with a church more in line with our maturing biblical knowledge.

(2) Do we really believe that the purpose of Modern Reformation and other Reformed groups such as the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals is “to call the church, amidst our dying culture, to repent of its worldliness, to recover and confess the truth of God’s Word as did the Reformers, and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship and life” (James Montgomery Boice and Benjamin E. Sasse, Here We Stand! [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004], p. 8)? And do we share MR’s desire “to be able to reach an even wider audience in 2008”? Are these goals priorities, or do we seek our own comfort level first, fleeing to the nearest area sporting a Reformed communion, thus forming safe little “Reformed Ghettos” where we preach to ourselves and lob potshots at the churches outside of our understanding of biblical truths?

(3) While my article did not state it explicitly, it was a call for help.

Plainly stated: Postmodern churches in “fly-over country” are mission fields awaiting a modern reformation. Those of us who are already on the field are in need of some Barnabas’s instead of Job’s friends.

A positive note: The article did prompt a Reformed brother, a rancher in another isolated situation, to contact us; and we will be meeting when the spring break-up allows travel. Thank you for printing my article, which the Lord used to bring “kindred spirits” together.

Betty Bevan

I read your March/April issue from cover to cover in just a few days, and both enjoyed and learned from it. This caused me to wonder what I missed in previous issues. I went back to the January/February issue, and one of the first items I encountered was a letter to the editor from Dr. David Campbell in which he says that “Intelligent Design and creation science are best regarded as heresies” and “the claims of antievolutionists are equally in violation of the 9th commandment.”

Since this was not in response to anything you have written previously, I expected an Editor’s Reply. There was none, so I am left wondering what your stance is on Intelligent Design and Creation Science. Will you please clarify?

thoughts

a n d

ou rs

which the magazine feels it needs to take a position. As individuals, some of us find great encouragement in the work of William Dembski, Michael Behe, and similar writers. Others are taking a more cautious approach, waiting to see how this particular incarnation of the science and faith debate plays out. But all of us subscribe to confessional statements that affirm our belief in creation by divine fiat, the historicity of Adam and Eve, the unity of humankind, the reality of the fall, etc.

Cynthia J. via e-mail

Editor's Reply Dr. Campbell’s letter anticipated our intention to interact with the New Atheism (as we did in our March/April 2008 issue). We did not plan to use the Intelligent Design movement or Creation Science to assist us in that interaction, thus we did not feel any response was necessary. To answer Cynthia J.’s question about our “position” on Intelligent Design and/or Creation Science we would need to poll all of our contributors and editors as individuals since this is not an issue on

Modern Reformation Letters to the Editor 1725 Bear Valley Parkway Escondido CA 92027 760.741.1045 fax Letters@modernreformation.org Letters under 200 words are more likely to be printed than longer letters. Letters may be edited for content and length.

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5

BETWEEN THE TIMES t he

g oo d ,

t h e

ba d ,

and

the

ugly

Losing Our Religion Denominational loyalty in America isn’t what it used to be. A new Pew Survey of the American religious landscape shows that Protestants— two-thirds of the population in the mid-1980s—are on the cusp of losing their majority status in the United States.

More than a quarter of adult Americans have left the faith of their childhood to join another religion or no religion. When denominational switching is included, the figure rises to 44 percent.

The percentage of Catholics is steady, but only because an influx of Roman Catholic immigrants is replacing departing members. Nearly a third of those raised Catholic have left the church.

And the percentage of Americans claiming no specific religious affiliation has never been higher. While every major religious group showed declines, those who claim no religious affiliation grew significantly—to 16 percent of the overall population. Most unaffiliated described their religion as “nothing in particular.” Atheists and agnostics comprise only 4 percent of the overall population. Men are significantly more likely than women to claim no religious affiliation with nearly one in five saying they have no formal religious affiliation, compared with roughly 13 percent of women.

Baptist and Methodist churches showed the steepest declines. By comparison, nondenominational churches gained the most among religious groups.

The study found that evangelical churches, many of which claim they are “seeker-friendly” and have a particular goal of winning new believers from the ranks of the “unchurched,” found most of their converts from other Protestant churches.

The changing religious marketplace indicates that many Americans have vague denominational ties at best, Pew reported. People who call themselves “just a Protestant,” accounted for nearly 10 percent of all Protestants.

6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

in

church

news

“Many Americans are simply unclear about the religious group to which they belong,” the report said.

Among people who are married, 37 percent are married to a spouse with a different religious affiliation, further suggesting religion has become more a matter of individual conscience. However, of the 90 percent of Hindus and 83 percent of Mormons, respectively, practitioners of those faiths are the most likely to be married to someone of the same religion. ■

Bruno said in a statement read at the January service. “In this spirit, and in order to take another step in building trust between our two great religious traditions, I offer a sincere apology to the Hindu religious community.”

The bishop said he was committed to renouncing the “proselytizing” of Hindus. Hindus at the service praised Bruno for his courage.

“By declaring that there will be no more proselytizing, the bishop has opened a new door of understanding,” Sarvadevananda said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “The

How Many Christians Are Enough?

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles held an interfaith service during which Bishop J. Jon Bruno apologized for historic attempts to convert Hindus.

“I believe that the world cannot afford for us to repeat the errors of our past, in which we sought to dominate rather than to serve,”

Notable Quotables “Although Hindus worship and honor the cow, they do not worship them in the same sense which they worship God....The cow thus represents Hindu values of selfless service, strength, dignity and ahimsa, or non-violence.”

— Hindu American Foundation’s Media Toolkit: Omissions and Oversights.

“Do we really want to send our youth groups—our church youth group—to places where alcohol is served?”

— Local Christian leader Linda Rosebury protesting applications to sell beer at Six Flags Over Texas and Hurricane Harbor in Arlington.

“I could be electrocuted. I could be hanged. I could be given any other punishment. But I think forgiveness and reconciliation is the right way to go.”

— Joshua Blahyi, one of Liberia’s former rebel commanders admitting responsibility for 20,000 deaths. He reports that he converted to Christianity after God appeared to him as he charged naked into a battle and told him he was a slave to Satan,

BETWEEN THE TIMES the

modern religious man must expand his understanding and love of religions and their practices.”

Reports of Hindus receiving communion sparked outrage among traditional Episcopalians, but celebrant Karen MacQueen said she explained prior to the service that Hindus shouldn’t feel pressure to receive it.

During the service, Hindu and Christian texts were read. MacQueen said in her homily that both Hinduism and Christianity devotees believe that “the Divine Presence” illuminates the whole world. Both faiths revere “great figures who embody the divine light, who teach the divine truth,” she said.

Later, MacQueen said interfaith dialogue in India can’t be done effectively when “church leaders are going around converting people in the name of charitable work….There are enough Christians in the world.

What we need to see is more Christians leading an exemplary life and truly loving their fellow man.” ■ Sharia Comes for the Archbishop Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, leader of the world’s Anglicans, sparked outrage after he gave an interview saying the introduction in Britain of some aspects of Sharia, Islamic law, was “unavoidable.”

An approach to law that simply said “there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts—I think that’s a bit of a danger,” he said in the February interview with the BBC. After coming under fierce attack, Williams said his call for the introduction of Sharia law didn’t extend to some of its less favorable fatwas.

Ben Kwashi, archbishop of Jos in northern Nigeria, told the BBC he was shocked, disappointed, and in total disbelief at the comments.

Asked if it weren’t possible that people were overreacting since Williams

good,

the

b ad,

said he only sought to incorporate the civil aspects of Sharia, Kwashi said such thinking was naïve. “Once you ask for the first step of Sharia law you are going to get to the last of it.

By 1960 when Nigeria got Independence, it began as penal code. Once it came to this generation they upgraded it to full blown Sharia. So it is only a matter of time when you begin from somewhere that you get to the real thing.” ■ A New “Prophet, Seer and Revelator” Thomas Monson was named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ sixteenth president after predecessor Gordon Hinckley died at the age of 97.

LDS presidents serve for life and are believed to be prophets who speak for God. Thomas Monson By tradition, the longest-serving member of the leadership becomes head of the church upon the death of its president. Monson has spent his entire career with the LDS Church, working for the Mormon-owned Deseret News beginning in 1948 and with every president since 1963 when he was named a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles at the age of 36.

The quorum is one of the governing bodies of the church and members are considered to be apostles, with a special calling to be evangelical ambassadors to the world.

Monson is a folksy orator known for his compassion, fondness for modern-day parables of struggle and spiritual triumph, and willingness to enlist non-Mormons in humanitarian causes, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

Hinckley launched the church’s extensive public relations arm, making it much better known. The church’s growth rate, however, has slowed and its dropout rate troubles

and

the

ugly

in

chu r ch

n ew s

By the Numbers 4.3 million. Number of U.S. births in 2006, the highest since 1961, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

1.2 million. Number of abortions in the U.S. in 2005, down 8 percent from 2000 and the lowest per capita rate since 1974, according to the CDC. $854,000. Winning bid for a Russian icon of St. Nicholas, a world record for an icon at auction. Sales of icons and religious artifacts have jumped from $140,000 in 2005 to $14 million in 2007, fueled by religious patriotism and new Russian wealth.

945,000. Number of monks and nuns worldwide in 2006, according to the Vatican, down about 7,000 from the year before.

About 80 percent of those were women. $4 million. Amount University of Oxford researchers will spend to study why mankind embraces God. 15 minutes. Amount of time allowed to 550 priests and deacons to give communion to 58,000 people at Yankee Stadium during Pope Benedict XVI’s Mass in April. its leaders. In the late 1980s, Mormon membership grew as much as 8 percent a year. By 2000, it had slowed to less than 3 percent. Seventh-day Adventism and some Pentecostal churches are now growing faster.

At a February 4 press conference announcing the new president, Monson gave an indication that his presidency would be marked by encouraging more interfaith outreach

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 7

BETWEEN THE TIMES t he

g oo d ,

t h e

ba d ,

and

the

ugly

and increased charity work. “We should not be sequestered in a little cage. We should eliminate the weakness of the one standing alone and substitute it with the strength of working together to make this a better world.” ■ Let Us Also Pray for the Jews When Pope Benedict XVI approved preVatican II Latin Mass for wider use last July, he stipulated that the Good Friday liturgy not be used.

The liturgy included a contro- Pope Benedict XVI versial prayer in Latin that called for the conversion of Jews, an English translation of which read: Let us also pray for the Jews: that our Lord and God take away the veil from their hearts; that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ to be our Lord.

Almighty eternal God, who also does not repel the Jews from your mercy: graciously hear our prayers on behalf of the blindness of that people; so that once the light of your truth has been recognized, which is Christ, they may be rescued from their darkness.

An earlier version of the prayer called on Catholics to pray for the “faithless Jews”—a passage often mistranslated as perfidious. “Faithless” was dropped in 1960. Still, some Jewish groups complained about the “veil,” “blindness,” and “darkness” language, saying that the call to conversion was insulting. In response to criticism, Benedict issued a new version of the prayer, of which the English translation is: Let us also pray for the Jews. May the Lord our God illuminate their hearts so that they may recognize Jesus Christ as savior of all men. Almighty and everlasting God, you who want all men to be saved and to gain

8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

in

church

news

knowledge of the truth, kindly allow that, as all peoples enter into your Church, all of Israel may be saved.

Even with the removal of some of the language, U.S. Jewish groups weren’t pleased. The new version still asks Jews to recognize Jesus Christ as Savior.

“While we appreciate that the text avoids any derogatory language toward Jews, it’s regretful that the prayer explicitly calls for Jews to accept Christianity,” said Rabbi David Rosen, international director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee.

“Alterations of language without change to the 1962 prayer’s conversionary intent amount to cosmetic revisions, while retaining the most troubling aspect for Jews, namely the desire to end the distinctive Jewish way of life,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League.

Fewer than 50 American parishes chose to offer the Good Friday liturgy in Latin according to Coalition Ecclesia Dei, a Catholic traditionalist group that supports the Latin Mass.

Media coverage of the controversy neglected to mention that Scripture is the language source for the original prayer. In 2 Corinthians 3, St. Paul writes, “Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech—unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.”

Vatican sources said the new prayer is based on Romans 11, where St. Paul writes that “all Israel will be saved.” ■

Chastity by Technicality Traditionalists and progressives in the 2.3-million-member Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have fought for more than a decade over “Amendment B,” a church law that restricts ordination to singles living in “chastity” or those living in “fidelity” in marriage.

Some presbyteries have ignored the law and ordained practicing homosexuals. But in a February ruling, the church’s highest court said Presbyterians may disagree with their church’s ban on ordaining noncelibate gays and lesbians, but they must follow the rules.

“It would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church,” the ruling said.

The court ruled on a 2006 policy change that some had promoted as a compromise over homosexuality.

The General Assembly adopted a policy allowing candidates for ordination to declare a reservation about a point in the Presbyterian constitution. A church or presbytery could ordain the person if it decided the scruple didn’t involve an essential tenet of the faith.

Presbyteries in California and Minnesota tested the case in January by approving openly gay candidates for ministry.

But before those cases could be challenged, the court issued its ruling in a separate set of cases.

Ironically, those cases involved presbyteries and congregations that declared they would never ordain an openly gay candidate. These groups had passed resolutions declaring “essential” all of the ordination requirements in church law.

The top court ruled that congregations and presbyteries couldn’t issue blanket declarations deciding what will or will not be deemed essential—they had to evaluate

BETWEEN THE TIMES the

each candidate individually.

Those rulings were overshadowed, however, by the decision that candidates have to abide by the denomination’s sexual standards. ■ Taking Bill Clinton at His Word on the Word A diverse group of Baptists meeting in Atlanta at the New Baptist Covenant Celebration in February heard a telling story from former president Bill Clinton.

According to Clinton, in 1993 he had breakfast with the Rev. Ed Young, then the Southern Baptist Convention’s new president. Clinton said that during their meeting Young “looked at me and he said, ‘I want to ask you a question, a simple question, and I just want a yes or no answer. I don’t want one of those slick political answers….Do you believe the Bible is literally true? Yes or no?’”

Clinton says he responded that he thinks the Bible is completely true, but that neither he nor anyone else is wise enough to understand it completely.

According to Clinton, Young said, “That’s a political answer.” Clinton replied, “No, it’s not. You asked a political question.”

The assembled crowd of progressive Baptists cheered in response.

The only problem is that Young said the story isn’t true.

“The main thing is that I have never asked anyone on this earth that question,” Young told Scripps Howard religion columnist Terry Mattingly. “That isn’t a question I ask. I mean, Jesus says, ‘I am a door.’…How do you claim something like that is literally true?”

Clinton told the crowd that conservative Baptists believe that the Bible is literally true. They believe that understanding the Bible’s literal meaning means it’s possible to know God’s will for every political question, he said. Clinton commented that when it comes to politics, “it almost doesn’t matter whether the Bible is literally true,

good,

the

b ad,

News Briefs And a Church Is Like a Christian Mosque Dutch Catholics rebranded Lent as the “Christian Ramadan” in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity.

Four million Dutch describe themselves as Roman Catholics.

The Catholic charity Vastenaktie, which collects for developing countries across the Netherlands during Lent, was concerned that the Christian festival has become less important for the Dutch over the last generation.

“The image of the Catholic Lent must be polished. The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a betterknown concept among young people than Lent,” said Vastenaktie director Martin Van der Kuil.

A Backlog of Saints The Vatican announced new procedures making it tougher to elevate people to sainthood. More “rigor” and “sobriety” are being demanded of bishops beginning the beatification process and determining the required miracles, the Vatican announced.

Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, head of the Vatican’s sainthood office, said the Vatican was overwhelmed by causes, with more than 2,200 beatification and sainthood causes pending.

During his 27 years as pope, John Paul beatified 1,338 people and canonized 482—more than all his predecessors combined since current procedures were introduced in the sixteenth century.

because we know in part, we see through a glass darkly. Humility is the order of the day. The reason we have to love each other is because

and

the

ugly

in

chu r ch

n ew s

May the Force Be With You...

And Also With You What started out as a nationwide joke has turned into a small but determined new religion.

Seven people in every thousand in England and Wales gave their religion as ‘Jedi’ in the 2001 Census.

Now, a Jedi church has formed in North Wales. The order has 80 worshippers—whose uniform is head-to-toe black—but is growing daily, said Barney Jones, also known as Master Jonba Hehol.

“We will have teachings based on Yoda—the 900-year-old grand master—as well as readings, essays submitted, meditation and relaxation, visualisation and discuss healthy eating.”

A Fine Line Between Glamorous and Blasphemous Cosmetics company Blue Q is making waves with its “Looking Good for Jesus” line, which was pulled from stores in Singapore following complaints. The company’s marketing promises to “redeem your reputation and more” and offers “virtuous vanilla” flavored lip balm and other products.

“These products trivialize Jesus Christ and Christianity.” Nick Chui, 27, one of the complainants, was quoted in the Straits Times.

“There are also sexual innuendoes in the messages and the way Jesus is portrayed in these products.”

One product package features Jesus wearing a bright white robe with a heavily made-up blonde woman with an arm draped across his shoulder.

all of us might be wrong.”

In fact, Young said he doesn’t remember the conversation even touching on biblical inerrancy. ■ M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 9

BORROWED CAPITAL cul t ura l

a p olo getics

Haka, Rugby, and Apologetics for History

A

mericans usually do not know much about the game of rugby. For me as a

“How can the church move on and renew itself Frenchman, it is most important, especially in a season where the unthink- while integrating her past?” able happened: the French team defeated New Zealand. The All Blacks, as One place this quest for the past shows up is liturthey are called, were by far the favorites to win the World gy. The integration of traditional liturgical elements is an Cup, while the French lay…well, in the shadows. The sureffective means to achieve the renewal of the church’s prise of this defeat, however, lies deeper, and it is connectidentity and life today. Again, in rugby you pass the ball ed to the culture of both teams. backwards in order to move forward. Profiting from the The All Blacks have always had a very specific and past means more than nodding to the past, or just being strong character, rooted in their national identity and their nostalgic for a bygone day. To be fresh, the rugby team martial tradition. All of this is expressed in their traditionneeds clean jerseys and a new ball. But they will carry the al Maori dance, the haka, which they perform before every right labels. The team will build on the strength of its tragame. This dance is the expression of the team’s relation to ditions. its past and to their identity.

We’re not talking here about traditionalism, which is a Now, before I go any further, here’s the one rule you wrongheaded nostalgia for the past. That too shows up in need to know if you don’t know how rugby is played: the evangelical wistfulness for older ways. Can the church players cannot pass the ball forward; they must pass to a merely take elements of the past without really “integratplayer behind them. It’s in going backwards that you ing” them, without “playing” her game? No, using what move forward. In rugby you pass the ball behind you in lies behind her is her strength for the present. order to score. In that way, rugby is very similar to the Let’s go back to rugby and the All Blacks for a moment. apologetic task of the church. One reason the All Blacks When you watch a rugby game, how do you know the All lost (some say they were just arrogant, but we are making Blacks are playing? Is it by the color of their jerseys? Well, another point here) is that they forgot about this history; yes, that’s part of how you recognize them; but there’s and the French seized on it, digging back into their own, more to it. There’s the way they play, and there’s the haka quite different cultural identity. they perform before the game. This encapsulates who they One of the main challenges the church has always been are. Their identity does not merely consist in how they faced with is how she should build her future while at the look on the field; it’s about who they are, about where same time learning from her past, teaching her past, and they are coming from, about their history. When they forteaching from her past. This is particularly true for apologot it, they lost. getics. How often do modern evangelicals act as though The same holds for the church. We have our hymns, none of the great apologists from the past had anything to our ministries of mercy, our sermons, our creeds, and, yes, say? How often do they just forget to defend the past altoour heritage in Christian apologetics. The church needs gether? They not only can no longer profit from John people to recognize her when she’s playing. She needs Chrysostom’s sermons against the pagans, or Augustine’s people to see where’s she’s coming from and where she’s Confessions, or Blaise Pascal’s Pensées, but they forget that going to. The beauty of how the church’s “game” is played Christian faith is itself rooted in history. in our time comes from her capacity to adapt her past into There is a strange hunger today for something new and the present, indeed to stress that our God is a God who “authentic,” to use the current buzz word. What often enters into human history. characterizes this desire is ignorance of tradition. When you read Calvin, you realize the church has “been there, Yannick Imbert is a Ph.D. student at Westminster Theological done that.” Fortunately, things are changing. A number of Seminary, Philadelphia. evangelicals are looking to the past for some answers to today’s issues; and so they are asking the right question:

1 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

BIG THOUGHTS FOR LITTLE MINDS resources

for

h om es

For the Sake of Illustration

W

hich subjects matter most in the education of our children? Reading, of

but teachers would do well to learn also from his course, provides the gateway to all the subjects. In today’s world, chil- example as he used the simple and everyday to dren must master math and science or be left behind on career choices. explain the profound and otherworldly.

If we want students who communicate well, we will need Not only New Testament parables but all of Scripture to make time for language arts. History, geography, music, overflows with illustrations taken from things we know art—and on the list goes, until it seems impossible to find well. God’s relationship with his people is like that of a lovenough hours in the week for all the teaching a child ing husband with a wife, or like that of a tender father with needs. In the competition for learning hours, which suba little child. God is a fortress to his people and a rock. jects lose out? My observations and the admissions of parJesus cares for his own as a shepherd cares for his sheep. ents indicate that Bible is one subject often shoved aside.

