The process by which things that might be normal and good for a teenage spiritually come to be accepted