When he returns, it will be quite unexpectedly, as when a Even less likely to receive deliberate teaching time is thief breaks into a house. The Word of God nourishes Christian doctrine—theology, the study of God. In part, believers in the same way milk nourishes newborn babies. this is because it seems so difficult to make doctrine underWe could brainstorm quite a list from Scripture itself of lofty standable to children. Perhaps it would be better to wait ideas made understandable to us by the use of things we until later adolescence to teach something so abstract. see around us all the time. (In fact, one reason we can conSince during adolescence, however, people make life fidently teach the deep things of God to children is because choices of lasting significance, would it not be well to have God teaches them to us! How likely is it that our simple, a firm doctrinal foundation already laid to influence those finite minds—no matter how old they are—will ably grasp decisions? Besides, it is possible to communicate abstract, infinite Deity? Yet God stoops to speak to us, using what complex material to the concrete minds of children. There we know to help us understand what is far beyond us.) are teaching methodologies that can make this work.

Careful consideration of the metaphors, word pictures, and A previous installment of this column discussed the parables in Scripture will provide a wealth of examples for importance of definition and of repetition. There is no teaching the unfamiliar by means of the familiar. word you cannot use with children as long as you have A well-crafted illustration works wonders to clarify defined it simply for your young audience. Repeat new things for anyone and its staying power is unbeatable— definitions several times in one lesson. Keep coming back this is, however, one of its dangers. The illustration can to main points from past lessons, restating them again run away with the message so that the main point gets lost until the children themselves can rattle them off effortlessand all the hearer remembers is the illustration. Keep ly. Clearly explain and define theological terms and conyour illustration as brief as possible, while still making cepts; then repeat, repeat, repeat. Practice these two your point, and state that point repeatedly. One source for methodologies consistently and you are off to an excellent models of illustrations is the Children Desiring God curricustart in teaching Christian doctrine to children. lum, available from Desiring God Ministries. These lessons, Another critical point in teaching doctrine to children is especially those written by Sally Michael, abound in examthis: move from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Begin with ples of the use of everyday items and events to illustrate, something the child knows well and use it to explain or to with no loss of focus on the truths being taught. Materials illustrate what is unknown. Of course, this principle from this curriculum would be worth having available for works well with adults too, which is why Jesus used it so children’s teachers, to supply them with models for teachoften. His audience may have had a very hazy idea of the ing the unfamiliar by using the familiar. kingdom of heaven, but they understood farmers’ fields, In the final issue of Modern Reformation in 2007, I wrote fishermen’s nets, buried treasure, and rising bread dough. on the value of using fantasy and allegory to help children Using these familiar objects, Jesus acquainted his hearers more fully grasp Christian truth. In that issue, I recomwith characteristics of his kingdom. Of course, our first mended several classics: John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, motive for studying Jesus’ parables is to grasp his teaching; C. S. Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia, and George MacDonald’s

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 1

When it’s her turn at bat, there have already been two strikes and the bases are kingdom of heaven, but they understood farmers’ loaded. If it were left to her, her team would be doomed. fields, fishermen’s nets, buried treasure, and rising But the one appointed to hit the ball in her place hits a bread dough. Using these familiar objects, Jesus home run, and she and the acquainted his hearers with characteristics of his kingdom. three other runners cross the home plate.

After the game, a sore loser At the Back of the North Wind and The Light Princess, as well as might tell her, “Those points don’t count; you never even hit the more recent offerings for children by R. C. Sproul. Mine the ball.” And she could answer, “Yes, but a substitute had these books for excellent examples of how to illustrate spiribeen chosen for me. What she did counts just like I had tual truth and doctrinal teaching through the use of things done it myself.” children understand.

This is merely a little picture of how it is that God can The following example comes from a lesson I wrote to justify his people, or declare them righteous, even though explain the purpose of the miracles recorded in the Bible. they are guilty of breaking his law over and over. To be In it, I use something elementary age children understand declared righteous before God on my own, I would need to to introduce the lesson. do all his law requires and never do a single thing his law forbids. That is impossible for me; I am a sinner. So God What would you do if you were at home alone and you heard appointed a substitute who would do it for me. When Jesus a knock at the door and a voice, saying, “Open the door. This came to this earth, he came as my substitute. He always is the police”? You should open the door if it really is a police kept God’s law perfectly and never broke it once. Because officer, because the police have authority and citizens need to he is my substitute, all that Jesus did to keep God’s law obey them. But what if it isn’t the police? What if it’s somecounts as though I had done it myself. one pretending to be an officer so he can get into your house?

Wouldn’t you want some proof that the person at your door Define terms, repeat to the point of redundancy, and really is from the police? You would want to look out the always move from the familiar to the unfamiliar—this is window to see if there is a police car parked in front. You the way to teach doctrine to children, the way, as Charles would want to peek out to see if the person wears a police uniSpurgeon put it, “for a man to stretch himself to a child.” form and, especially, you would want to see the officer’s badge. Then you would open the door.

The police department knows that you don’t want to Starr Meade is author of Training Hearts, Teaching Minds: open your door to strangers unless you are sure they are Family Devotions Based on the Shorter Catechism (P&R, 2000). police, so they give their officers badges to use when they work and cars that are obviously marked as police cars.

These things are meant to convince you that these people are police officers and you should do what they tell you.

The Bible contains many stories about miracles.

Miracles are like the uniforms, badges, and marked cars of police officers, because miracles gave evidence that a person and his message came from God, so that those who heard the message would give it the attention it deserved.

His audience may have had a very hazy idea of the

In the next example, I was teaching on Christ as the substitute for his people, in his life and in his death. This particular portion of the lesson focuses on his life of righteousness substituting for ours.

Imagine a child who has never enjoyed playing baseball because she can never hit the ball with the bat. One day, all her friends are going to play baseball, but they need her to play too or they won’t have enough people. She agrees to play, but only under one condition: someone will substitute for her when it’s her turn to be up to bat. She’ll run the bases, but the substitute will hit the ball. Everyone agrees.

1 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

Church: It’s Time to Stop the Spiritual “Bait and Switch”

by Jay Lemke Men, I’m told, do not read the Bible. This is explained away by the idea that men do not read, period.

Apparently, we’re knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who hoot at women, scratch ourselves and laugh at bodily noises. We watch sports (only the violent kind), we watch TV (only the violent kind), but we do not read—or so the wisdom goes. And yet, I see us doing it all the time. We read the sports pages, car manuals, gun magazines—perhaps an item about a pretty Hollywood actress. No, it is not a matter of reading; it is a matter of interest.

To be perfectly fair, of course, men aren’t the only ones not reading the Bible. Statistics from Barna Research show that while approximately 90 percent of Americans own a Bible, something like 40 percent of us read it with any regularity (once a week). While not disputing such surveys entirely, they seem charitable given what Americans apparently know about the Bible. Or rather, don’t know.

Barna Research also says that 75 percent of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves” (a little wisdom from the non-Christian Ben Franklin). Also, from a relatively recent Gallup Poll, only half of adults surveyed could name any of the four

Gospels. My sinking heart tells me more than half of Americans could name one of the judges on American Idol.

Moreover, this lack of Bible knowledge also translates into a lack of church attendance and affiliation. Studies show that the majority of Americans do not attend church on any given Sunday. A 2008 Pew research study showed that Americans are flip-flopping on faith more often than a walleye pulled out of a Minnesota lake. According to the research, most Protestant denominations are losing members, as are Catholics (nondenominational churches are one of the few to note an increase in attendance).

So, how does American Christianity attempt to tackle this apparent lack of interest in things Christian? It seems, unfortunately, that the answer is often through clever marketing. As a public relations professional, I am slightly bemused and saddened when I see Bibles marketed to men and women like any specialty magazine on the market. In a quick web search on Amazon, I found scads of different Bibles exclusively devoted toward men, women, teens, boys, girls—you name it, there is a Bible for it. (In the interest of full disclosure, I have the Surfer’s Bible, which I sort of like though I can’t surf.) The marketing, of course, works and the Bible regularly tops the world’s best-seller list year after year. I suspect that for many AmeriIn Season: Meditations on cans the Bible seems like the Reading, Preaching, and type of thing one should have in a home, sort of like a treadUsing Scripture mill. But while it sells more What role does the Bible play in your life? Is it a resource for copies than Harry Potter, more daily wisdom, a self-help manual extraordinaire, a doctrinal often than not it winds up repository? Perhaps it doesn’t have a regular role in your life with a layer of dust under the because these other uses (and abuses) of Scripture have bed or smelling of mold in a overtaken its true purpose. Throughout this year, we are box down in the basement. featuring “In Season: Meditations on reading, preaching, and Why? The answer is clear. We are using Scripture.” Each article will be written by various bored by the Bible and we are people (the laity, professional theologians, and ministers); and bored by church. each will be unique (a sermon, a hermeneutic, thoughts on So what does the church do application, and even concerns about the misuse of Scripture). to combat this pathetic realiWe want to continue the conversation on our website, so feel ty? The modern church, in all free to e-mail us at letters@modernreformation.org with your its human wisdom, has decidthoughts after reading each issue’s “In Season,” or send us an ed to be something it’s not. article you’ve written for possible publication.

For example, to show men M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 3

In my public relations world, that’s called the old “bait and switch.” about how Jesus—and Jesus alone—sets us right But we in the church do it all the time. We tell people they before a Holy God who is angry with sin. It is about should read the Bible because it will help them in their daily lives. how we did nothing to deserve any of this love While there is a sense of truth to it, that is like telling someone to from God. In short, it is the most amazing and read Moby Dick because it will help them with whale spearing. beautiful story ever told.

Whether overtly or subtly, we are telling people they should be that the church is masculine and cool, we plan things like Christians because it will make them better in their particrock climbing adventures and paint ball excursions; and ular area of interest. The American church is playing a we have conferences that teach men how to be better huge game of spiritual bait and switch. At some level, we fathers and husbands. For women, it is much the same: must be ashamed of the basic message of Christianity, and Christianity is there to help you be a better wife, raise betwe don’t believe that on its own it is powerfully interestter kids, and have a more contented life. Not that there is ing—to men, to women, to boys, and to girls. We are anything wrong with these things per se, but it misses the scared to give people the best message of all—because we main point by a mile. believe we know better than God. Sadly, church marketers seem to be falling prey to a As Jeremiah said of the false prophets of his day, “They practice being abandoned by their secular counterparts. have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, Marketers on the cutting edge know that today’s conSaying, ‘Peace, peace,’ But there is no peace.” sumers are savvy and easily see through cunning spin. For Dorothy Sayers, the British novelist, was right when she example, if you are informing the public of a government claimed: “We are constantly assured that the churches are policy, you do not hire a fake reporter (as the Bush empty because preachers insist too much upon doctrine— Administration did) to do a fake report and then upload it ‘dull dogma’ as people call it. The fact is the precise opposite. to the nation’s news satellites. The public, in an increasing It is the neglect of dogma that makes for dullness. The measure, does not fall for such tactics—and the governChristian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered ment was soundly criticized the imagination of man—and the dogma is the drama.”

In my field, the Public Relations Society of America has So what do we think would happen if we asked people a strict rule of ethics. Among these are to “be honest and to read the Bible because of its main point? What if we accurate in all communications” and “to avoid deceptive stopped baiting and switching and we told them that practices.”

Christianity has some bad news before you get to the With the popularity of online social media, some good? What if we told them that there are some passages American companies have been caught trying to influence in the Bible that are so darned difficult to hear that somepublic opinion in a way many have found disingenuous; times they even keep us up at night? such as placing information on a blog without readers A. W. Pink said: “It is sad to find so many professing knowing the true source. Indeed, many have learned the Christians who appear to regard the wrath of God as somehard way that Americans do not like to be deceived, and thing for which they need to make an apology, or at least the strategic thinkers within public relations know that they wish there were no such thing.” they risk reputation and profits whenever they attempt I wonder what happens to someone—who has been something that may be construed as sneaky. taken in by the notion that the church is primarily there to So why, in the church of all places, does such apparent help him lead a fulfilling life—who comes across this pasdissimulation exist? Many in the American church seem sage from Romans: “But because of your stubbornness and intent to communicate under false pretenses, even as the your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against secular world is learning its lessons. We’ll bring people in yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous with music, food, fun, and games; and we’ll make them judgment will be revealed.” And then later in Romans, think being a Christian is about whatever interests them.

“There is no one righteous, not even one; there is not one We’ll play on their felt needs, and we’ll do research to who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned determine what “seekers” want in a church. We’ll stick our away; they have together become worthless; there is not collective fingers in the air and then we’ll become what one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open people what us to be. graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers Finally, after all of that work, once we have people in is on their lips.” the church, we may eventually get around to telling them, Does the person then say to himself or herself, “Well, “Oh, by the way, Jesus died for your sins.” that doesn’t really help me. In fact, that is kind of a down-

The Bible is not about improving ourselves, but

1 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

er. In fact, that is kind of depressing. In fact, that is not at all what they told me church was about.” I wonder if the person gives up then and makes plans to sleep in Sunday morning.

If people stop there, of course, all they have heard is the bad news. The good news that follows should be what sets people’s hearts ablaze and engenders excitement.

C. F. W. Walther, the Lutheran theologian, summed this up well in writing: “You are a lost and condemned sinner; you cannot be your own savior. But do not despair on that account. There is one who has acquired salvation for you.

Christ has opened the portals of heaven to you and says to you: ‘Come, for all things are ready. Come to the marriage of the Lamb.’”

If there can be an understanding of that truth, the Bible not only would remain a best-seller, but it would be read— even by men.

As Dorothy Sayers has said, the story of the Bible is so amazing that to not be interested is to not understand exactly what God has done in history. It is to not understand that from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, the entire Bible focuses on Jesus, and what Jesus—as God—was going to do to save mankind from God’s wrath. It is a true story of a God, as C. S. Lewis says, who is not safe, but is good. It is a story of us being saved from God by God. The bad news of Christianity must be very bad and the good news must be even better. If those two tensions are not there, then the Bible is simply boring and dull.

Any reader of books knows that each book has a main point. The main point of Stephen King’s books, usually set in Maine, is that there is evil that people are trying to combat; they are not travel pieces on the beauty of the northeastern coast. The main point of John Grisham’s novels are about courtroom drama and of a lawyer trying to secure justice; they are not about how to improve one’s legal skills.

As a church, we must explain the main point of the Bible; it is the only way to engender real interest in it, and it is the only way to be honest. True, the main point of Christianity may be offensive to some, but Paul warns us about this in his first letter to the church of Corinth: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved, it is the power of God.” I love how Jesus handles such things. A huge crowd comes up to him after he has fed them with all of the fish and bread. He now has them in the palm of his hands.

They will do anything he says. He can start a huge movement with all of these people. He can start a megachurch with a basketball court, a bookshop, and a café. And then he does something that many in today’s church would have advised against. He starts to tell people that he is the bread of life, that he came down from heaven, and that whoever believes in him has eternal life. In other words, he is dogmatic, black and white, and more than a little offensive. He tells them that only through him can they

know God, and they begin to grumble and are frustrated by this hard reality. They begin to walk away.

Does Jesus run after them? Does he tell them to try him again, that they didn’t really understand? No. He allows them to leave, turns to his twelve disciples, and asks: “Do you want to leave as well?” Peter, bless him, says the only thing that we should also be saying: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” It seems that Jesus had little interest in baiting and switching. He told people the truth, even if it meant turning people away. It seems that Jesus lost more followers than he gained. In fact, by our modern standards, Jesus could be called a poor evangelist. He never had someone fill out a card—or even some papyrus—to show how many people had “made the decision to follow him.”

Indeed, when the rich young ruler comes and asks him the way to eternal life, Jesus doesn’t make it easier, but even more difficult. It seems that Jesus is always making it more difficult to follow him than the modern Christian church would make seekers believe. Why does Jesus do this? Why does he say things like: “Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect”? Or, “Sell all your possessions and give to the poor”? Or, “Only the meek will inherit the earth”? He is saying all of these things to drive us to the cross, to help us realize that he is the only one who can help us. Only by realizing that we can’t do what he says (I’m not that meek), will we turn to him and trust that he has already done all of these good works in our place. Martin Luther called it the “great exchange”—all of our sin put on Jesus, and all of Jesus’ goodness put on us.

The Bible is not about improving ourselves, but about how Jesus—and Jesus alone—sets us right before a Holy God who is angry with sin. It is about how we did nothing to deserve any of this love from God. In short, it is the most amazing and beautiful story ever told.

The church must stop turning Christianity into something it’s not. Only then, when people really understand how much trouble they are in from God and how much he sacrificed to save them, will they turn to the Bible as the 66 love letters it really is, and truly enjoy reading the Word of God.

Jay Lemke attends Risen Christ Lutheran Church in Stillwater, Minnesota. He is married and has three children.

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 5

THE NEW SPIRITUALITIES

Your Own Personal Jesus

by Michael Horton

C

iting examples from TV, pop music, and best-selling books, an article in Entertainment Weekly noted that “pop culture is going gaga for spirituality.” However,

[S]eekers of the day are apt to peel away the tough theological stuff and pluck out the most dulcet elements of faith, coming up with a soothing sampler of Judeo-Christian imagery, Eastern mediation, self-help lingo, a vaguely conservative craving for ‘virtue,’ and a loopy New Age pursuit of ‘peace.’ This happy free-for-all, appealing to Baptists and stargazers alike, comes off more like Forest Gump’s ubiquitous ‘boxa chocolates’ than like any real system of belief. You never know what you’re going to get.1 The “search for the sacred” has become a recurring cover story for national news magazines for some time now; but is a revival of “spirituality” and interest in the “sacred” really any more encouraging than the extravagant idolatry that Paul witnessed in Athens (Acts 17)?

Not only historians and sociologists but novelists are writing about the “Gnostic” character of the soup that we call spirituality in the United States today. In a recent article in Harper’s, Curtis White describes our situation pretty well.

When we assert, “This is my belief,” says White, we are invoking our right to have our own private conviction, no matter how ridiculous, not only tolerated politically but respected by others. “It says, ‘I’ve invested a lot of emotional energy in this belief, and in a way I’ve staked the credibility of my life on it. So if you ridicule it, you can expect a fight.” In this 1 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

Y O U R

kind of culture, “Yahweh and Baal—my God and yours—stroll arm-in-arm, as if to do so were the model of virtue itself.”

What we require of belief is not that it make sense but that it be sincere….Clearly, this is not the spirituality of a centralized orthodoxy. It is a sort of workshop spirituality that you can get with a cereal-box top and five dollars….There is an obvious problem with this form of spirituality: it takes place in isolation. Each of us sits at our computer terminal tapping out our convictions….Consequently, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that our truest belief is the credo of heresy itself. It is heresy without an orthodoxy. It is heresy as an orthodoxy. 2 While European nihilism denied only God, “American nihilism is something different. Our nihilism is our capacity to believe in everything and anything all at once. It’s all good!” All that’s left is for belief to become “a culture-commodity.”

We shop among competing options for our belief. Once reduced to the status of a commodity, our anything-goes, do-it-yourself spirituality cannot have very much to say about the more directly nihilistic conviction that we should all be free to do whatever we like as well, each of us pursuing our right to our isolated happiness.3 Like Nietzsche himself, who said that truth is made rather than discovered and was described by Karl Barth as “the man of azure isolation,” Americans just want to be left alone to create their own private Idaho. While evangelicals talk a lot about truth, their witness, worship, and spirituality seem in many ways more like their Mormon, New Age, and liberal nemeses than anything like historical Christianity.

We would prefer to be left alone, warmed by our beliefs-that-make-no-sense, whether they are the quotidian platitudes of ordinary Americans, the magical thinking of evangelicals, the mystical thinking of New Age Gnostics, the teary-eyed patriotism of social conservatives, or the perfervid loyalty of the rich to their free-market Mammon.

We are thus the congregation of the Church of the Infinitely Fractured, splendidly alone together. And apparently that’s how we like it. Our pluralism of belief says both to ourselves and to others, ‘Keep your distance.’ And yet isn’t this all strangely familiar? Aren’t these all the false gods that Isaiah and Jeremiah confronted, the cults of the ‘hot air gods’? The gods that couldn’t scare birds from a cucumber patch? Belief of every kind and cult, selfindulgence and self-aggrandizement of every degree, all flourish. And yet God is abandoned.4

O W N

P E R S O N A L

J E S U S

As far back as the early eighteenth century, the French commentator Alexis de Tocqueville observed the distinctly American craving “to escape from imposed systems” and “to seek by themselves and in themselves for the only reason for things, looking to results without getting entangled in the means toward them.” He concluded, “So each man is narrowly shut up in himself and from that basis makes the pretension to judge the world.” Americans do not need books or any other external authorities in order to find the truth, “having found it in themselves.”5 American Transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882) announced that “whatever hold the public worship held on us is gone or going,” prophesying the day when Americans would recognize that they are “part and parcel of God,” requiring no mediator or ecclesiastical means of grace. Walt Whitman’s “Song of Myself” captured the unabashed narcissism of American romanticism that plagues our culture from talk shows to the church.

During this same period, the message and methods of American churches also felt the impact of this romantic narcissism. It can be recognized in a host of sermons and hymns from the period, such as C. Austin Miles’ hymn, “In the Garden”: I come to the garden alone, while the dew is still on the roses; And the voice I hear, falling on my ear, the Son of God discloses.

And he walks with me, and He talks with me, and He tells me I am His own, And the joy we share as we tarry there, none other has ever known.

The focus of such piety is on a personal relationship with Jesus that is individualistic, inward, and immediate. One comes alone and experiences a joy that “none other has ever known.” How can any external orthodoxy tell me I’m wrong? My personal relationship with Jesus is mine. I do not share it with the church. Creeds, confessions, pastors, and teachers—not even the Bible—can shake my confidence in the unique experiences that I have alone with Jesus.

A Perfect Storm f moralism represents a drift toward the Pelagian (or at least semi-Pelagian) heresy, “enthusiasm” is an expression of the heresy known as Gnosticism. A second-century movement that seriously threatened the ancient churches, Gnosticism tried to blend Greek philosophy and Christianity. The result was an eclectic spirituality that regarded the material world as the prisonhouse of divine spirits and the creation of an evil god (YAHWEH). Their goal was to return to the spiritual, heavenly, and divine unity of which their inner self is a spark, away from the realm of earthly time, space, and bodies. With little interest in questions of history or doctrine, the Gnostics set off on a quest to ascend the ladder of mysticism. The institutional church, with its

I

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 5

ordained ministry, creeds, preaching, sacraments, and discipline, was alienating—like the body, it was the prisonhouse of the individual soul.

Pelagianism and Gnosticism are different versions of what Gerhard Forde called the “glory story.” Following Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, which was following Romans 10 and 1 Corinthians 1, the Reformation contrasted the theology of glory with the theology of the cross. As Forde explains, The most common overarching story we tell about ourselves is what we will call the glory story. We came from glory and are bound for glory. Of course, in between we seem somehow to have gotten derailed—whether by design or accident we don’t quite know—but that is only a temporary inconvenience to be fixed by proper religious effort.

What we need is to get back on ‘the glory road.’ The story is told in countless variations. Usually the subject of the story is ‘the soul’…what Paul Ricoeur has called ‘the myth of the exiled soul.’6 In neither version does one need to be rescued. Assisted, directed, enlightened perhaps, but not rescued—at least not through a bloody cross.

Both versions of the “glory story” drive us deeper into ourselves, identifying God with the inner self, instead of calling us outside of ourselves. The “cross story” and the “glory story” represent not merely different emphases, but entirely different religions, as J. Gresham Machen pointed out in his controversial book, Christianity and Liberalism.

Pelagianism leads to Christless Christianity because we do not need a Savior, but a good example. Gnosticism’s route to Christless Christianity is by driving us deeper inside ourselves rather than outside to the incarnate God who rescued us from the guilt, tyranny, and penalty of our sins. Pelagianism and Gnosticism combine to keep us looking to ourselves and within ourselves. We’re a selfhelp people and we like our gods inside of us where we can manage them. Together, these heresies have created the perfect storm: the American Religion.

Gnosticism as the American Religion? ontemporary descriptions in news periodicals and polling data consistently reveal that the everpopular “search for the sacred” in American culture shares a lot of similarities with Gnosticism. Of course, in the most popular versions there may be no explicit awareness of this connection or any direct dependence on such sources.

There is an explicit revival of Gnosticism in our day, however, in both the academy and popular culture, from Harvard Divinity School seminars to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. The “Gnosticism” aisle in the average bookstore chain (next to religion and spirituality) is evidence of renewed interest in pagan spiritualities. Matthew Fox, repeating the warning of self-described Gnostic psychol-

C

1 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

ogist Carl Jung, expresses this sentiment well: “One way to kill the soul is to worship a God outside you.”7 Other writers in this issue focus on this revival of explicit, fullstrength Gnosticism, so I will focus on the “Gnosticism Lite” that pervades the American spirituality today.

This watered-down Gnosticism does not require any explicit awareness of, much less attachment to, the esoteric myth of creation and redemption-by-enlightenment. The opposition, however, between inner divinity and enlightenment and redemption, an external God, the external Word, an external redemption in Christ, and an institutional church offers a striking parallel to America’s search for the sacred.

In the American Religion, as in ancient Gnosticism, there is almost no sense of God’s difference from us—in other words, his majesty, sovereignty, self-existence, and holiness. God is my buddy or my inmost experience, or the power-source for living my best life now. God is not strange (i.e., holy)—and is certainly not a judge. He does not evoke fear, awe, or a sense of terrifying and disorienting beauty. Furthermore, all the focus on making atonement through a bloody sacrifice seems crude and unspiritual to Gnostics when, after all, the point of salvation is to escape the physical realm. All of this is too “Jewish,” according to Gnostics from Marcion to Schleiermacher to the “ReImagining Conference” of mainline Protestant leaders (especially radical feminists) who explicitly appealed to Gnosticism in their screeds against “men hanging on crosses with blood dripping and all that gory stuff.” The god of Gnosticism is not the one before whom Isaiah said, “Woe to me, for I am undone!” or Peter said, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man.” To borrow a nice phrase from William Placher, it represents “the domestication of transcendence.” God is no longer a problem for us.

Instead of God’s free decision to make his home with us in the world that he created, for the Gnostic we are at home with God already, in the stillness of our inner self and away from all entanglements in space and time. As the second-century church father Irenaeus pointed out, Gnostics simply do not care about the unfolding plan of redemption in history because they do not care about history. Time and space are alien to the innermost divine self. To mystics and radical Anabaptists like Thomas Müntzer who made even the external Word of Scripture and preaching subservient to an alleged inner word of personal revelation, Luther and Calvin said that this was the essence of “enthusiasm” (literally, God-within-ism).

As Luther put it, this is the attempt to ascend the ladder from matter and history to spirit and the eternal vision of “the naked God.” Yet, apart from the incarnate Word, this dazzling god we encounter at the top of that ladder is really the devil, who “disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14).

This characteristically American approach to religion, in which the direct relationship of the soul to God generates an almost romantic encounter with the sacred, makes inner experience the measure of spiritual

Y O U R

genuineness. We are more concerned that our spiritual leaders exude “vulnerability,” “authenticity,” and the familiar spontaneity that tells us that they too really do have a personal relationship with Jesus than that they faithfully interpret Scripture and are sent by Christ through the official ordination of his church. Everything perceived as external to the self—the church, the gospel, Word and sacrament, the world, and even God—must either be marginalized or, in more radical versions, rejected as that which would alienate the soul from its immediacy to the divine.

It is therefore not surprising that today the “search for the sacred” continues to generate a proliferation of sects.

In fact, sociologist Robert Bellah has coined the term “Sheilaism” to describe American spirituality, based on one interview in which a woman named Sheila said that she just follows her own inner voice. “Your Own Personal Jesus,” parodying the title of a Depeche Mode song, seems to be the informal but intense spirituality of many American Christians as well.

Philip Lee’s Against the Protestant Gnostics (Oxford, 1987) and Harold Bloom’s The American Religion (Simon and Schuster, 1992) point out with great insight the connections between this popular spirituality and Gnosticism. It is especially worth pondering Harold Bloom’s learned ruminations here because, as he himself observes, Philip Lee laments the Gnosticism of American Religion while Bloom celebrates it.8 Hailed as America’s most distinguished literary critic, Bloom displays a sophisticated grasp of the varieties of ancient Gnosticism as well as its successive eruptions in the West to the present day. First of all, says Bloom, “freedom, in the context of the American Religion, means being alone with God or with Jesus, the American God or the American Christ.”9 This unwritten creed is as evident in the history of American evangelicalism as it is in Emerson.

As a religious critic, I remain startled by and obsessed with the revivalistic element in our religious experience. Revivalism, in America, tends to be the perpetual shock of the individual discovering yet again what she and he always have known, which is that God loves her and him on an absolutely personal and indeed intimate basis.10

O W N

P E R S O N A L

J E S U S

the spirit, but each of us is subject and object of the one quest, which must be for the original self, a spark or breath in us that we are convinced goes back to before the Creation.11 “The Christ of the twentieth century” is no longer really even a distinct historical person, but “has become a personal experience for the American Christian, quite clearly for the Evangelicals.”12 In this scheme, history is no longer the sphere of Christianity. The focus of faith and practice is not so much Christ’s objective person and work for us, outside of us, as it is a “personal relationship” that is defined chiefly in terms of inner experience.

Although he may at times overstate his thesis, Bloom draws on numerous primary and secondary sources from the history of particular movements to build his case. In one chapter, Bloom explores the enthusiastic revivalism of Barton Stone, who broke away from Presbyterianism to found what he regarded as the finally and fully restored apostolic church: the Church of Christ (Disciples).

According to his memoirs, Stone wrote, “Calvinism is among the heaviest clogs on Christianity in the world,” even from the very beginning of its assumptions: “Its first link is total depravity.”13 A full generation before Emerson came to his spiritual maturity, the frontier people experienced their giant epiphany of Gnosis at Cane Ridge. Their ecstasy was no more communal than the rapture at Woodstock; each barking Kentuckian or prancing yippie barked and pranced for himself alone….

American ecstasy is solitary, even when it requires the presence of others for the self’s glory.14 “What was missing in all this quite private luminosity,” Bloom adds, “was simply most of historic Christianity.”

Second, as extreme as it at first appears, Bloom suggests that whatever the stated doctrinal positions that evangelicalism shares with historic Christianity,

I hasten to add that I am celebrating, not deploring, when I make that observation. So far as I can tell, the Southern Jesus, which is to say the American Jesus, is not so much an agent of redemption as he is an imparter of knowledge, which returns us to the analysis of an American Gnosis in my previous chapter. Jesus is not so much an event in history for the American Religionist as he is a knower of the secrets of God who in return can be known by the individual. Hidden in this process is a sense that depravity is only a lack of saving knowledge.15

Mormons and Southern Baptists call themselves Christians, but like most Americans they are closer to ancient Gnostics than to early Christians….The American Religion is pervasive and overwhelming, however, it is masked, and even our secularists, indeed even our professed atheists, are more Gnostic than humanist in their ultimate presuppositions. We are a religiously made culture, furiously searching for

This intuitive, direct, and immediate knowledge is set over against the historically mediated forms of knowledge.

What an American knows in his or her heart is more certain than the law of gravity.

“A pragmatic exploiter of his own charisma,” Charles Finney was a formative influence in the American Religion, notes Bloom.16 So the “deeds, not creeds” orientation of American revivalism is driven not only by a preference for M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 7

they often become assimilated to self-expression and survived modernity, against all expectations to the contrary, techniques for self-transformation: means of our experience and activity more is that they not only can accommodate modernity’s than God’s means of grace.

Ultimately, it’s what I do privatization of faith as an inner experience but they alone with God that matters, not what God does for me actually thrive in this atmosphere. together with his covenant works over faith (i.e., Pelagianism), but by the Gnostic people through public, earthly, material means that he has preference for a private, mystical, and inward “personal appointed. relationship with Jesus” in opposition to everything public, In the history of American (and to some extent British) doctrinal, and external to the individual soul. Religion is evangelicalism, the fear of sacraments (as opposed to formal, ordered, corporate, and visible; spirituality is ordinances) has often been defended as a defense against informal, spontaneous, individual, and invisible. the perpetual threat of Romanism. In all likelihood, As sweeping as it may first appear, there are clear however, a deeper (perhaps unwitting) source of such similarities between fundamentalism and Pentecostalism on unease is that evangelicalism has listed toward Gnosticism: the one hand and Protestant liberalism on the other. In fact, Nothing can be allowed to get in the way of my personal one reason that these forms of religion have survived and utterly unique relationship with Jesus. Southern modernity, against all expectations to the contrary, is that Baptist theologian E. Y. Mullins was not saying anything they not only can accommodate modernity’s privatization of that was not already elaborated by American Transcenfaith as an inner experience but they actually thrive in this dentalists when he wrote, “That which we know most atmosphere. Repeatedly in the past few centuries, we have indubitably are the facts of inner experience.”18 The seen how easily an inner-directed pietism and revivalism individual believer, alone with his or her Bible, was all that turns to the vinegar of liberalism. One example is Wilhelm was necessary for a vital Christian experience. Bloom Herrmann, a liberal pietist, whose statement early in the quotes Mullins’ axiom, “Religion is a personal matter twentieth century could be heard in many evangelical between the soul and God.”19 However heterodox this circles then as now: “To fix doctrines…into a system is the assumption may be by the standards of historic Christianity, last thing the Christian Church should undertake….But if, it is surely the orthodoxy of American Religion. on the other hand, we keep our attention fixed on what Furthermore, Bloom observes, triumphalism—the God is producing in the Christian’s inner life, then the inability to face the depravity of the inner self even at its manifoldness of the thoughts which spring from faith will best—marks the Gnostic spirit. “Triumphalism is the only not confuse us, but give us cause for joy.”17 mode,” says Bloom, in which Mullins and American So it is not surprising when today’s fundamentalists religionists generally “read Romans,” moving quickly through eventually become tomorrow’s liberals, in recurring cycles the body of Paul’s epistle to chapter 8: “In all these things we that pass through stages of intense controversy. Bloom are more than conquerors through him that loved us.”20 follows a similar narrative in relation to Gnosticism. For all Indeed, Gnostics are allergic to any talk about the reality of their obvious differences, fundamentalists and liberals, of sin and death. It was in nineteenth-century America Quakers and Roman Catholics, Presbyterians and Mormons, that Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science, whose New Agers and Southern Baptists sound a lot alike when it explicitly Gnostic enthusiasms introduced into the comes to how we in America approach religious truth. vocabulary of Christians the euphemism “passing away” While Luther, Calvin, and their heirs sought to reform for death and resurrection. the church, the more radical Protestant movements have For Bloom, two outstanding exceptions to this Gnostic often seen the church as an obstacle to the individual’s trajectory are Swiss theologian Karl Barth and Princeton personal relationship with God. (Evangelical George scholar (and founder of Westminster Seminary) J. Barna, a guru of the church growth movement, has Gresham Machen. “Barth knows the difference between recently written three books arguing that the era of the the Reformed faith and Gnosis,” says Bloom, pointing out local church is over, soon to be replaced by Internet the critical divergence: the subjective experience of the self resources for personal piety.) Where the Reformers over God’s objective word and work.21 pointed to the external ministry of the church, centering What we call fundamentalists, says Bloom, are really on Word and sacrament, as the place where God promised Gnostics of an anti-intellectual variety. If there were a to meet his people, “enthusiasm” was suspicious of possibility of an anti-Gnostic version of fundamentalism, everything external. Similarly, Quakers gave up the formal says Bloom, such proponents “would find their archetype in ministry, including preaching and sacrament, in favor of the formidable J. Gresham Machen, a remarkable group sharing of personal revelations. Even when Presbyterian New Testament scholar at Princeton, who evangelicals retain these public means appointed by Christ, published a vehement defense of traditional Christianity in

In fact, one reason that these forms of religion have

1 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

Y O U R

1923, with the aggressive title Christianity and Liberalism.”

Bloom adds, “I have just read my way through this, with distaste and discomfort but with reluctant and growing admiration for Machen’s mind. I have never seen a stronger case made for the argument that institutional Christianity must regard cultural liberalism as an enemy to faith.”22 In contrast to this defense of traditional Christianity, those who came to be called fundamentalists are more like “the Spanish Fascism of Franco…heirs of Franco’s crusade against the mind, and not the legatees of Machen.”23 In short, “the Calvinist deity, first brought to America by the Puritans, has remarkably little in common with the versions of God now apprehended by what calls itself Protestantism in the United States.” Again, as Bloom himself points out, Philip Lee’s Against the Protestant Gnostics makes almost the same arguments, with many of the same historical examples. What makes Bloom’s account a little more interesting is that he champions the American Religion and hopes for even greater gains for Gnosticism in the future. According to Bloom, a “revival of Continental Reformed Protestantism is precisely what we do not need.”24 Like ancient Gnosticism, contemporary American approaches to spirituality—however different conservative and liberal versions may appear on the surface—typically underscore the inner spirit as the locus of a personal relationship. As conservative Calvary Chapel founder Chuck Smith expresses it, “We meet God in the realm of our spirit.”25 This view is so commonplace that it seems odd to hear it challenged. Nevertheless, the church fathers, Protestant Reformers, and orthodox theologians have always directed us with the Scriptures, outside of ourselves, where God has chosen to meet with and to reconcile strangers.

Philip Lee’s contrast between Gnosticism and Calvin can be just as accurately documented from a wide variety of Christians through the ages: Whereas classical Calvinism had held that the Christian’s assurance of salvation was guaranteed only through Christ and his Church, with his means of grace, now assurance could be found only in the personal experience of having been born again. This was a radical shift, for Calvin had considered any attempt to put ‘conversion in the power of man himself’ to be gross popery.26 In fact, for the Reformers, adds Lee, the new birth was the opposite of “rebirth into a new and more acceptable self,” but the death of the old self and its rebirth in Christ.27 Like ancient Gnosticism, American spirituality uses God or the divine as something akin to an energy source.

Through various formulae, steps, procedures, or techniques, one may “access” this source on one’s own. Such spiritual technology could be employed without any need for the office of preaching, administering baptism or the Supper, or membership in a visible church, submitting to its communal admonitions, encouragements, teaching, and practices.

O W N

P E R S O N A L

J E S U S

According to the studies of sociologist Wade Clark Roof, “The distinction between ‘spirit’ and ‘institution’ is of major importance” to spiritual seekers today.28 “Spirit is the inner, experiential aspect of religion; institution is the outer, established form of religion.”29 He adds, “Direct experience is always more trustworthy, if for no other reason than because of its ‘inwardness’ and ‘withinness’— two qualities that have come to be much appreciated in a highly expressive, narcissistic culture.”30 The way many evangelicals today speak of “accessing” and “connecting” with God underscores this point, in sharp contrast with the biblical emphasis on God’s descent to us in the incarnation. Profoundly aware of our difference from God not only as creatures but as sinners as well, biblical faith underscores the need for mediation.

God finds us by using his own creation as his “mask” behind which he hides so that he can serve us. The Gnostic, by contrast, needs no mediation. God is not external to the self; in fact, the human spirit and the divine Spirit are already a unity. We cannot be judged—but, then, this also means that we cannot be justified.

To the extent that churches in America today feel compelled to accommodate their message and methods to these dominant forms of spirituality (dominant also in— perhaps even first in—American evangelicalism itself), they will lend evidence to the thesis that Christianity is not news based on historical events but just another therapeutic illusion.

The Flight of the Lonely Soul vs. the Journey of the Pilgrim onging for Christ’s return, the Christian is worldweary because “this age” lies under the power of sin and death. As the firstfruits of the new creation, Jesus Christ has conquered these powers. It is only a matter of time before the restoration of redeemed creation at the end of history. In the meantime, the believer groans along with the rest of creation for this liberation (Rom. 8:18-25). So the Christian is longing for the final liberation of creation, not from creation. Precisely because the believer is rooted in the age to come, of which the Spirit’s indwelling presence is the down payment, there is a simultaneous groaning in the face of the status quo and confidence in God’s promise to make all things new.

By contrast, the Gnostic self is rootless, restless, weary of the world not because of its bondage to sin but because it is worldly, longing not for its sharing in the liberation of the children of God but in its freedom at last from creation’s company; not the transformation of our times and places, but the transcendence of all times and places.

“Taking no root,” wrote nineteenth-century American novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne, “I soon weary of any soil in which I may be temporarily deposited. The same impatience I feel, or conceive of, as regards this earthly life.”31 Add to this philosophical orientation the practical transience of contemporary life that keeps us blowing like tumbleweed across the desert, and Gnosticism can be

L

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 9

easily seen to jive with our everyday experience.

Uprooted, we rarely live anywhere long enough even to be transplanted. Flitting like a bumble bee from flower to flower of religious, spiritual, moral, psychic, and even familial and sexual identities, our generation actually finds it plausible that there can be genuine communities (including “churches”) on the Internet.

But the “glory story” is not all it’s cracked up to be.

Bearing the weight of self-salvation or self-deification on our shoulders is as foolish as it is cruel. The search for the sacred leads to hell rather than heaven, to death rather than life, to ourselves (or Satan) rather than to the God who has descended to us in Jesus Christ, veiling his blinding majesty in our frail flesh. In this foolishness God outsmarts us, and in this weakness he conquered the powers of death and hell. The truth that Jesus proclaims— and the truth that Jesus is—remains for all ages, even for Americans, “the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). ■

Bloom, p. 213.

Bloom, p. 228.

23 Bloom, p. 229.

24 Bloom, p. 259.

25 Chuck Smith, New Testament Study Guide (Costa Mesa: The Word for Today, 1982), p. 113.

26 Philip Lee, Against the Protestant Gnostics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 144.

27 Lee, p. 255.

28 Roof, p. 23.

29 Roof, p. 30.

30 Roof, p. 67.

31 Cited in Vernon L. Parrington, “The Romantic Revolution in America,” vol. 2 of Main Currents in American Thought (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1959), pp. 441-442.

Michael S. Horton is J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido).

Timothy Leary, guru of the psychedelic movement in the 1960s, originally coined this phrase as a way of promoting the use of LSD to break into a new spiritual realm. The full quote reads, “Like every great religion of the past we seek to find the divinity within and to express this revelation in a life of glorification and the worship of God. These ancient goals we define in the metaphor of the present— turn on, tune in, drop out.”

In his 1983 autobiography, Flashbacks, Leary gave a fuller explanation to his meaning: “‘Turn on’ meant go within to activate your neural and genetic equipment. Become sensitive to the many and various levels of consciousness and the specific triggers that engage them. Drugs were one way to accomplish this end. ‘Tune in’ meant interact harmoniously with the world around you—externalize, materialize, express your new internal perspectives. ‘Drop out’ suggested an elective, selective, graceful process of detachment from involuntary or unconscious commitments. ‘Drop out’ meant self-reliance, a discovery of one’s singularity, a commitment to mobility, choice, and change. Unhappily my explanations of this sequence of personal development were often misinterpreted to mean ‘Get stoned and abandon all constructive activity.’”

Whatever his reasons, Leary was certainly an early contemporary leader in the New Spiritualities movement that only continues to gain support.

Throughout this issue are samples from some recent popular books in the area of the “New Spiritualities” and the Gnostic “gospels”—some of which are best-sellers.

WORKS CITED 1 Jeff Gordinier, Entertainment Weekly (7 October 1994).

2 Curtis White, “Hot Air Gods,” Harper’s vol. 315/no.

1891 (December 2007), p. 13.

3 White, pp. 13-14.

4 White, p. 14.

5 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York: 1898), vol. 1, p. 66.

6 Gerhard O. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 5.

7 Cited in Wade Clark Roof, A Generation of Seekers: The Spiritual Journeys of the Baby Boom Generation (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993), p. 75.

8 Harold Bloom, The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992), pp. 26-27.

9 Bloom, p. 15.

10 Bloom, p. 17.

11 Bloom, p. 22.

12 Bloom, p. 25.

13 Quoted by Bloom, p. 60.

14 Bloom, p. 264.

15 Bloom, p. 65.

16 Bloom, p. 73.

17 Wilhelm Herrmann, Communion with God (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1913), p. 16.

18 Cited by Bloom, p. 204, from E. Y. Mullins, The Christian Religion (1910), p. 73.

19 Cited by Bloom, p. 213, from E. Y. Mullins, The Axioms of Religion (1908), pp. 53-54.

20 Bloom, p. 213.

2 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

21 22

Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out

Reprinted from “The Effects of Popular Culture on Religion” (Modern Reformation, January/February 1997).

Is “Popular Culture” Either?

by Kenneth A. Myers “Popular culture” is a slippery and deceptive term for a massive and unwieldy reality. As in other controversies, many arguments about popular culture are frustrating because there is no prior agreement on exactly what is being talked about.

Sometimes “popular culture” is used to denote any cultural activity not produced and sanctioned by “elite” cultural institutions. But that really doesn’t clarify things, since the term “elite” has a number of meanings. In referring to “elite” cultural institutions, do we mean those institutions supported by a small group of people or those controlled by a small group of people? As it turns out, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, for example, serves a much smaller audience than does, say, CBS television. In that sense the orchestra might be seen as a more elite institution than CBS. But the programming decisions for what appears on CBS are made by a very small elite, compared to the overall number of people working for CBS. The programming decisions at the Chicago Symphony are made by a much larger percentage of orchestra employees.

One might argue that the TV executives are more responsive to market forces than are the symphony orchestra board. And in that sense, CBS may be less of an elite institution. But the important thing to remember is that the artifacts of popular culture are neither created by nor controlled by the populace; they are as much the product of elites as are the artifacts of so-called “high culture.” Popular culture is trickle-down culture, consumed by the populace, but not initiated by them.

“Baywatch” may be enormously popular, but David Hasselhof and Pamela Anderson are still in a small and amazingly influential elite.

Popular culture seems more democratic than high culture (and hence, in America, “better”) because pop culture elites do not treat the masses with disdain or paternalism. The works of popular culture make no effort to “elevate” or “improve,” the way high cultural institutions often do. “Popular” is a horizontal and affable adjective, whereas “high” is proudly hierarchical.

“Popular” presents cultural life as egalitarian and natural, where “high” suggests standards, norms, and difficult striving. In fact, there is abundant evidence that the makers of popular culture, far from beckoning to the “lesser breeds without the law” from their superior pinnacle, are actually anti-elite, coaxing those of us with scruples and a sense of decorum to slide down to their level. In an inverted mimicry of the pretentious artistprophets of high culture, pop culture celebrities are also

avant-garde, a small band of brave pioneers, blazing new trails for the great unwashed to follow.

And follow they do. I recently heard an interview with members of a Los Angeles gang who were asked by a pastor working with them why they felt the necessity to acquire certain brands of athletic shoes. These kids knew immediately that the desire for these talismanic accessories was engendered by TV commercials. This is how popular culture works: the programs the kids were watching, the commercials they saw, the shoes they bought, and the social bonding within which these shoes were culturally significant to them. All of these elements are in some sense the stuff of popular culture. But none of it was generated at a popular level. Leave a bunch of inner-city kids alone for 10 or 15 years and it is unlikely that they will, ex nihilo, evolve a desire for Japanese-made cross trainers with pneumatic bladders.

For the most part, popular culture rarely comes from the people. It comes from elites more decisively than does high culture. In the past, high culture has relied much more often on elements appropriated from folk culture (e.g., folk tunes in classical music, folk legends in literature, folk masks in Picasso). Popular culture is endorsed by large masses of people and hence is regarded as being “of the people” more than high culture.

There are exceptions. You could make the case that rap music originated in urban folk culture, and was promoted to popular cultural status (with the help of elites at record companies and radio stations). But generally, popular culture is no less elitist in origins than “high culture.”

Cultural life always tends to be influenced disproportionately by elites, whether prophets, priests, potentates, poets, professors, or publicity managers.

What has changed over the history of American culture is the identity and intent of the elites who wield influence.

Over the years various elites have vied for power. Clerical, academic, political, artistic, and mercantile elites (unlike many other nations, we have never had the visible prominence of a military elite) have taken turns in shaping cultural values. Today, the entertainment elite dominates because it governs the field that identifies and exports American culture to the rest of the world, the industry that produces our most successful export: entertainment. In fin-de-siécle America, the keys to the kingdom are in the hands of clowns, acrobats, and their wealthy masters.

Those who defend popular culture summarily dismiss its critics as “elitists,” which is a category as obviously reprehensible as “racist” or “fascist.” But that charge ignores an important fact even as it conceals an essential M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 1

assumption. The fact is that popular culture is sustained by elites whose guiding hand is not entirely unprejudiced.

Since the well-being of these elites is sustained by certain cultural sympathies, they will always amplify certain themes at the cost of others. For example, popular culture is unimaginable without mass media, which is in turn unimaginable without advertising, which would not survive in a cultural climate that places a premium on modesty, chastity, frugality, simplicity, and contentment.

So those virtues will necessarily be alien to popular culture, even if the people wanted them there. Themes of restless desire, the lust for power, the insistence of moral autonomy, and resistance to restraint are common in popular culture precisely because its elites must sustain these sensibilities to stay in business.

The assumption that undergirds the charge of elitism is an anti-hierarchical egalitarianism, the notion that justice and goodness cannot be possible as long as hierarchies of authority remain. The Bible clearly assumes hierarchies of authority in social life in all forms. The preferred biblical metaphor for leadership in the church, for example, is that of shepherd, which sounds pretty “elitist” to me. “Pastors” are to be the sacrificial elite to be sure, but elite nonetheless. The presupposition of biblical teaching is that any right-minded sheep should turn to a shepherd for help whenever encountering the sort of trouble sheep are likely to get into. Shepherds aren’t perfect, to be sure; there are some things they might learn from observing sheep, and they need shepherding themselves. But they are clearly elite, like it or not.

As Nathan Hatch has shown in The Democratization of American Christianity, Americans generally haven’t liked it.

So they have preferred those churches and polities that minimize or deny the authority of pastors. In fact, among Protestants, it seems assumed that the church government that governs least governs best. To the extent that shared Christian life is dominated by the same “populist” dynamics that drive popular culture, there are no shepherds, only sheep (or, in a misunderstanding of the Reformation principle, evangelicals seem to affirm the shepherdhood of all believers).

Yet, there are hidden elites in this realm as well; some sheep, it seems, have gotten stronger and louder than the rest. While the American church generally rejects ecclesiastical authority, it is quite evidently susceptible to the leadership of affable celebrities, men and women with the same entertaining, anti-paternalistic manner as their counterparts at CBS. Some of them are celebrity speakers, some are writers (or skilled celebrities who manage teams of ghost-writers working for them), increasingly more are simply entertainers.

Just as the secular culture has moved from accepting manners and mores from recognized elites to embracing the “lifestyles” concocted by unacknowledged “populistelites,” so the church in America has moved from submitting to the divinely ordained leadership of preachershepherds to the commercially driven leadership of 2 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

charismatic storytellers, minstrels, and chanteuses. These crypto-shepherds, in turn, generally ape their secular counterparts, learning the technology of celebrity from the real masters. So it should not be surprising that Disney, David Letterman, and MTV are seen by Christian leaders, even pastors, as models for the art of “reaching people.”

Pop culture-inspired worship services (usually called “contemporary” worship, although such services totally exclude contemporary high culture) are often defended (with the certainty of those who believe they alone occupy the moral high ground) by the assertion that they are simply services that respect the vernacular of “the people.”

It is true that many people coming to church on a given Sunday morning (believers and nonbelievers) do want something more informal, upbeat, and generally more consonant with the popular-culture sensibilities that they live with Monday through Saturday. But they want these things for the same reason that the ghetto kids want a pair of Nikes: because the ambiance of popular culture within which they live promotes and authenticates—or normalizes—certain sensibilities.

And, as suggested earlier, popular culture is not neutral regarding the sensibilities it encourages. Because of the centrality of commercial concerns, popular culture maintains a preferential option for the upbeat, the informal, the new and “interesting.” This is not because these are the virtues that make a better person (let alone a better Christian), but because these are the attributes that produce the best consumers.

This is the greatest tragedy of all in the church’s careless appropriation of popular culture: that popular culture is not really a culture after all. Historically, cultures have been mechanisms of restraint. Cultural institutions, traditions, and artifacts developed as means of encouraging members of a society to respect its taboos, to obey its laws, and to become the sort of person whose character served the common good by conforming to a view of the good that the society held in common. In theological terms, cultures are thus instruments of common grace that keep people from doing every damned thing (theologically speaking) that they want to. Cultures were also deliberately intergenerational; cultural artifacts were ways of handing down to the coming generation the commitments and beliefs of the passing generation.

But, as University of Pennsylvania scholar Philip Rieff has pointed out, since Freud, cultures (and specific cultural institutions) have increasingly been seen as instruments of liberation rather than restraint. Since repression is a bad thing, the commonweal can be served (ironically) only if there is no notion of the common good that cultural institutions enforce. Empowering people to be all that they can be, to express all that they feel, and to obtain all that they desire is now seen to be the proper function of cultural institutions. I believe this assumption explains why high cultural institutions caved so quickly to the sensibilities of popular culture in the last 30 years. High culture had many defects, but total relativism was not one

of them. High culture could only survive in the context of standards and norms of some kind. But a fully democratized and highly commercial popular culture admits no standards. If the customer is always right, and if every social interaction is one in which I am best understood as a consumer, then everyone is always right everywhere.

As to the intergenerational structure of cultures, it should be obvious that the commercial aspects of popular culture demolish the possibility of intergenerational concerns. Just watch a Saturday morning’s worth of TV commercials, and see how many products are sold by making the appeal (tacitly or explicitly) that your parents (or adults in general, but especially adults in positions of authority) won’t like you to have this product. The idea of a youth culture is really a commercial invention; it is sustained by the desire to sell more and more products to younger and younger people by causing them to understand themselves as a separate race.

So popular culture takes on the attributes of a kind of anti-culture, a system that rejects the task of restraint and normative character formation in favor of liberation and self-expression. Culture is not a legacy that is transmitted and received; it is a commodity that is consumed. Under this regime, children are not to be molded by participation in shared traditions; they are stimulated to “be themselves” and to buy themselves into being.

This is a much abbreviated glance at a complex issue, but if the outlines of it are generally sound, it should cause some concern among Christians who want to exploit or co-opt popular culture for the sake of the gospel. As I have argued elsewhere, individual artifacts within the system of popular culture may be delightful and innocently entertaining. But the church cannot condone the social dynamics or the existential sensibilities of popular culture.

They are too distorting or too inadequate to perform the sorts of social and personal tasks that culture has, in the providence of God, the function of performing.

Two places to begin are suggested by the deficiencies in popular culture described above. The church can be a community that displays loving and redemptive authority, thereby offering an alternative to the dubious populism promoted outside. Several cultural critics have argued that one of the major crises of modern society is the crisis of authority. The church does not love its neighbors (or its Lord) if it mimics populist or egalitarian manners and thereby adds momentum to the debilitating suspicion of authority that afflicts our age.

Secondly, the church can insist on its identity as an intergenerational community. It can do this structurally, by refusing to segment congregations by age, and temperamentally, by recovering a biblical respect for maturity and rejecting popular culture’s infantilism, thereby offering to children a goal of growing up. Popular culture exalts perpetual adolescence. Rock critic Lawrence Grossberg recently described the way this fixated state is perpetuated in the music of youth culture:

In privileging youth, rock transforms a temporary and transitional identity into a culture of transitions.

Youth itself is transformed from a matter of age into an ambiguous matter of attitude, defined by its rejection of boredom and its celebration of movement, change, energy: that is, fun. And this celebration is lived out in and inscribed upon the body—in dance, sex, drugs, fashion, style and even the music itself.1 By contrast, in the view of biblical personhood, adulthood is a desirable telos. Paul regularly talks about perfection, completeness, and maturity as aims for disciples.

Instead of adopting the ways of popular culture, the church should show the world a more excellent way.

Instead of retooling Sunday to render it in synch with Monday through Saturday, the church, in its proclamation and in its making of disciples, should offer a countercultural model of living obedience, seeking to transform what believers and unbelievers experience during the week by what happens to them and around them on Sunday.

Lawrence Grossberg, “Is Anybody Listening? Does Anybody Really Care?: On the State of Rock,” in Microphone Fiends: Youth Music and Youth Culture, eds.

Andrew Ross and Tricia Rose (New York: Routledge, 1994), p. 51.

1

Turn on …

In a nutshell, spirituality relates to your own personal experience and relationship with the divine. People tend to confuse spirituality with religion, because the two often come together….

The spiritual journey can be summed up in two phrases: Purify your heart; follow your heart.

Spiritual practices and exercises such as prayer, meditation, yoga, contemplation, scriptural study, and devotional rituals, as well as spiritual qualities such as compassion, honesty, steadiness, and unconditional love contribute to this process of purifying your heart and following the guidance of your pure heart….Dogma can muddy the waters of a spiritual path.

— Sharon Janis, Spirituality for Dummies

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 3

THE NEW SPIRITUALITIES

The New Spirituality

Dismantling and Reconstructing Reality

BY

PETER R. JONES

Assessing the Importance of the New Spirituality he New Spirituality is “neither an organized religion nor a systematized philosophy but a group of ideas and a network of communication.”1 Such an innocuous description is still somewhat typical—the New Spirituality is just one more option in modern day pluralism, about which we should probably be somewhat informed.

I must disagree.

While it is not an “organized religion,” this spirituality is the reappearance of the massive system of ancient world paganism and, as such, represents the greatest threat to the church since the Greco-Roman pagan empire. The situation is urgent.

T

2 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

T H E

The incredibly beautiful “Temple of Humankind”— secretly under construction since 1978, 100 feet below ground, inside a mountain near the northern Italian city of Vidracco—provides the right terminology. Its builders say the temple is not a place of prayer, but “a place for contemplation of the divine within the self.” Their work, they say, is not for a religion but for “a new civilization.”2 Our culture is reaching a tipping point of momentous implications where the “New Spirituality” may well represent the next phase of the faith and practice of modern autonomous humanity, whose goal is nothing less than the construction of a new Sodom and Babel.

Few were expecting this. Most merely saw a cloud the size of a man’s hand appearing on the Western horizon.

That marginal “hippy” revolution of spiritual and sexual experimentation would quickly dissipate. The real threat was secular humanism. The fact is this New Age “cloud of unknowing” has morphed into a perfect storm of latter rain that intends to irrigate the entire planet with the Aquarian “living water” of integrative monistic oneness.

Perhaps we are beginning to “get it,” especially when it affects our children. In 2007, California governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 into law, making it illegal for teachers and children to use terms like “mom” and “dad” and “husband” and “wife” in public schools. Already in England using such terms is now officially called “bullying.”3 Montgomery County, Maryland, allows people to use public restrooms based on who they think they are sexually; and in San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors will now issue municipal identification cards showing name, birth date, and photo, but no gender.

The cloud has become a tsunami; the Sixties’ sexual liberation was not a mere dream of hippies who had opted out of public life. In fact, in a long march through the institutions, the “Flower Power” children cleaned themselves up and became the “establishment” themselves. They have demonized the patriarchal society of Western and biblical civilization as the greatest expression of human evil, and replaced it with a radical egalitarianism that knows no gender roles and believes that the murder of unborn babies is not only settled law but vital to the emancipation of women.4 In one generation, this sexual liberation has become public policy. The ideas behind these social changes are deeply and spiritually pagan—as even a cursory examination of Romans 1:18-28 will show.

Indeed, the Sixties was a spiritual revolution that has now morphed into a worldview that promises to alter how we all believe and act in the planetary era. The New Age began to change when the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who died February 4, introduced notions such as transcendental meditation, “mantra,” and “karma” into the mainstream through converts like the Beatles, Mike Love of the Beach Boys, Mia Farrow, Merv Griffin, Joe Namath, and Deepak Chopra. Marilyn Ferguson published her significant work, The Aquarian Conspiracy with the significant subtitle Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980s, in which she asked hundreds of scientists,

N E W

S P I R I T U A L I T Y

philosophers, and spiritual seekers to name the person most influential in their lives: first and second were Teilhard de Chardin and Carl Jung! Clearly, we were no longer dealing with chakras and crystals, but with a spiritual/intellectual worldview movement based on “spiritual” evolution and the new psychology of the subconscious. It was Jung who said, “We are only at the threshold of a new spiritual epoch.”5 This epoch of the New Spirituality claims to be able to put our deconstructed world back together again scientifically, philosophically, economically, geo-politically, ecologically, and spiritually through the power of the myth of the divinity of Nature.

James Herrick calls this movement the “New Religious Synthesis,” and believes it has already eclipsed traditional “Christian” culture.6 But note! In constructing this “new civilization,” one has to eliminate the old. Religious pagan syncretists are not democrats. As a way of “dismantling the [traditional] gender binary,” they now embrace “the proliferation of gender possibilities.”7 Further, to “break the hold of dominant male images of God,” they propose the adoption of names for God such as “Goddess, she, mother, queen, Shekinah, birth-giver, wellspring, source.”8 The game of civilization is now being played for keeps! Out with God. In with the Goddess!

The Major Themes of the New Spirituality he following definitions of the essential themes of pagan belief, constituting a coherent system, are drawn from well-known pagan theorists, accompanied by references to some of the odd places where these same pagan notions reappear.

T

God—“The Christian God is transcendent, the pagan godhead is immanent…the paganism of indigenous tribal [has no] doctrines of monotheistic worship, a creation ex nihilo, a morally-determined godhead, and salvific redemptionism.”9 Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong’s description of God fits perfectly in Michael York’s synthesis: God is not an external, supernatural being, ruling over humanity. God is rather the power of love which flows through each one of us…the source of life, of love, the ground of being…[but] life has taught us that theism is dead.10 Humanity—“Paganism affirms…the fundamental affinity between humanity and its gods…sharing a mutually kindred nature.”11 According to York, human “deification is a pagan affirmation of the essential link if not identity between the divine and the human.”12 Hinduism, likewise, believes that “what we know as our own self goes all the way to the point of absolute identity with the supreme Being.”13 On the outer edges of a certain “Catholic Christianity,” now entering evangelicalism, the oft-cited medieval mystic Meister Eckhart states: “Being is M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 5

transcendent Lord outside of the created order. The world is understood by the world. the revival of a vast and coherent pagan worldview, To be sure, the New Spirituality is not an organwhose ultimate goal is both the construction of a ized religion, but neither is it a mere hodge-podge of spiritually unified global community and the unrelated notions. Scholars of religion identify two “dismantling” of its great obstacle, biblical theism. coherent types of spirituality: 1) esoteric (inner) pagan God’s circle and in this circle all creatures exist. religion, the God within, finding truth within the human Everything that is in God is God.”14 heart, since humanity is divine; and 2) exoteric (outer) theistic religion that finds truth beyond the sphere of Nature—According to York, in paganism there is a nature and humanity in the person of God, Creator, and “comprehension of nature’s inherent vitality”15 reifying Redeemer. These two religious possibilities are radically nature into “a divine object worthy of worship…[seeing] antithetical, as Paul said with surprising clarity 2,000 years nature and humanity as essentially divine.16 Ex-Jesuit ago (Rom. 1:25). priest Thomas Berry, who calls himself a “geologian,” not In the New Spirituality, we face not a new religion but a theologian,17 teaches that “the Earth is the primary the revival of a vast and coherent pagan worldview, whose subject, endowed with a spiritual mode of being.”18 ultimate goal is both the construction of a spiritually unified global community and the “dismantling” of its Spirituality—If the creation—not the Creator—is great obstacle, biblical theism. divine, then the earth becomes the object of worship. Thus York describes “shamanic practice” as uniform practice of The Future of the New Spirituality paganism.19 Alison Leonard, a contemporary religious ut surely, you ask, the above is far too marginal and feminist, recounts her path “from the space left by a radical to affect civilization? Many believe, however, Christian faith that has become irrelevant, through a series that Christianity as a dominant social force is spent and of earth-based, feminine-orientated experiences and brief that its great opponent, secular humanism, is in free-fall. spiritual encounters with non-human life forms and with Since the Sixties we have entered a new world. The the non-physical world, towards an openness to the divine intellectual pride of secular humanism and of its religious feminine in its pre-Christian and post-Christian guises.”20 sister, “Christian” liberalism, has been exploded by the radical critique of postmodern deconstruction. The Salvation—In paganism we are our own saviors. York objectivity of human reason as a means to truth is now observes, with regards to Buddhist and Hindu worship, seen as pure fiction, so the world must be reconstructed on that “a key endeavor…is the acquisition of merit.”21 other bases. “The irony is delicious,” says theologian Don Carson. “The modernity which has arrogantly insisted that Gnostic bishop Stephan Hoeller’s notion of salvation is human reason is the final arbiter of truth has spawned a provocatively clear: stepchild that has arisen to slay it.”25 Postmodernism has Our spiritual enfeeblement is not due to a fall from brought an end to secularism, but it raises a serious grace on the part of Adam and Eve…and our question: Where does postmodernism lead us? regeneration will not come about by accepting a A triumphant form of ancient religious paganism now personal savior [or] by a risen redeemer, but only by the claims to put the shattered Humpty Dumpty back together reconciliation of the gods and goddesses within us.22 again—not by reason but by unreason, not by the conscious mind but by the subconscious psyche, not by logos but by Ethics—The status of good and evil, like that of male mythos, not by faith in the Lord of heaven and earth but by and female, is fluid. They are merely elements within the faith in the Goddess, mistress of divinized Nature. Having natural world to be used for one’s sense of godhead and exorcized the demon of secular humanism, modern freedom. Modern witches hold to the idea that the culture now sees seven more very spiritual ones rushing in spiritual power available to them is neither good nor evil.23 to take its place.

Carl Jung said: “We must beware of thinking of good and As this “new” oneness ideology dominates the campus evil as absolute opposites.”24 Jung’s belief in the essential and the popular media, the rising generations are losing all oneness of all things made him a monist. sense of the antithesis (right or wrong, true or false, either/or), and are placing their faith in the pagan synthesis Monism: Common Orientation of All Forms of of “both/and” monism. This is also true for Christian young Paganism—The belief that all things natural, human and people if Mark Ostreicher, head of the largest evangelical divine share the same divine substance. There is no training resource (Youth Specialties), has anything to do

In the New Spirituality, we face not a new religion but

B

2 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

T H E

with it. He proposes to his youthful wards “a path out of our bi-polar morass of left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, mainline vs. evangelical…[away from] all the rhetoric, entrenchment and warfare-positioning of modern-day Christianity.”26 The Church Militant becomes the Church Imitant, adopting “a new Christian worldview” that, devoid of theological biblical clarity, apes the pagan culture and concludes that “the body of Christ is queer, is man, is woman, is straight.”27 The “new Christian” employs spiritual techniques borrowed from pagan mysticism and imitates the self-justifying moralism of liberal social action.28 This emergent ship of faith is steered by the subjective notion of “love,” which claims to cover a multitude of sins, but in fact justifies a boatload of pagan heresies.

As our culture and large swathes of the church are rushing like lemmings toward the pagan synthesis, what will this mean for biblical orthodoxy?

We often use the term post-Christian to describe our present world, but perhaps fail to see its implications; namely, a serious repeat of the pre-Christian world that the early Christians faced—no general government support, but rather government intimidation, oppression and even persecution; no social encouragement, but rather deep suspicion and antagonism; no knowledge of the Bible and the Bible’s worldview, but rather a deep commitment and acceptance of the pagan worldview; no “Big Man on Campus” Christianity, but rather the intimidation and ostracizing of Christian students by Big Brother Administration. From this perspective, the future looks ominous.

The New Spirituality and the Clarity of Christian Witness rom another perspective, the growing storm clouds have a silver lining. For centuries, we have been thinking and writing about the Christian faith in the relatively safe cocoon of Christendom, where theological method consisted largely of showing the Bible’s inner connectedness (proof-texts and biblical theology) and was built on the collective witness of the church and its great Christian theologians (confessions and systematic theology), especially focusing on soteriology. Little else was needed to guide the faithful and maintain the orthodoxy of a majoritarian church in a comfortable “Christian” West. To be sure, in the modern period, the waters were constantly muddied by “Christian” rationalistic liberalism, seeking to undermine the Bible’s supernaturalism.

Emergent thinkers, with their “missional” focus, are aware of the problem. Says Tony Jones, national director of Emergent Village: “We’re currently living in… liminal…boundary times” when people look most closely at the beliefs that underlie their practices.29 Will the “Emergent” embracing of culture save us? Emergent postmodern Reformed theologian John Franke says we know our beliefs via “polyphonic revelation,” where we

F

N E W

S P I R I T U A L I T Y

get to be the umpire between Scripture and tradition and culture.30 He says with great optimism: “The conversation between gospel and culture should be one of mutual enrichment,” in which the gospel is “informed by” culture.31 Does Franke not see how pagan our culture has become, and how much he risks elevating tradition and pagan culture over Scripture (as some of his Emergent cohorts have clearly done), thus undermining the authority and power of the divine Word? Certainly, the Bible gives culture a place, but it does so without naïveté since the message of fallen humanity will always be a suppression of the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18).

Thus Scripture invites us explicitly, as I am suggesting here, to establish a clear antithetical confrontation or “boundary” between divine revelation and the “lie” of fallen pagan culture. I believe that failing to do this will spell disaster both for “missional” engagement and for the faith of many already within the church.

Only in our time can we perhaps get a truly unobstructed view of what the Scriptures mean by the two age-old, diametrically opposed religious systems of monism and theism. Just as a relief map reveals the contrast between the Rocky Mountains and the plains of Kansas,32 so too the clear contrast between theism and monism reveals the antithesis between the truth and the lie. Thus, in the Age of Aquarius, Christians need to understand soteriology in the light of two opposing cosmologies or worldviews: that of Scripture, clarified by theology and confession; and that of the system of empire-building, religious paganism. In a sense, everything changes, even the way we do theology. We need to add to Geerhardus Vos’s brilliant observation that “eschatology precedes soteriology,” with a further precision: “cosmology precedes eschatology.” In his day, at the beginning of the twentieth century, Vos could assume a basic theistic “sacred canopy.”

This is no longer the case. Thus, we may not simply repeat answers to questions that culture is no longer asking, or go on only answering our own questions. Nor must we be lulled into thinking that because the enemy of truth now takes a decidedly irrational aspect this new/old form of the lie is unworthy of serious theological response. On the contrary, only a deeply biblical and theological response will be effective against this formidable assault on divine revelation. The time is now for the Christian faith to speak with all seriousness to this rising tide of twenty-firstcentury imperialistic paganism—for the sake of our covenant children and for the sake of the cogency of our evangelistic message to a spiritually darkened world. To be sure, the gospel alone is the power of God unto salvation, but Christians must have a deep understanding of the culture if they are to communicate that gospel both faithfully and effectively.

The change I suggest is not novel. It actually takes us back to the Bible, a polemical book, which shows us how to use the “coherence” of the pagan worldview in order to establish solid, objective lines of demarcation between it and biblical orthodoxy.33 As Paul said, and everyone M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 7

Western Thinking,” The Portable Jung (New York: Penguin, 1976), p. 476. announcement of the gospel in the light of the biblical 6 James A. Herrick, The Making of the New Spirituality: worldview of the antithesis will be both politically The Eclipse of the Western Religious Tradition (Downers incorrect but spirituality explosive.

Grove, IL: IVP, 2003), p. 15.

Herrick brilliantly documents understood him, “Do not walk like the pagans” (Eph. both the length and depth of this spiritual movement.

7 4:17).

Heterosexism in Contemporary World Religion: Problem and Our forefathers showed the way. Under the influence of Prospect, eds. Marvin M. Ellision and Judith Plaskow Bishop Ryle, William Gladstone (1809–1898)—the (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2007), pp. 33-34.

8 Liverpuddlian and four times prime minister of Great Heterosexism in Contemporary World Religion, pp. 33-34.

9 Britain—warned that the rejection of Christianity would Michael York, Pagan Theology: Paganism as a World not produce a secular society but a pagan one.34 In 1898, Religion (New York: New York University Press, 2003), p.

Abraham Kuyper stated: “The fundamental contrast has 38.

10 always been, is still and will be until the end: Christianity John Shelby Spong, “The Theistic God Is Dead,” From and Paganism.” Similarly, in 1925 J. Gresham Machen the Ashes: A Spiritual Response to the Attack on America observed: “Our enemy who prides itself in being very (Emmaus, PA: Rodale, 2001), pp. 55, 58-59.

11 modern, is as old as the hills; and from the very beginning, York, p. 13.

12 the Christian Church has been menaced by…allYork, p. 22.

13 embracing paganism.”

John G. Arapura, “Spirit and Spiritual Knowledge in With regards to the future, a courageous though tactful the Upanishads,” Hindu Spirituality: Vedas through Vedanta, announcement of the gospel in the light of the biblical ed. Krishna Sivaraman, vol. 6, World Spirituality: An worldview of the antithesis will be both politically Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest (New York: incorrect but spirituality explosive. Courageous and clear Crossroads, 1989), p. 64.

14 witness to the pagan world will involve suffering and Cited in Matthew Fox, Meditations with Meister Eckhart persecution but, in the providence of God, may well lead, (Rochester, VT: Bear & Company, 1983), p. 23.

15 as at the beginning of the church’s history, to a glorious York, p. 46.

16 ingathering of God’s elect people, set free by the truth.

York, pp. 64, 167.

17 Most of all, it will bring glory, in our paganized, Andrew J. Angyal, “Thomas Berry’s Earth Spirituality polytheistic time, to the name of the only true God, and the ‘Great Work,’” The Ecozoic Reader 3, 3 (2003), pp. transcendent Creator and gracious Redeemer. ■ 35-44.

18 Thomas Berry, “The Spirituality of the Earth,” The Riverdale Papers, vol. V, p. 1.

19 Peter R. Jones (Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary) is scholar York, p. 40.

20 in residence and adjunct professor of New Testament at Alison Leonard, “Journey Towards the Goddess,” Westminster Seminary California (Escondido). He is founder of Feminist Theology (September 2003).

21 Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet (now renamed York, 123.

22 Stephen A. Hoeller, Jung and the Lost Gospels: Insights truthXchange), a national and international teaching, preaching into the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library and writing ministry, and author of numerous books and articles.

(Wheaton, IL: Quest Books, 1989), p. 10.

23 See the statements by the witch Marcia Montenegro at WORKS CITED 1 Richard Ramsay, The Certainty of the Faith: Defending the http://cana.userworld.com, cited in Clete Hux, “Against Gospel in an Uncertain World (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Heresies,” Areopagus Journal 6/4 (July/August 2006), p. 29.

24 Publishing Company, 2007), p. 190.

Carl Jung and Aniela Jaffe, Memories, Dreams, 2 Chris Cuomo, Alberto Orso, and Imaeyen Ibanga, Reflections, trans. Richard and Clara Winston, (New York: “Mystery Behind the Damanhur Temples: Hand-Built Vintage Books-Random House, 1961/1989), p. 329.

25 Maze Hidden in a Mountainside Is Home to a Secret D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Society,” ABC News (31 January 2008).

Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 100.

3 26 “Bob Unruh Stripped Bare: ‘Gay’ school plot unveiled See http://www.ysmarko.com/?p=2315.

27 ‘Infuse LGBTQ curriculum into history, social science, and This is from his laudatory review of Emergent theorist literature classes,’” WorldNetDaily.com (11 December 2007).

Peter Rollins’ book, How [Not] to Speak of God. Rollins seeks 4 “Liberty, American Values and the Next President,” The to transcend opposites. Ostreiker particularly highlights: Los Angeles Times (14 December 2007), p. A42.

“The section showing how his [Rollins’] spiritual 5 Carl Jung, “The Difference between Eastern and community has put flesh on these ideas was praxis

With regards to the future, a courageous though tactful

2 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

brilliance.” This refers to the section (p. 137) where Rollins makes the statement: “The body of Christ is queer, is man, is woman, is straight.” Rollins, in his allusion to Galatians 3:28, is only outdone by Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Sensuous Spirituality: Out from Fundamentalism (New York: Crossroads, 1992), p. 68. She states programmatically: “Extrapolating from the pluralism already present in Galatians 3:28, we could extend it to say that the Body of Christ is She as well as He, poor as well as affluent, handicapped as well as fully abled, lesgay and bi-sexual as well as heterosexual, of many nations, many religions, and many interpretative communities.”

28 The statement of Walter Henegar is most apt: “Emergent leaders who are eager to reconcile with liberal Protestants may soon find they have too much in common.” See his posted article “What Is the Emerging Church?” at wrfnet.org.

29 Tony Jones, author of Postmodern Youth Ministry and national director of Emergent Village, in his review of R. Scott

Smith’s Truth and the New Kind of Christian at www.gnpcb.org/assets/products/excerpts/1581347405.1.pdf.

30 John Franke, “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003), pp. 1-26.

31 Art. cit, p. 19.

32 I am indebted to my student Matt Frey for this helpful image.

33 See Lev. 11:44-45, 18:3, 20:23; 26:45; Deut. 4:6, 8:14, 19, 9:4, 12:2, 29, 30, 32:21; Josh. 23:6; Ps. 106:35; Isa. 43:9; Jer. 10:2; Ezek. 11:12, 36:23, 39:7; 1 Kings 14:24; 2 Kings 16:2-3, 17:8, 15, 21:2; 2 Chron. 28:2, 33:2, 36:14; Rom. 1:18-32; 2 Cor. 6:14-5; Eph. 4:17-20, 5:21; and 1 Tim. 4:1-6.

34 Cited by Leslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 20.

Tune in …

Throughout history there have been many who coveted the knowledge of the Secret, and there have been many who found a way of spreading this knowledge to the world....Religions such as Hinduism, Hermetic traditions, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam...delivered it through their writings and stories….You are the most powerful magnet in the Universe! You contain a magnetic power within you that is more powerful than anything in this world, and this unfathomable magnetic power is emitted through your thoughts.... Thoughts are magnetic, and thoughts have a frequency. As you think, those thoughts are sent out into the Universe, and they magnetically attract all like things that are on the same frequency. Everything sent out returns to the source. And that source is you.

— Rhonda Byrne, The Secret

Human beings are made of body, mind and spirit. Of these, spirit is primary, for it connects us to the source of everything, the eternal field of consciousness. The more connected we are, the more we will enjoy the abundance of the universe, which has been organized to fulfill our wishes….We forget sometimes that there are saints living among us. When we meet them, we are reminded, not just of the presence of pure divinity right here on earth, but also of our own potential, and of the responsibility we have to try to live up to it, for our own sakes and for the very future of this planet.

— Deepak Chopra, The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success

Finally, it’s important to thank God, or however you perceive your higher power, for all of the abundance that comes into your life....Having an attitude of gratitude opens up the channels for even more abundance to flow into your life. The more grateful you are, the more you will attract to be grateful for….The best way to insure an ongoing flow of abundance into your life is to share with others the wealth you receive. We are big believers in tithing— giving away ten percent of your income to your church or favorite charity. We believe it does indeed come back multiplied.

— Jack Canfield and Mark Hansen, Chicken Soup for the Soul

Affirmation: Each day, face yourself in the mirror and say: “I am a happy, loving person, and I carry God’s unique essence in my soul. Every action I do today will be for others as well as myself.”…Meditation: Surround yourself with an emerald-green light for healing. Breathe deeply, and each time you exhale, say, “I am letting go of all negativity.”...Notice that you feel free and light, almost as if you are glowing with God’s love, and you sense deep inside the true, happy, successful beauty of your immortal soul. You will begin to feel that all the guilt, determinism, opinions, criticisms, cruelty, and rejection you have stored up, all the negativity, is peeling off like so many heavy overcoats...mentally let them drop away.

—Sylvia Brownes, Lessons for Life M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 9

THE NEW SPIRITUALITIES

Old Heresy, New Heretics

THE RETURN OF GNOSTICISM Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

Manuscripts hidden for centuries have resurfaced unexpectedly. When their secret contents are disclosed, scholars will be forced to rewrite the history books, and the Christian church will suffer a blow from which it may never recover. (Cue the ominous and conspiratorial theme music here.)

For it turns out that the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as God incarnate whose death and resurrection redeemed mankind from sin was just one of many interpretations of the man, his life, and his teachings. Certain agenda-driven bureaucrats in the church and politicians in the Roman Empire exercised their power and enthroned this view as “orthodox” Christianity. Subsequently, they suppressed and destroyed all writings expressing a different take on Jesus. Sound familiar?

Unfortunately, this is not merely another reference to a farfetched work of fiction. Rather, these are serious assertions made loudly and frequently by several renowned and influential scholars. They claim the secret contents of such documents have been disclosed, and Jesus’ identity was formulated by the church and later imposed by the state. By persuasively appealing to historical events and religious texts about which the common person knows little, this movement is denying the central tenets of Christianity. It is known as the new Gnosticism, and its advocates are playing for keeps.

Christians could once rest assured that modern heresies were too implausible to gain many converts. The new Gnosticism, on the other hand, is providing countless skeptics, atheists, and agnostics the perceived intellectual high ground they need to dismiss the New Testament. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens are prime examples.1 Furthermore, the significance of ancient texts was previously discussed only by professional academics. Today, the issue is nearly omnipresent in the media, in bookstores, in pop culture, and on the lips of college students. Add to this the current trend that blending novelty, intrigue, and Jesus is a surefire way to generate higher sales and larger audiences, and it appears the new Gnosticism is not going away any time soon.

BY

MARK PIERSON

3 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

O L D

H E R E S Y,

N E W

H E R E T I C S

But what exactly is the threat posed by the new Gnosticism? How did a long-forgotten heresy manage to return with a vengeance? Is there still reason to trust the New Testament and the Jesus found therein? These issues will be addressed as we cover the rise, fall, and reappearance of Gnosticism, examine Christians’ responses to it, and briefly inspect one scholar’s views.

Christianity and the veracity of the New Testament over and against the unreasonableness of Gnosticism and its groundless claims. Consequently, Gnosticism’s popularity faded. After Christianity was legalized by Constantine in 313 and the Nicene Creed was produced in 325, fewer and fewer remnants remained. Gnosticism appeared to be headed toward extinction.

A Heresy Is Born he term “Gnosticism” comes from the Greek word - which means “knowledge.” Special or secret gnosis, knowledge about the cosmos is required in order to obtain salvation. Commonly included in this diverse (and confusing) belief system are the following tenets.

Matter is inherently evil, created by a foul god who is either wicked, ignorant, or both. Within one’s physical flesh, however, lies a “divine spark” or an immaterial spirit, which is good. By accepting this knowledge about reality, one can cultivate the hidden light of divinity found within. Being “saved” is equivalent to being rescued from ignorance. After death, one’s soul ascends to the distant realm of the true, unknowable god. This vital gnosis can only be imparted by one who is himself “in the know,” which ultimately requires a redeemer from beyond this world. Enter Jesus Christ.

Titles such as Savior, Redeemer, Son of God, Light of the World, and Logos made Jesus a prime candidate for being this enlightened revealer of secret knowledge. However, Jesus reconciling all of creation to the God who made it by physically suffering and dying was repugnant.

Equally problematic was his present bodily resurrection.

Gnostics, therefore, needed to adopt Jesus without embracing the central claims of the New Testament. This was accomplished either by borrowing only certain parts of Christian texts, by interpreting Christian beliefs differently, or by creating new writings about Jesus.

This last option is the most notorious, for two reasons.

First, many of these Gnostic writings have both “gospel” and a biblical name in the title. Among them is the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Judas. This gives the impression that they are similar to the four New Testament Gospels, either in content or in status. Second, most Gnostic gospels claim to contain “secret” teachings revealed by Jesus to an elite group. This allowed Gnostics to assert their superiority over the ignorant Christians.

Around A.D. 180, prominent churchmen such as Irenaeus began to oppose Gnosticism by arguing that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the only legitimate gospels, with all others containing fabrications. Tracts were distributed that demonstrated the rationality of

An Ancient Heresy Gets a Face-lift ast-forward to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when attempts to discredit Christianity had become commonplace. In The Gospel and the Greeks, Ronald Nash observed that scholars tried to demonstrate Christians’ dependence on Greek philosophy and mythology in formulating the New Testament.

Though lack of evidence rendered this unpersuasive, they persisted in their quest by focusing on Gnosticism. In 1934, Walter Bauer claimed our information about Gnosticism was biased since it came from the church fathers. Perhaps, Bauer suggested, the fathers’ view about Christ prevailed not because it was true, but because all opposing voices were successfully silenced. Maybe the so-called heretics were misrepresented, or were even correct. Bauer ran with this theory, asserting that various Christianities initially competed for survival. Provocative as this was, it could not be substantiated, and Bauer was forced to rely on the argument from silence.

The following decade, over 50 Gnostic writings were discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. (These are not to be confused with the Dead Sea Scrolls, also found in the 1940s, but solely Jewish in character.) Each Nag Hammadi text was in Coptic, an ancient Egyptian language, and was written in the fourth century. Important questions were being asked, with much disagreement over the answers.

How many are copies or translations of earlier writings?

Are these the same writings the church fathers referenced?

What do they reveal about Jesus and the earliest Christians? With so many “heretics” finally able to speak for themselves, as it were, what do they have to say?

As could be predicted, the Nag Hammadi documents contain beliefs incompatible with biblical Christianity.

Some claim Jesus’ virgin birth and resurrection were symbolic, not literal. Others mention “God the Mother,” or refer to the Holy Spirit as female. Many have Jesus instructing his followers to look within themselves in order to find salvation and to commune with God. But the sheer number of texts suggested that Gnosticism may have flourished at one point. If the originals were written early enough, it could be that Bauer’s thesis is finally confirmed.

Scholars who assert that it is see themselves as knowing the truth about early Christianity, while those who accept the traditional history are ignorant. This is what constitutes the new Gnosticism. It is not about sharing beliefs with the ancient Gnostics; rather, it is about being enlightened to the truth that many primitive forms of Christianity coexisted, without any single view of Jesus being more

T

F

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 1

that was a day when most wrote for Christians opponents who shared their the new Gnosticism pounces, equipped with convoluted same basic worldview. Similarly, when Catholicism responses that many laypeople are incapable of asserted that Christ established the church’s authority dismantling. by making Peter the first pope, that Scripture received legitimate than another. Those who claim otherwise are its authority from the church, and that the right relying on faith, not facts, and have just as groundless a interpretation of Scripture belongs only to the pope, position as did the church fathers upon whom the idea of Scripture itself was invoked as support. This is obviously orthodoxy is based. problematic, but battles were once primarily fought over the right interpretation of Scripture, not over the Ineffective Responses by Christians establishment of Scripture altogether. any Christians are unable to offer adequate Such days of luxury have long since vanished. rebuttals to the charges leveled by the new Christians can rarely appeal to their own dogmas, Gnosticism. Whereas challenges to Jesus’ institutions, or manuscripts without being confronted by identity were once answered by appealing to Scripture, objections like those of present-day Gnosticism. It is questions about early Christianity raise doubts about its likewise insufficient to remain reticent, either out of fear or status as an objective arbiter of truth. Of course, that doesn’t ignorance, waiting for the current storm to blow over. The mean there is anything inherently wrong with questioning thinking Christian needs satisfactory answers. Otherwise, Christianity’s origins. Rather, the answers are wherein the doubts may ensue and genuine inquiries from unbelievers danger lies, including those often given by Christians. For will be met with silence. once Christians fail to defend their faith effectively, the new Gnosticism pounces, equipped with convoluted responses Knowledge Falsely So-called that many laypeople are incapable of dismantling. pologists are confident that an investigation of A common yet disastrous choice is to rush headlong Christianity’s nascent years and of Scripture’s into the trap of trying to defend the inerrancy and limits of reliability will validate the truth of the Christian Scripture by appealing to nothing more than the words of claim. Nonetheless, many are finding it necessary to do the canonical Scriptures themselves. Thankfully, invoking more these days than let the facts speak for themselves.

“All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16) as a proofOne can no longer depend on scholars being motivated text appears to be on the wane, for this clearly commits the by a genuine desire to understand the past, speculating fallacy of circular reasoning (meaning, the truth of a preciously little beyond what can be demonstrated to be document cannot be established solely based on what it true. A new method of scholarship rules the roost, from says about itself). However, comparable arguments used which stems the current Gnosticism. It is now perfectly centuries ago are frequently relied on today, and are acceptable to blend research with conjecture while equally unpersuasive in the face of the new Gnosticism. claiming an impartial yet groundbreaking conclusion.

Martin Luther claimed the chief criterion for Thus, a particularly devious aspect of the new determining a book’s divine inspiration was whether or Gnosticism is its ability to give the impression that the not it placarded Christ.2 In so doing, he assumed he latest findings have eliminated the arguments and already had the correct view of Christ that allowed him to evidences Christians previously used to confirm their pass judgment. But where else could he obtain this other faith. The facts are now being spoken for (or against) by than from the very documents he was examining? John those who have a vendetta against Christianity.

Calvin’s primary way for knowing the true Scriptures was But more intricate attacks merely require more the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. Similarly, he sophisticated rebuttals. Thankfully, learned Christians claimed Scripture is self-authenticating (that is, it bears have already done our homework for us. Books listing witness of its own truthfulness).3 In this way, he assumed facts in support of Christianity have been supplemented with works that directly refute the new Gnosticism.4 a divine text not only exists, but also has certain qualities and performs specific actions. But how else could he know Being familiar with these arms Christians with rough and this without first presupposing the truth of the very ready answers when put on the spot, and provides writings he was studying? confidence that further ammunition is available if needed.

These methods are not altogether worthless, and the Below is a sampling of general points one can make.

Reformers did employ secondary means of a more objecRegarding the origin of Gnosticism, there is little tive nature. Plus, they never could have predicted that agreement. Scholars, however, are certain of its influences: Gnosticism would return to plague the church and natPlatonic thought, stressing spirit over matter; Zoroastrian urally only addressed the problems of their own day. But dualism, with opposing deities; and Greco-Roman mystery

For once Christians fail to defend their faith effectively,

M

A

3 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

O L D

religions, emphasizing secrecy, and incorporating diverse beliefs. Since the New Testament understanding of Jesus stems from the context of Old Testament Judaism, it is misleading to suggest that any view of Jesus is as legitimate as another. The Messiah has a particular heritage—hence, the first believers were primarily Jews. The Gnostic Jesus, on the other hand, is entirely incompatible with the Jewish standards for the Messiah of Israel.

Similarly, the Nag Hammadi documents reveal that Gnosticism was a hodge-podge of incongruent beliefs.

Certain texts claimed there were two gods; others claimed there was a hierarchy of gods. Some Gnostics saw Jesus as their redeemer; others thought it was Seth or Adam. A few texts make no mention of anything Jewish or Christian whatsoever. This is in sharp contrast to the uniform monotheism of the Old and New Testaments, as well as all New Testament authors agreeing on the identity of significance of Jesus.

The issue of dating is wrought with disagreement, but not on this crucial point: every New Testament book was composed prior to the end of the first century, but Gnostic writings are from the second to fourth centuries or even later.

Moreover, the New Testament’s accounts are confirmed by other first-century Christian writings (namely, the Didache and 1 Clement), as well as by non-Christian historians who wrote by the early second century (such as Tacitus, Josephus, and Suetonius). Furthermore, half of the Gospel of Thomas, the earliest Gnostic text, was borrowed from the canonical Gospels. Add to all of this the admission from the Gnostics themselves that they were few in number, and it hardly seems justified to claim that competing Christianities abounded with none having been established before the rest.

Orthodoxy and heresy were clearly distinguished long before Irenaeus. In Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, he vehemently proclaimed there to be only one correct view about Christ, with all opposing views being damnable (Gal. 1:6-9). Moreover, it is clear from this and other epistles that Paul’s central teachings were known by his audience as early as the first decade after Christ (Gal. 3:1; 1 Cor. 11:23, 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 2:5).5 As an extra-biblical example, there is the case of Marcion. Arriving in Rome in 139, he claimed the Jewish creator-god was evil, and Jesus merely appeared to have a physical body that was crucified. That Christians swiftly excommunicated Marcion indicates a standard of orthodoxy was already in place.

Assessing the Methods of Elaine Pagels udging by literary output and media exposure, the chief proponent of the new Gnosticism is Elaine Pagels. She has authored five books on Gnosticism and is regularly featured on television and in various journals, magazines, and newspapers. Her personal experiences and erudite opinions are carefully combined to produce fluid, readable material. The Gnostic Gospels is her most influential work and was among the first to use the Nag Hammadi texts to challenge Christianity. In a more recent book on the Gospel of Thomas, she speculates

J

H E R E S Y,

N E W

H E R E T I C S

that it was written around the same time as the Gospel of John, with the two authors having been rivals. She last wrote on the Gospel of Judas, questioning what is actually known about Jesus’ betrayal.

With such an affinity for Gnosticism, she was asked if she is a Gnostic herself. Replying in the affirmative, she added that understanding the term to mean “a quality of awareness” is key.6 Presumably, the awareness pertains to how orthodoxy came to be.

Engaging Pagels entails identifying her methods more than handling specific points. Thus, her use of higher criticism when approaching the New Testament is most noteworthy, for this flawed enterprise relies more on abstract speculation than on tangible data.7 This helps explain why her “facts” are often mere assumptions at best, such as eyewitnesses not writing the Gospels, the authors using various sources, and a late composition that allowed spurious material to be added. For support, she often notes what “most scholars” say, yet she disapproves of church fathers having appealed to the majority when arguing against Gnosticism.

Pagels frequently tries to discredit the New Testament by citing its supposed contradictions, acting as if each is an open-and-shut case. For example, John’s Gospel is said to contradict the synoptics because it has Jesus clearing the temple earlier in his ministry, as well as dying on a different date.8 But why must we assume that Jesus rebuked such sacrilege only once? And why does Pagels not mention that two Jewish calendars were in use at this time?

Concerning her own embracement of the new Gnosticism, she reveals two crucial moments of influence.

In her youth, she was distressed to hear fellow church goers pronounce damnation on her unbelieving friend and she permanently ceased attending. Much later, Pagels read in the Gospel of Thomas that salvation consists of bringing forth what is within you, which struck her as “selfevidently true.”9 From these incidents, we see Pagels employing subjective criteria for determining truth. If her friend had been declared saved, would she have never left Christianity? If Jesus’ claim to be the only way to the Father (John 14:6) strikes someone else as self-evidently true, do we have a stalemate?

Finally, a specific example of Pagels’ techniques may prove insightful. She notes the intolerance of some church fathers who limited women’s roles in the church, and praises the Gnostics for recognizing diversity.10 However, she makes no mention of the closing line of her favorite Gnostic book, the Gospel of Thomas, in which Jesus says the only way for a woman to enter heaven is if she first becomes a male!

Then You Will Know the Truth and the Truth Will Set You Free he new Gnosticism may persist awhile, but it will not end Christianity. Although it is efficient at turning possibilities into certainties in the blink of an eye, its theories cannot stand up in light of the tangible evidence. The Nag Hammadi find is interesting, but there

T

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 3

Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin Group, 2006), pp. sound reason to trust a single Gnostic writing over any 145, 167.

Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great of the New Testament documents. Neither are there (New York: Hatchette Book Group, 2007), pp. 112-113. viable grounds for claiming that orthodoxy and heresy 2 Martin Luther, Luther’s Works: American Edition, eds. remained undistinguished for centuries.

Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (St. Louis: is no sound reason to trust a single Gnostic writing over Concordia Publishing House and Philadelphia: Fortress any of the New Testament documents. Neither are there Press, 1955-1986), 35:396.

3 viable grounds for claiming that orthodoxy and heresy John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John remained undistinguished for centuries.

T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Christians should prepare themselves with facts supporting Westminster Press, 1969), vol. I, vii, pp. 1-5.

4 Christianity and critiques of opposing viewpoints. Otherwise, The author recommends Darrell L. Bock, The Missing doubt may ensue among believers and skeptics will think Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities their suspicions are confirmed. As a final suggestion, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006) and Lee Strobel, The Christians ought to read the Gnostic gospels alongside the Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), pp. canonical Gospels to see firsthand the disparate views of Jesus.

23-63, as helpful introductory materials on the new One is a mystical guide whose life is unimportant and who Gnosticism.

5 points man inward to find God; the other is the promised See Craig Blomberg on this point in Lee Strobel, The Messiah whose passion, death, and resurrection are central Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), pp. 42-45.

6 and who is himself God in the flesh. ■ Diane Rogers, “The Gospel of Truth,” Stanford Magazine (January/February 2004), online at http://www. stanford alumni.org/news/ magazine/2004/janfeb/features/pagels.html.

7 Mark A. Pierson (M.A., Concordia University, Irvine, California) Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels is a contributor to Theologia et Apologia: Essays in (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), pp. 19-66, Reformation Theology and its Defense Presented to Rod provides a helpful summary of higher criticism.

8 Rosenbladt, eds. Adam S. Francisco, Korey D. Maas, and Steven Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas P. Mueller (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2007).

(New York: Random House Inc., 2003), pp. 23-24, 35.

9 Pagels, pp. 31-32.

10 WORKS CITED Pagels, p. 159.

1 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Mariner Books, 2008), p. 286. Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell:

The Nag Hammadi find is interesting, but there is no

… Drop out The “living Jesus” of [the Gnostic texts] speaks of illusion and enlightenment, not of sin and repentance, like the Jesus of the New Testament. Instead of coming to save us from sin, he comes as a guide who opens access to spiritual understanding.

— Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels Because we are children of the West, we must look first at the primary symbol of our faith-story: Jesus, who is called Christ. Is it conceivable that we might be able to tell the Christ-story apart from the concept of a theistic God? The future of Christianity and the 3 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

possibilities for a new reformation will be determined, I am convinced, by how we answer this question. My own immediate response is that we can and we must....Is there anything that remains once the theistic interpretation of his life has been lifted from his shoulders? Whenever this subject has been broached in liberal circles—and it has been discussed often through the intervening centuries—the resulting portrait of Jesus has been that of a great teacher.

— John Shelby Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die

From Oppression to Confession The Story of an Ex-Cult Member You may have noticed that I’m not using my name in this article. It’s not (total) cowardice, but when you tell others that you have spent over 20 years in a cult, you imagine some perplexed reactions. There must have been something very wrong with you or, if not, you must have suffered terrible mental violence. Since most people can’t relate to your experience, and it would take too long to describe it, you generally dismiss it and go on with your life.

I have decided to write about cult life because I have come to realize that it’s not as “otherwordly” as I had thought. It’s just the extreme expression of a departure from the historical, confessional faith. Any Christian who feels the weight of unbiblical rules and regulations superimposed by a church that implicitly believes we are saved by grace but stay saved by works is experiencing in part the reality of life in a cult. Just as the book Lord of the Flies can be profitable as a clear and vivid illustration of what a society can become in the absence of rules, a look at a cult can be an effective wake-up call to the dangers of Christian relativism.

I will not go into details because I think most people know what cults normally include: alienation from previous family and friends, deviation from commonly accepted sexual or marital practices, unquestioned obedience to one leader (to the suppression of conscience and common sense), questionable methods of child raising, and indoctrination. I think that the question most haunting for many ex-cult members is, If certain practices of this cult are so clearly immoral, why did I accept them?

That’s when many are tempted to fall into the “I was brainwashed” answer. But was I? I remember joining a happy bunch of people who proclaimed to love Jesus and who were intent on saving the world. Coming from a totally uninformed adherence to formal Catholicism, I had no clue as to what true Christianity was all about. These happy people read the Bible and interpreted it in a way that made sense.

We were young and wanted to be radical. We wanted to take the Bible “literally” and do what Jesus “really taught.” Churches were bogus, full of hypocrites, tangled up in doctrine. We didn’t need doctrine. The Bible was meant to be self-explanatory and easy to understand. We just had to take it literally.

“Everyone who forsakes not….” We abandoned our previous family and friends (unless they were willing to follow us or to support us financially) and were ready to abandon even our spouses and children at a moment’s notice, for the overall benefit of the group. We took Acts 2:44-45 to an extreme, in the misconceived notion that most of the Bible was a blueprint for our conduct today.

We gave up all that we had and lived without a penny in our pockets, not just in the coziness of some community,

but even as we traveled, “going into all the world to preach the gospel to every creature.” It was exciting and we really felt the way the first disciples might have felt in their times.

We discarded the Ten Commandments because Jesus summarized them in the word “love.” Since love was the only law, anything done in love was right. For the sake of unity, we had leaders who told us what were the practical applications of that love, ultimately referring to one leader, the group’s founder, who from the start had assumed almost total infallibility. Sadly, the word “love” soon assumed distorted, even grotesque shades of meaning.

“Bible prophecy” was also emphasized and played a great role in keeping us in the cult. Our leader had the only true interpretation and we had better keep reading his writings on current events, since Jesus could come back any minute and we didn’t want to be caught unprepared!

Our evangelization programs were intense. Since the salvation of those we met could very well depend on us, we used every possible means to drive them to a decision.

Our main appeal was our outward ecstatic joy (the victorious life was mandatory, and if you were not victorious you could even be plagued by demons), our outward manifestations of love, and a message that seemed different and exciting.

We also took seeker-oriented methods, as everything else, to an extreme. Besides the evangelical drive, we needed converts and supporters to survive financially as a group. So whatever people wanted to hear, we (or rather, the leaders) could always modify the group’s doctrine at a moment’s notice. The change in doctrine was seen as “new revelation” by God to our leader and prophet.

Once a person was drawn into the group, however, he or she was kept there by both constant excitement and fear.

The excitement was provided by upbeat music, great testimonies, constant change and travel, and frequent new revelations. The fear was strictly connected to a doctrine of works. In a thin veneer of orthodoxy, the cult taught that salvation was only by grace through faith. On the other hand, heavenly rewards were promised only to those obedient to the Word (as interpreted by the cult), and the wrath of God seemed to still dangle heavily over our heads.

We were not brainwashed. We were just following a person who claimed to “explain the Bible as it really is.”

How is that different from what you may find, thankfully on a much lower scale, in many churches today?

“Most churches don’t do violence to our conscience or common sense.” Don’t they? Even if we want to ignore the crazy scandals most of us have heard from friends attending mainstream churches, what about the everyday parent who totally alienates his children by insisting on a strict form of pietism at home that will make him or her M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 5

accepted by the rest of the congregation, without bothering to see if those regulations are true biblical mandates or manmade traditions? What about the way some Christians alienate their friends with a rigid evangelistic message that makes no real sense to them either, but they make no effort to question because it has to be “believed by faith”? What about the countless books, CDs, meetings, and retreats advertised daily for a church addicted to some spiritual inspirational high? What about the evangelists that so many follow to the letter, without “searching the Scriptures daily to see if those things are so”?

The way God took me out of that situation deserves an endless doxology. The process was gradual as I became more and more interested in the lives and writings of other Christians throughout history. I was able to find a copy of a devotional by C. H. Spurgeon and biographies of George Muller and Adoniram Judson. As odd as it may seem, the fact that they could prayerfully, but freely, choose with which denomination they wanted to affiliate came as a surprise to me. For the first time, I believed that I could do the same without being struck from heaven.

Other realizations occurred at the same time. It was as though my eyes were finally opened. Providentially, right then some friends (ex-members) invited my family to stay at their house for a while, and we were able to visit them without ever returning to the cult.

After leaving, I joined a mainstream church and spent countless hours studying. The Internet had just been launched, and I was able to find invaluable information. I really didn’t know what was right or wrong anymore, and I was determined to find out. The most logical source of biblical interpretation seemed to be the historical church, so I went back to the beginning, to the church fathers, Augustine, and especially the Reformers.

After reading of the controversy between Arminian and Calvinist views, I decided to read some of Calvin’s writings and was immediately surprised by their clarity. It was obviously the most scriptural view of all. It was far from being seeker-oriented, and not always pleasing to the ear; but I figured that if I wanted to call myself a Christian, I should stick to purely biblical teachings. At the same time, I still had many questions that needed to be answered.

It was a heart-wrenching time. While struggling to keep my family going, emotionally and financially, after landing with no money in my pockets in a world that had become alien after 20 years of voluntary estrangement (I felt, on a light note, as the character Adam did in the movie Blast from the Past), I embarked on a desperate search for truth.

I questioned and scrutinized every single tenet of my faith, sorting between facts and feelings.

God’s law slashed my heart in all its sharpness as I realized that I could not really blame anyone else for the evil I had done. I found forums online where ex-members were discussing their experiences. Many of them were justly accusing the leaders for terrible deeds that had scarred their lives forever—episodes of child abuse, sexual abuse, deceit, and more. In my case, God had his hand on 3 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

my heart and revealed very clearly that I was, in one way or another, even if indirectly, guilty of the same crimes against others and sins against him. I just could not ease my conscience by labeling myself as a victim.

While the law had done its job, it was harder to find the gospel. Churches swayed between an insistence on a holy life and a bountiful, yet unscriptural, dispensation of easy comfort, based on the forgiving nature of a god that must be at least as nice as we are. Even if I could read the true gospel message in the Scriptures or other writings, it seemed too good to be true—at least for me.

After a while, God led me “by chance” to a small Reformed church almost in my own backyard! There, for the first time I heard the gospel preached week after week, in no uncertain terms, and I had a visible and tangible expression of it in the correct administration of the sacraments. I saw an example of biblical church government, truly founded on Scripture, with a strong system of weights, balances, and accountability that involves the entire congregation, encouraging informed choices and theological awareness in all. I realized that a lack of a scriptural church government and a tolerance (if not an encouragement) of a “lone-ranger Christianity” produces fertile ground for the development of cults, moderate or radical alike.

For the first time, I realized that the Scriptures must be approached with an attitude of humility that allows us to consider the view of other Christians, and particularly of the historical church throughout the ages (as a cult, we believed that we had the only true interpretation of Scriptures—guess who were the 144,000?). I also acquired a particularly keen appreciation for the creeds, catechisms, and confessions that were written to protect the church from heresies such as ours.

The experiences of others who exit a cult are not always as easy as mine, and I credit God for opening a way before my feet. I know of many other people who have left this particular cult in shambles, totally confused, with broken homes. Some have committed suicide and there was recently in the news the story of a murder-suicide by a young ex-cult member. Others have been kidnapped by well-meaning parents who placed them under psychologically violent treatments. Most people, disillusioned by this experience, have abandoned religion altogether.

I am grateful to God for his guidance throughout my life, and even for this experience, which has produced a resiliency that I probably would not have had otherwise.

Besides, the thought of having wasted more than 20 years of my life has caused me to set my life on a higher intensity, working harder than I would have ever worked before in my pursuit of the truth (through a confessional study of Scriptures and attendance to the preaching of the Word and sacraments), and in the truly exciting effort to glorify God and enjoy him forever in unity with the historical militant church as it continues to journey on.

THE NEW SPIRITUALITIES

Protestant Gnosticism Reconsidered BY

PHILIP J. LEE

I

n Against the Protestant Gnostics (1987), I argued that Gnosticism, an ever-recurring heresy within Christianity, was resurfacing in modern guise within North American Protestantism. Two decades later, Gnostic characteristics within Protestant Christianity have reached proportions that I could not have imagined, and have affected the social and political fabric of the United States in ways that I could not have predicted.

From a sociological point of view, there has been in the United States a near triumph of innovative Christianity.

The rapid growth of megachurches, the phenomenal advance of various cults, the success of entertainment religious programming on radio and television—all witness to the self-created energy of a do-it-yourself form of the Christian religion. Anyone familiar with the history of the church and the Gnostic threat to Christian orthodoxy must be aware of the old Gnostic drumbeat of me, me, me resonating across the land. From the halls of Liberty University to the Oval Office itself, this vigorous and creative religion has carried the day.

A moment during the third presidential debate of the 2004 election provides a clear illustration of the contrast between this innovative form of religion and historical Christianity.1 Toward the end of the debate, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer addressed President Bush with these words: “You were asked before the invasion, or after the invasion, of Iraq if you’d checked with your dad. And I believe, I don’t remember the quote exactly, but I believe you said you had checked with a higher authority. I would like to ask you, what part does your faith play on your policy decisions?” Bush responded: First, my faith plays a lot—a big part in my life. And that, when I was answering that question, what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot.

And I do. And my faith is a very—it’s very personal….Somebody asked me one time, ‘Well, how do you know?’ I said, ‘I just feel it.’…When I make decisions, I stand on principle, and the

principles are derived from who I am….The principles that I make decisions on, are part of me, and religion is part of me.

By contrast, Senator Kerry answered the same question by referring to Christ’s summary of the law that he was taught in church and parochial school. Regardless of one’s politics, the justification for different views was radically different and the favorable press favored the president’s passionate inwardness over the senator’s appeal to authority.

Following the debate, the media were almost unanimous in praising President Bush’s response to the question and in ridiculing Senator Kerry’s response. The president, they said, was sincere and passionate about his M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 7

Historical Christian “knowing” would have to do with the stories of Abraham and was so much more acceptable to the popular media Sarah, Moses, David, Ruth, and all the other protagonists (and perhaps later to the electorate) than was of the Old Testament drama, as well as with the centrala traditional statement of faith and how it affects for-Christians story of Jesus, from his birth to his resurethical choices is a cogent example of where we have rection and ascension. Christian knowledge would also come as a culture. include the theological and practical wisdom of the faith while the senator was merely answering the question Epistles, the miraculous history of the earliest church as by rote. Whatever the outcome of the debate had been in recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, and the strange but answer to other questions of the moderator, there was no beautiful poetry of the Apocalypse. Historical Protestantism doubt that the president had won the religious question professes a belief in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit— hands down. as known (revealed) in these various parts of the Bible.

A close look at the contrast between the two answers On the other hand, the knowledge that I have described shows President Bush’s religion to be almost entirely as Gnostic has to do with a special knowledge, a spiritual personal, having to do with a private relationship with insight, which provides access to a given formula for God that goes beyond public scrutiny. He prays a lot, and salvation. If certain ideas are held and certain feelings are his religion is authenticated by his feelings. Although the felt, if one has been “born again” in a manner in harmony president’s answer is, no doubt, sincere, it has very little with a peculiarly North American Christian culture, that connection to what has historically been considered person can be saved. Saving knowledge, according to this Christianity. formula, is not about what God has accomplished, but Even a few decades ago, Protestant Christians might rather about what the believer has accomplished in a have recognized in the senator’s statement a confession psychological and emotional sense. close to the biblical faith. The fact that in 2004 the I pointed out that those two types of knowledge have profession of a private faith was so much more acceptable been present in North American Protestantism for quite to the popular media (and perhaps later to the electorate) awhile, possibly since our European ancestors brought than was a traditional statement of faith and how it affects Christianity to these shores. What I did not realize in 1987 ethical choices is a cogent example of where we have was that Christianity as a “knowledge which saves,” a come as a culture. process for self-redemption, would become the accepted In Against the Protestant Gnostics, I identified several religious norm. What I have described as ordinary characteristics of Gnosticism and contrasted them with the Christianity has, in the eyes of the media and the general characteristics of what I called “ordinary” or “historical” public, become passé and irrelevant. The public reaction to Christianity:2 knowledge that saves versus knowledge of discussion of religion in the 2004 presidential debate is a the mighty acts; an alienated humanity versus the good clear example of this development. creation; salvation through escape versus salvation through pilgrimage; the knowing self versus the believing An Alienated Humanity vs. the Good Creation community; a spiritual elite versus ordinary people; In 1987, I argued that many Protestants on both selective syncretism versus particularity. It is not possible in extremes of the theological spectrum were in despair this article to go into the rationale behind these various about the human condition itself and even about the contrasts. I will, however, demonstrate the changes that creation. I noted that this despair and feeling of alienation have occurred in the past 20 years by looking at them in emanated from a series of tragic events in the 1960s and the context of these same categories.

1970s: the assassinations of a president, a presidential candidate, and a prominent black clerical leader, followed Escapism vs. Pilgrimage by a failed Vietnam War and the scandal of Watergate.

All Christians, of course, depend upon knowledge.

Fourteen years after my book, the destruction of the There is a legitimate Christian gnosis. In 1987, I argued Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, added a new that whereas ordinary Christians consider the essential dimension to that despair. Christian leaders asked openly in knowledge of the faith having to do with YAHWEH’S mighty the various media, “How could a loving God allow this acts in the covenant with Israel and the new covenant unjust calamity to take place—on American soil, to our own with Christ’s church, a large proportion of North American people?” For many Christians, the catastrophe of 9/11 has Christians have been fixated on a knowledge having to do led to the profound fear of a nebulous and spiritualized with a saving formula. enemy—Terror.

The fact that in 2004 the profession of a private faith

3 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

P R O T E S T A N T

Salvation through Escape vs. Salvation through Pilgrimage Despair, alienation, and fear can, quite naturally, lead to the desire to escape. In Against the Protestant Gnostics, I illustrated various ways in which American Protestantism had become escapist—drawn toward the otherworldly, repelled by the limitations not only of sinful existence, but even of human existence itself. I contrasted this escapist tendency with the less compelling concept of Christian pilgrimage. The pilgrimage, which is the “ordinary” Christian’s journey toward salvation, involving “many dangers, toils and snares,” requires a continuing confession that “we have left undone those things which we ought to have done and done those things which we ought not to have done.” The pilgrimage depends on constant nourishment through Word, sacrament, and prayer and recognizes the likelihood that we will end our earthly sojourn not like Elijah, carried off by a band of angels, but like our Lord, crucified (with him), dead and buried.

Rather than longing for an escape from this world, ordinary Christians adhere to the words of the Nicene Creed: we “look for the resurrection of the dead: and the life of the world to come.” Ordinary Protestants recall Jesus’ prayer for his people: “I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one” (John 17:15).

Since 1987, there has been a near triumph of escapist Christianity. For example, Tim La Haye’s Left Behind series of novels about “the Rapture” depicts escape for “bornagain” Christians through a cataclysmic event that whisks them out of this sinful world, leaving nonbelievers behind to cope with airplanes without pilots and automobiles without drivers. The Left Behind series has sold more than 65 million copies, making it the most popular literature on our continent.

La Haye has been well received by and has developed close ties with some prominent Protestant evangelicals such as the late Jerry Falwell, and has even entered the political arena by endorsing Mike Huckabee, an enthusiastic fan of the Left Behind series, in his bid for the Republican nomination for president. What had at one time been a minority position among Protestants—a radical millennialism, with its dread-filled expectation of impending doom—has now become quite respectable in certain Protestant circles.

Left Behind is only one of the many escape routes being offered to Christians in our time. For example, popular television evangelist Benny Hinn teaches Christians how to be happy and how to make money. Creflo and Taffi Dollar offer their TV and radio audiences “blessing explosions” and methods for creating the successful lives they want.

These escape routes are ways to avoid the pilgrimage—the hard tasks demanded by the disciples of the cross.

The Knowing Self vs. the Believing Community In 1987, I noted that in North America an emphasis on the individual’s response to the gospel was replacing

G N O S T I C I S M

R E C O N S I D E R E D

historical Protestantism’s focus on the gospel itself. John Calvin warned against the tendency “to combine a man’s thoughts so much to himself,” refusing to look outside of himself in faith to God and to his neighbor in love (Theological Treatises XX, p. 228).

Whereas, in 1987, I recognized a self-centered faith as a growing phenomenon, 20 years later, the Gnostic religion of self appears to have taken over both right-wing and leftwing religious camps in North America. The religious right, which has had an overwhelming influence on the political scene in the U.S., is concerned entirely with the individual’s “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” The resulting political thrust has been one of very little social and environmental concern.

On the other hand, among left-wing Protestants, there seems to be a general consensus that “religion is a very personal thing,” having nothing to do with corporate life or public behavior. Christianity is acceptable so long as it is unrecognizable and innocuous, so personal that it does not show. The only authentic society for this religious camp is a secular society. Thus, contemporary Protestantism, at both ends of the spectrum, appears to have become a faith that is all about me.

A Spiritual Elite vs. Ordinary People In Against the Protestant Gnostics, I pointed out in an affinity between ancient Gnosticism’s elitist tendency and that found among certain Protestants. I especially noticed a spiritual elitism in those who separated themselves from ordinary Christians by claiming they had been “born again” in a way not covered by ordinary baptism. I also pointed to an intellectual elitism among some liberal Protestants, who put themselves in a more respectable category than ordinary Christians who still rely on the biblical stories, the creeds, and the sacraments of the ancient church.

One of the most alarming developments of the last two decades has been the near triumph of this elitist expression of Christianity. What has changed is that among the media and in the popular consciousness, this form of religion is the only form that matters. Those who insist on describing themselves as born again in a fashion different from ordinary baptized Christians have now become synonymous in the popular mind with the “real” Christians. Sometimes they are called “church-goers,” as if no one else goes to church, or “believers,” as though no one else believes.

Another elitist group, those who attack traditional Christianity—who consider themselves far too learned to accept what they consider an outmoded form of the faith—is also taken seriously. The Jesus Movement, Bishop Spong, and various Gnostic enthusiasts among feminist theologians are also taken seriously. What does not even appear on the radar screen of the contemporary North American consciousness is the ordinary historic faith of ordinary believers.

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 9

We have on our side the strong weapons of faith. All we are lacking is the courage such thing as heresy; my belief, so long as it is sincere, and the trust to employ them.

These are not selfis as acceptable as the next fellow’s. If The DaVinci Code created weapons; they are claims that the New Testament is a fraudulent document gifts from the Lord to his church. This struggle is not about us versus them; it is invented by the early church for its own nefarious about the glory of God. Our weapons are still the Holy purposes, well, why not?

Scriptures, the preaching of the Word, the ministration of the sacraments, the historic Selective Syncretism vs. Particularity creeds, pastoral care for the faithful, the communion of My argument 20 years ago was that when religion saints, and prayer. becomes a do-it-yourself thing centered on the self, How to employ these weapons in an age of Gnostic almost anything goes. When the particularity of the Cross ascendancy is another question. But recognition of the has been replaced by Gnostic day dreams, all sorts and formidable opposition we face would seem to be the first conditions of faith and action take over. I said then that in task. ■ North America we were moving toward a spiritual mélange in which almost any ingredient is allowed. What is not allowed would be a Christian faith based on the Philip J. Lee is a pastor and theologian who has written particularity of Jesus Christ the Lord: his birth, his life, his numerous articles for theological journals and is the author of teachings, his healings, his death on Golgotha, his Against the Protestant Gnostics (Oxford University Press, resurrection, and his ascension to the Father. That 1987). Serving now in interim pastor roles, he is a retired particularity, what St. Paul called the “scandal of the Presbyterian parish minister at the Church of St. John and St. Cross” (Gal. 5:11), would not be tolerated within a neoStephen in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.

Gnostic faith.

As it turns out, the development I described in 1987 WORKS CITED has all but come to pass over 20 years later. We see an Calvin, John. Theological Treatises XX. In Library of endorsement by the religious right of preemptive war Christian Classics, ed. and trans. J. K. S. Reid. Philadelphia: and even of inhumane torture, positions diametrically Westminster Press, 1954. opposed to those of historical Christianity. On the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Third BushGnostic left, we see not only a disdain for the New Kerry Presidential Debate (13 October 2004), http://www.

Testament account of the life of Jesus, but also a debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html. challenge to the very historical existence of Jesus. At the Lee, Philip J. Against the Protestant Gnostics. New York: same time that we have experienced a rejection of the Oxford University Press, 1987. particularity of a Christ-centered gospel and its inescapable demands on its followers, we have ENDNOTES 1 witnessed the promotion of the more attractive, selfI am using a section from the debate to illustrate this centered gospels of second-century Gnosticism. We are contrast, not to make a political statement.

2 told that the gospels of Mary, Thomas, and Judas correct I use the words “ordinary” and “historical” to describe the constricting, Christ-focused agenda of ordinary Protestants who follow a classic or traditional form of this Christianity. faith. The term “orthodox,” meaning “proper praise,” is The present orthodoxy seems to be that there is no such probably a better word. “Orthodox,” however, has a connotation of rigidity and of the static that I do not wish thing as heresy; my belief, so long as it is sincere, is as to convey. acceptable as the next fellow’s. If The DaVinci Code claims that the New Testament is a fraudulent document invented by the early church for its own nefarious purposes, well, why not? Syncretism has apparently carried the day.

All this may sound terribly discouraging for ordinary Christians. Perhaps the picture I am painting is too dark. I hope so. To my mind, however, the scene is discouraging only if it goes unrecognized or if ordinary Christians give up the struggle.

The present orthodoxy seems to be that there is no

4 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

REQUIRED READING FOR 21ST CENTURY CHRISTIANS modern

reformation

m u st-r e ad s

Readings on The New Spiritualities The American Religion

by Harold Bloom Simon & Schuster, 1993 Oprah’s prophet, Bloom foretold of the age to come when those who teach Sunday school would clamor for Deepak Chopra and Eckhart Tolle. His work celebrates the emergence of the Gnostic religious impulse in American “Christianity” and he doesn’t hesitate to call attention to it within mainstream religious groups. This is not a book for the fainthearted, but it does help us to see ourselves and evangelicalism through Gnostic eyes.

Early Christian Doctrines

by J. N. D. Kelley Continuum International, 2000 The New Spiritualities are setting themselves against the foundational beliefs of all Christians everywhere and at every time.

Kelley’s survey of “mere orthodoxy” is a helpful primer for those interested in what sets Christianity apart from its competitors, and he reveals how the doctrines under attack today were formed under fire in the early church.

Capturing the Pagan Mind: Paul’s Blueprint for Thinking and Living in the New Global Culture

Defence of the Truth: Contending for the Faith Yesterday and Today

by Michael Haykin Evangelical Press, 2004 Using six examples from history, Haykin shows modern Christians how to engage those who scoff at biblical history by appealing to some of Christianity’s earliest apologists.

by Peter Jones B&H Publishing Group, 2003 The author (a contributor to this issue) provides the church with a plan for engaging paganism (in Paul’s day or our own) by emphasizing a return to the uniqueness of the gospel message that transformed the ancient world.

SEE ALSO:

Christianity and Its Competitors: The New Faces of Old Heresy by James McGoldrick (Christian

The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought?

Focus)

by Ronald Nash (P&R Publishing)

Remembering the Christian Past by Robert Louis Wilken (Eerdmans)

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham (Eerdmans)

The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities by Darrel Bock (Thomas Nelson)

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 1

REVIEWS wh at ’s

b e i n g

r ead

A Place for Grace

I

t has been a long time since I have read a book that has portrayed such an

In our brokenness we innately desire to be comforted and loved. important topic in such a progressive manor. I found myself stopping numer- In our desire for love we find insufficiency. In our insufficiency ous times through the first 50 pages wondering if I had understood what the we find a deep need. Zahl stirs up these reminders as he sets forth author was saying— the healing to our brokenness, the one who is sufficient, not because this is a and the love we long for. “I believe the New Testament hard book to read, but sees Jesus as the offender of custom and tradition and the because it was so refreshembodiment of forgiveness to all who have broken the ing. I found myself law. He comes to fulfill the law (Matthew 5.17) by reflecting on the truthquenching the attack on the human spirit that the law ful yet raw way Paul unleashes through the ferocity of its diagnosis….Only the Zahl articulates his atonement could make the death of Christ understandable points on the law, and palatable to his students and followers….The climax of grace, and practical livPaul’s thought on the law and its relation to Christ occurs ing. With edgy and unin Romans 10.4: Christ is the end of the law so that there conventional terminolmay be righteousness for everyone who believes. What ogy, Zahl’s straightforPaul means is that Christ’s death signals the end of the law ward approach to in its power to accuse” (15). explaining the origin Zahl proceeds to take his readers through a tour of the and application of the law as it unfolds in society. Comparing and expounding law and grace are both on the law and society, motivation of loss, everyday life, informative and invigand its curse, he demonstrates the very depth and presorating. Context is key ence of the law. He leaves the reader in a state of underwith this book. This standing and defeat as we juxtapose the human condition Grace In Practice: A and the law. After unleashing the law that “reduces its Theology of Everyday Life work operates as a cohesive unit, and object, the human spirit, to despair” (29), Zahl subtly

by Paul F. M. Zahl each chapter builds begins to introduce the transforming concept of grace. upon the other formEerdmans, 2007 Carrying the reader through the traditional definitions of 267 pages (paperback), $18.00 ing a thesis on grace grace and then in his practical undertones resting on the that is long overdue. foundational truth that grace is one-way love (1 John 4:9), Therefore, it is exceedingly important that the reader he notes that grace is independent of its response but often explores the entire piece. begets it. Grace is not just in the title of this book, it satuZahl’s first and most lengthy chapter sets the foundarates every concept in every chapter: “This book is an tional stage in which we not only define the law, but we attempt to let the grace-word of the New Testament, and see a more vivid picture as to why we need grace. Zahl of Paul, be heard again. The center of Paul’s idea is grace; spends much of the first chapter hashing out the difficulit meets a need that never changes, and in itself never ties of the law/grace relationship. The law, which is a perchanges” (47-48). fect gift from God, was not the solution that man needed.

With a foundational understanding laid out, Zahl then Zahl reminds us that there is nothing inherently wrong goes on to explore four rich theological pillars of grace: with the law; it is our sinful inability to adhere to the law anthropology, soteriology, Christology, and the Holy Spirit that drives us toward something more. “Jesus recognized and the Holy Trinity. With each pillar, Zahl pulls both the the inability of the law, which shows us exactly who we theological and practical implications of grace to the foreought to be, to provide its own fulfillment. Christ did not front. He emphasizes the necessity of Christ’s substitutionsay the law is bad. He said instead the law is wholly good. ary atonement and our total depravity. He also promotes But most importantly, he said that the law is no skilled the unpopular view of man having an un-free will. He mechanic. It cannot fix what is broken” (12). defends his position stating that “a theology of everyday

4 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

life depends on the un-free will. If the will is free, then we do not need someone to save us. We may need a helper, but we do not need a savior” (104).

After building a theological foundation, Zahl turns his attention—and the rest of the book—to a pastoral, practical, and real life approach to grace. Chapters 3 through 6 are filled with exposition on grace in families, society, the church, and the culmination of grace in everything.

Whether it is a political philosophy, the family structure, or the church universal, we can ask the question “Where does grace fit in?” Zahl sheds light toward the answers and candidly expresses frustration with our current society. It does not take long to understand that embracing a gracefilled life is something that scares both the church and the world. Zahl wraps up by pointing out that “neither environment (church or the world) is safe. This is why I wish to stand in only one specific place, even if it continually moves. This is the place of God’s one-way love and its imputing accuracy, which rescues the human situation in every case where it is given play. It witnesses no sector of human affairs immune to the disease, but also none immune to the cure” (257). This book is rich, practical, challenging, and encouraging. It breathes new life into the timeless truth of grace. Most importantly, this book is honest and upfront on a crucial issue.

Denise M. Malagari is an editor for the online magazine, Reformation21.

Called to Serve edited by Michael Brown Reformed Fellowship, 2007 280 pages (paperback), $15.00 Until a pastor has trained officers, he may entertain the assumption, like I did, that there is plenty of quality material out there to choose from, and that the real challenge will be narrowing the stack down to one or two helpful resources.

When one actually begins searching for books or manuals on officer training, however, one quickly realizes how slim the pickings are.

Called to Serve is an excellent resource not only for training officers in Reformed and Presbyterian churches, but also for expanding one’s own understanding of the New Testament’s teaching on the subject of ministers, elders, and deacons. Its chapters address topics such as the nature, qualifications, and duties of elders and deacons, a defense of infant baptism, a syn-

opsis of Calvin’s view of the Eucharist, a guide for family visitation, and a call for all elders to know, love, and defend Reformed doctrine.

The book is written by and for officers in churches within the Dutch Reformed tradition, which to some degree limits its relevance for people in Presbyterian denominations. When a PCA or OPC minister comes to the two chapters entitled “Our Reformed Heritage I: Early Reformation to the Synod of Dort” and “Our Reformed Heritage II: The Synod of Dort to the Present Day,” it may be wise to supplement this material with a history of British Calvinism.

Another way the “Dutchness” of this volume comes to the fore is in the way editor Michael Brown tackles the question in the chapter so titled, “Should We Allow Baptists to Join a Reformed Church?” Coming from the Continental tradition, Brown answers the question in the negative, insisting that to do so necessarily entails the elders denying their confessional vows for the sake of the scruples of a single family. On the other hand, Presbyterians argue that, while the minister of the Word is called to persuade his people that infant baptism is the biblical position, the church should not set the bar for membership in the visible church higher than Jesus sets it for membership in the invisible church. What makes this chapter germane for those who may initially disagree with the Continental position is that it forces them to wrestle with the tensions inherent in their practice of allowing Baptists to join our churches. Though the two sides may never come to embrace the same position, the discussion and debate that such a topic will inevitably precipitate will not only provide healthy stimulus for the mind, but it will aid potential elders in navigating such issues with conviction and pastoral warmth and sensitivity.

Michael Horton’s chapter entitled “What Our Service Should Look Like” is especially helpful, as it includes a discussion of the relationship between the theology of our churches and the style employed to communicate it. Style, Horton argues, is never neutral but should be consistent with the character of God in his farness and nearness, his transcendence and immanence, his holiness and humility in Christ. Horton also includes a brief explanation of the difference between an element and a circumstance in worship. The former is a component of worship that must be commanded by God in his Word in order to be included in our services, while the latter can be left up to wisdom and the light of nature. May a church use drama to communicate the gospel? Indeed not, since that would entail a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship by adding an element to the service that Scripture does not mandate.

May we meet at 10:00 a.m. and use hymnals instead of an overhead projector? Of course, since these decisions are circumstantial and as such do not require explicit biblical warrant. Also helpful in Horton’s chapter is his rebuttal of the argument that an insistence on a robust liturgy involves trading in the spontaneity and free-flowing worship of the New Covenant with a stifled and scripted Old M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 3

Covenant model. Ironically, Horton points out, the socalled “Spirit-led” worship common in many evangelical contexts is every bit as scripted as that which occurs in Reformed churches, and it is every bit as “shadowy” as anything offered under the Old Covenant. In fact, it may be even more so, since Old Covenant worship clearly prefigured Christ, which is more than can be said of much of what passes as worship in many churches today.

A chapter that this volume lacks is one devoted to an explanation and defense of the “three-office” view of New Testament ministry. In leading potential officers through this volume, I found that the brief explanation of this position in chapter 1 caused more questions than it answered.

For my own part, I would have preferred a more detailed defense of the idea that the qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are primarily directed toward ministers and not elders (a statement that is hardly obvious on the surface). I acknowledge that the three-office view is the historical Reformed position, as well as my own, but in a day in which the idea that the minister has the authority to open and shut the kingdom sounds Roman and authoritarian, an entire chapter devoted to this topic would certainly have been warranted.

Despite this book’s shortcomings, which are few and far between, it is a much-needed resource whose strengths far outweigh its weaknesses. As a church planter in the Presbyterian Church in America in the process of training elders and deacons, and after having searched far and wide for quality curricula, I was thrilled to come across this wellwritten and accessible volume. I commend it highly.

Jason J. Stellman is pastor of Exile Presbyterian Church in Woodinville, Washington.

Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theory

by Roger E. Olson Baker Academic, 2007 240 pages (paperback), $19.99 Charles Grandison Finney (1792–1875)—the godfather of much of modern evangelical theology, piety, and practice— attacked the establishment by ecclesiastical authority of a confessional standard as no better than the papacy (see Charles Finney’s Systematic Theology, new expanded edition, edited by 4 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

Dennis Carroll [Bethany House, 1994], p. 3). In the tradition of Finney’s jeremiad against ecclesiastical or theological boundaries comes Roger Olson’s latest work, Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology. His goal is to move evangelical theology “beyond the limitation of conservative theology without rejecting everything about it” (16), although it is quite unclear exactly what there is in conservative evangelical theology that Olson actually wishes to retain.

Olson introduces and summarizes his case with unmistakable clarity, though not always with the same degree of charity, in the first chapter (on which chapter this review shall concentrate), and proceeds to flesh out his thesis in subsequent chapters explaining the postconservative “style” of evangelical theology. His argument is that “it is possible to be more evangelical by being less conservative” (7). He frames his argument within the conservative/liberal paradigm. As Olson sees things, the adjectives “conservative” and “evangelical” have been synonyms long enough. He wants to divorce the two. By “postconservative” he means postfoundational—which, according to Olson, means anti-rationalist and anti-propositionalist views of revelation and “post inerrancy” (13, 125–152, 153–181).

Even though he works within the established two-party interpretation of modern Christianity, he is clear that he does not want postconservatives (e.g., Clark Pinnock and Brian McLaren) to be regarded as “liberal” (29). What is “evangelical” theology? According to Olson, “evangelical theology is theology done by an evangelical theologian” and “an evangelical theologian is someone who claims to be evangelical, is generally regarded as working within the evangelical network, and adheres to David Bebbington’s four cardinal virtues of evangelical faith plus one” (38; the four virtues are conversionism, biblicism, activism, and crucicentrism).

That fifth point is an intensified allegiance to the Bible as the sole norm of theology (43).

He decries the attempt by evangelicals in the late 1980s to reach a consensus on the doctrine of inerrancy, that by functionally setting “human statements on the same plane as Scripture they become a written magisterium placed on a pedestal above reconsideration even on the basis of fresh and faithful biblical scholarship” (19). “What this amounts to,” he continues, “is a traditionalism that enshrines Protestant orthodoxy as it was developed in the postReformation period by Protestant Scholastics and especially by the Old Princeton School theologians in the nineteenth century as an incorrigible intellectual content of authentic evangelical faith” (44).

He argues that the essence of Christianity is “transformation” not information. The conservative evangelicals, with whom he is conducting his argument, have made Christianity too cognitive and intellectual (69). The postconservatives want a transcendent source of authority for “believing and living,” but rather the “permanent and identifying essence” of evangelical Christianity is said to be

“transforming experience” (73, 79). So central is religious experience to his definition of evangelicalism that “apart from transforming experience (conversional piety) authentic Evangelicalism does not exist even where doctrinal correctness is present” (84). By this Olson means that Christianity is chiefly an experiential religion. He concedes that there is a formal similarity between the postconservative program and that of the father of liberalism, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), but the difference seems to be that the postconservatives are still supernaturalists.

The task of evangelical theology is to always be completing an incomplete theology (95–123). In other words, the “semper reformanda” determines the meaning of “ecclesia reformata.” The heroes of the story are the advocates of limited inerrancy, open theism, a “relational” (rather than propositional) doctrine of God, social Trinitarianism, anyone revising the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, and Tom Wright’s reconstruction of the doctrine of justification to name but a few (see pp. 121–123, 209–234).

His bêtes noires are “paleo-orthodox” writers such as Tom Oden and D. H. Williams, and “conservative” evangelicals such as Charles Hodge, C. F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Millard Erickson, R. C. Sproul, Don Carson, and David Wells. Even Modern Reformation is mentioned as a source of repression (49). He lists ten vices of conservative evangelicals: It is rigid, overly propositional, traditionalist, defensive, exclusivist, narrow, overly suspicious of modernity and postmodernity, ahistorical (which is quite tricky given their traditionalism), quasi-fundamentalist, and gripped by the fear of theological liberalism (23–26, 98–105).

Olson is correct when he says that modern evangelicalism (since the 1750s) has been an unstable compound of pietism and colonial Puritanism (48). This volume is symbolic of the victory of (radical) pietism over Puritanism.

Because modern evangelical theology lacks an ecclesiology and therefore any confessional boundaries, and because Donald Dayton is probably right about the inherently subjectivist nature of modern evangelicalism, it appears that today the only actual universal among self-identified evangelicals is that they have all had an immediate encounter with the risen Christ. For Olson, this seems to be the only nonnegotiable doctrine.

One issue that is unclear is whether Olson will have evangelicals continue to regard “conservative” (e.g., Don Carson) and “paleo-orthodox” (e.g., Tom Oden) theologians as fellow evangelicals or whether he is reading them out of the movement. At one point Olson says he wants evangelicalism to be a “big tent” and, as noted, at another defines the adjective “evangelical” so as to make it virtually impossible for many to remain associated with it. It seems that he wants the evangelical “big tent” to continue, but he wants the postconservatives to control the tent flaps and to serve as ringmasters. That this is so is demonstrated by the fact that, in this volume, Olson studiously ignores Michael Horton’s thoughtful critique of the “big tent” metaphor. Since Olson replied to Horton’s argument in 2001, it is not as though Olson was unaware of this

engagement; yet there is no mention of the dialogue in this account. Horton suggests a more politically neutral “village-green” metaphor for evangelicalism. In this metaphor, “evangelicalism” would serve as a place where folks from different ecclesiastical traditions with a common interest in the Bible might gather and talk. After all, no one (except perhaps the homeless) actually lives on the village green.

In Olson’s version of evangelical theology, there is no “ecclesia reformata.” In this respect, he remains a child of the conservative evangelicalism from which he is running away. Like the neo-evangelicals of the 1940s and 1950s, his is also a church-less (and therefore confession-less) theology. The original intent of “reformata” in the slogan to which Olson appeals was to capture the idea of a fixed body of doctrines that constituted the “evangelical” faith.

Olson, however, rejects this very idea. For Olson, any attempt to fix a doctrine of Scripture, God, man, Christ, or salvation, is mere traditionalism. In Olson’s version of the slogan, “Reformed” means “radically revised along radically subjectivist lines.” The original intent of the second clause of the slogan, “semper reformanda” was to call evangelicals to continually recover those core doctrines. In Olson’s hands, however, “always reforming” becomes a call to jettison tired orthodoxies.

As Bob Dylan says, “You’re gonna have to serve somebody.” Those evangelicals who remain unconvinced by Olson’s appeal to religious subjectivism, but who have not committed themselves to the Protestant confessions, will ultimately have to choose whom they will serve. They cannot have two masters. Either they will serve Roger Olson’s religious subjectivism or they will serve God’s Word as confessed by the magisterial Reformation. If it helps one to decide: it was the sixteenth-century Protestants, and not the Anabaptist subjectivists, who mediated to us the “evangel” that would seem to be of the essence of being an “evangelical.” Thomas Muntzer rejected the Protestant doctrine of Scripture as a dead letter and the Protestant doctrine of justification as dead orthodoxy.

Though Olson agrees with Muntzer on Scripture, he inconsistently continues to affirm some elements of historic evangelicalism such as justification by grace alone, through faith alone. In this case, however, it is an act of sheer voluntarism. There is nothing inherent to Olson’s version of evangelical theology that necessitates that anyone agree with him as to what the gospel is or what must be said about it. One can reject justification, sola gratia, sola fide, and the substitutionary atonement and the catholic dogma of the Trinity and remain comfortably within Olson’s “big tent.” The question for evangelicals is this: why would one want to spend time in such a tent?

R. Scott Clark is associate professor of historical and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido).

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 5

A Quest for More: Living for Something Bigger Than You

by Paul David Tripp New Growth Press, 2007 216 pages (paperback), $15.99 Paul Tripp begins A Quest for More with a declaration and a question: “God has given you the gift of his Son, not to make your little kingdom successful, but to welcome you to a much better kingdom. Now what in the world does that mean?” In other words, Quest is “a meditation on what Jesus meant when he called us to ‘seek first his kingdom’” (Preface). It becomes clear early on in the book that by “meditation” Tripp means to provide us with anything but the quaint devotional pearls such a word usually connotes. Instead, he seeks to drive us to plumb the darkest depths of our hearts, but only so that great treasure might be found in the end.

The quest that Tripp says we are all on is our desire for transcendence, which is a good desire because God placed it in us. Our need for transcendence is an aspect of being created in God’s image. The Bible word for this transcendence/desire is “glory.” One of the implications of the fall is that humans continually seek transcendence in anything but its true source: God himself. The source of all true glory is God himself, but our connection with his glory is made through our earthly Commitments such as stewardship, community, and truth-seeking. Ultimately, true transcendence/glory is found only in living for Christ’s kingdom.

For Tripp, living for the kingdom isn’t just a “spiritual” exercise; it has practical implications for everyday life. For example, he asks how differently we might react in frustrating relationships if we had transcendent values in mind. Would we be so quick to speak harshly to the neighbor with the noisy kids if our first concern was for being salt and light in the world? In the first half of A Quest for More, Tripp asks many such questions. His goal is for us to see that sin has driven us to turn everything into what he calls a “little kingdom need” (the “little kingdom” being the kingdom of self). Our desire for more (i.e., transcendence) is twisted by sin into turning every “want” into a “need.” All of these needs then block out true transcendence, found only in needing what God says we need.

Tripp understands that we will never appreciate the good news without first accepting the bad. The bad news he wants us to acknowledge is that grasping after little kingdom values isn’t just “naughty,” it robs us of the great and glorious big kingdom existence for which God made us. As C. S. Lewis put it, it is settling for mud puddles when 4 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

the beautiful sea is in plain view. Tripp also describes this tendency as “shrinking.” We shrink the grand kingdom of God into the small borders of our own “civilization of self.”

The good news, Tripp assures us, is grace found through the cross of Christ, which frees one to pursue “Jesus-focused living,” a life where both gratitude and groaning are normal.

The last portion of A Quest for More explores the characteristic traits of such a life: forgiveness, longing for Jesus, sacrifice, being angry with God instead of at God, and hope.

A Quest for More is a book about transcendence that transcends its own genre. Among the plethora of current books promising a sense of purpose or the “best life now,” Quest stands out because it is saturated in the gospel. Tripp neither plays lightly with our sin nor its remedy. As he always does, he allows the gospel to cut deep into the idols of our hearts, but only so as to open a slit through which he pours the good news that Christ sets sinners free, not only from the world but from themselves. In that place we find a “more” that never ends but always satisfies.

Mark Traphagen is an M.Div. student at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) where he also manages the seminary online bookstore and is a contributor to the Gospel and Culture Project.

POINT OF CONTACT: BOOKS YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE READING The Gathering

by Anne Enright Grove Press, 2007 272 pages (paperback), $14.00 Commuting back and forth to Center City Philadelphia by train, I notice many people absorbed in reading. Beyond the daily newspaper consumers, there are a host of book readers. Unfortunately, judging by the book jackets, too many are indulging in bodice-ripping romances or the “Find Mr. Right and Never Have to Work Again” (or commute by train) variety. And then there’s a slim group of serious fiction readers.

The man to my right, as I scribble notes, is in the latter category. He is finishing A Pair of Blue Eyes by Thomas Hardy.

Why do we read fiction? Many would say to explore a

world different from our own. Others long to meet richly drawn characters with whom they can identify. Still others seek to be reminded of old truths expressed in fresh ways.

Anne Enright’s 2007 Man Booker Prize-winning novel and Amazon Books best-seller, The Gathering, succeeds in all of these ways. Yet the most memorable feature of this book may well be the beautiful writing—sentence after sentence.

As a writer, Enright delights and excels at her craft.

Don’t expect The Gathering, however, to delight in content. For starters, the book’s title refers to the assembling of adult siblings from a large Irish family, back to their childhood homestead in Dublin for their brother’s wake.

Bleaker yet, Brother Liam was an alcoholic who took his life by putting rocks in his pockets and walking out to sea.

The story is told by Veronica Hegarty, a 39-year-old former journalist married to a financier, who informs us that she had the closest relationship in the family to Liam. Hers is a distinctive and memorable voice. This first person point of view provides a deeply textured interiority and intimacy on every page.

After being the first in the family to hear of Liam’s suicide, Veronica travels to identify her brother’s body. “Here I am on the Brighton Hues, on my way to collect my brother’s body, or view it, or say hello to it, or goodbye, or whatever you do to a body you once loved.”

Veronica reminisces at length about her relationship with her brother. She also reflects on the various roles that give her life meaning: daughter, sister, wife, and mother.

At different times throughout the novel she has a love/hate relationship with each of these roles. Clearly, Veronica is not the easiest person to like. She’s coarse, impatient, and embittered. She’s unhappy with her husband, estranged from various family members, and often indifferent to her two young daughters. Yet we are drawn in to her, her world, and her insights on many issues.

A. L. Kennedy writing about this book in The Guardian said Enright makes “a genuine attempt to stare down both love and death, to anatomise their pains and fears and peculiar pleasures.”

Such a grand ambition attempted by a less gifted author would undoubtedly fail. Yet Enright succeeds through her protagonist Veronica in looking long and hard at love and death, as well as a long-abandoned childhood Catholic faith that provides no comfort.

The grieving sister’s relationship with her now deceased brother drives the plot. Veronica’s mind moves fluidly from the grim realities of the present to the lighter memories of times she and Liam shared as children and the special bond they formed.

Yet there is a great childhood wound that Liam experienced and Veronica tries to come to terms with as an adult.

It is central to the story. In a heartbreaking disclosure, Veronica says: “If I believed in such a thing as confession I would go there and say that, not only did I laugh at my brother, but I let my brother laugh at himself all his life.”

She muses, “Usually, people’s brothers become less important, over time. Liam decided not to do this. He decided to stay important, to the end.”

And in the midst of this dark tragedy, Veronica finds her few comforts in a journey of memory rather than a journey of faith. In fact, in attempting to bury her childhood religion she becomes more haunted by it. Instead of putting that formal religion to rest, she rants against it at many points.

“I don’t go to Mass now, and have passed little of it on to my children, though Rebecca, eight, is going through a pious phase, probably to thwart me...my eight year old has turned her new, fully human face to God,” she says.

Describing her husband, Veronica says, “Tom was taught by the Jesuits....He is completely selfish...but in the poshest possible way.” And commenting on Dublin’s townspeople at Lent, she observes: “They have suffered the ashes and kissed the rood and felt truly, deeply, spiritually, cleaned out.”

Dublin, its people, its language, and landscape are all almost characters in the book. Enright weaves in many Irish expressions that must be read a second time in context to have a clue of what she means. But it’s all part of being drawn in to this unique world.

Gathering, finally, with her family for her brother’s wake, Veronica notes, “We do not always like the people we love—we do not always have that choice.” One might wonder at this point if there is some redemption in the end to make reading this dark book worthwhile. You must read it to find out.

I will say, however, that while reading The Gathering, Veronica was often on my mind. I recalled her wit, intelligence, and totally secular viewpoint about life, death, and family. She came to mind while I was reading a Christmas letter from a Wheaton literature professor. Like Veronica, this professor had lost a brother he loved; and at the time he wondered, “What kind of God rules a world where suffering and death can strike so suddenly, and devastatingly?”

This professor found comfort in stories like Abraham’s relationship with his son Isaac, which foreshadows the gospel story. Abraham took this ram and offered it as a sacrifice “instead of his son.” That the God of Abraham once became a child seems almost beyond imagining; but so it was, for the Word was made flesh and dwelled among us.

No doubt, the many Veronica Hegartys with whom we come in contact would find these sentiments naïve—or worse. They question God’s existence, and if he does exist, what could we possibly have done to need the sacrifice of his son for our salvation? Yet even Veronica states a profound truth when facing her brother’s wake: “There is something wonderful about a death, how everything shuts down, and all the ways you thought you were vital are not even vaguely important.” She sees the fleeting quality of life and how humbled we are in the face of death.

We need to feel the pain of the Veronicas of this world who have no comfort in life or in death that they would come to know the God of all comfort.

Ann Henderson Hart lives in Philadelphia and is a regular contributor to Modern Reformation.

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 8 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 7

FINAL THOUGHTS f r o m

t h e

d e s k

of

the

editor-in-chief

How Shall We Then Pray?

R

ealizing that this issue has been weighted toward critique, I thought that some

so that we will understand God better and hear his of our readers might be asking, “So what should we be doing in terms of spiri- commands and promises more clearly. The goal is tual disciplines and growth?” not to empty our minds of “theology,” as some explicThere seems to be a common view even in more conitly suggest today (in a more Buddhist type of spirituality fessional Protestant circles that we do a decent job with than medieval mystics would have endorsed), but is to defending doctrine, but if you want spirituality you have feed our hearts with God’s Word so that we can be united to go elsewhere: Roman Catholic writers like Thomas to Christ and his body in faith and serve our neighbors in Merton or evangelicals like Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, love. The Spirit works this Word into us—from the outand numerous others. Almost everything that is advocatside in, in order to draw us out of ourselves to God, his ed as “spirituality” or “spiritual disciplines” today is private church, and his world. We do not know what God is like, and focuses on the inner life of the individual, but what he has done to elicit our response, or what kind of Christianity is wildly, unashamedly, thoroughly public and response he requires, until he tells us. And he has told us focuses on Christ’s historical work and the way that he in his Word, not in private revelations. So even when we comes to us by his Spirit—not through private revelations do look within ourselves, it is to recognize our sin and misor subjective experiences, but through ordinary human ery, so that with Paul at the end of Romans 7 we will be language, water, bread, and wine. God comes to us in provoked to look outside of ourselves for relief. This does Jesus Christ by his Spirit outside of our reason and experinot mean that we should not be cheered by the experience. His visitation throws us off balance, surprising us ence, longings, and genuine repentance that the Spirit is instead of simply soothing us or confirming our piety. working within our hearts, but that this is always secondSo when someone asks us about our spirituality or ary to the external Word that produces genuine experipiety, we typically talk about the public ministry of preachence and transformation in the first place. ing and sacrament as well as prayer, Bible reading, cateIf we are seeking to ascend to God from the realm of chism, and singing Psalms and hymns at home and at public, material, concrete, covenantal history to gaze on church. When the Westminster divines said that “God God’s eternal majesty, Reformation piety will seem pretty blesses the reading but especially the preaching of the thin. However, if we are sinful believers who need conWord as a means of grace,” they were highlighting this stantly to have our minds renewed by the Word of a God point. In a covenantal perspective, God works from the who descends to us, we will gratefully receive the gifts that outside in, from that which God accomplished for us and Christ delights to give us where and through the means outside of us to that which he performs within us and that he has promised to deliver them. through us, from the public to the personal, from what has happened in the past to what is happening in the present.

When we follow the opposite direction, we’re swimming Michael Horton is editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation. upstream—against the current of God’s gracious condescension to sinners.

When we are first of all recipients of God’s public, external, declaratory work, we return to our homes filled with faith and therefore with the fruit of the Spirit. God’s good gifts spill over into our family life, where we serve our nearest neighbors with God’s Word and intercede for their needs as well as for those of our wider circles of neighbors.

We sing God’s Word and mine its riches together. Even our private prayer and Bible reading are fed by these communal streams.

When we engage in private activities like Bible reading and prayer, singing or reading a good Christian book, it is

4 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G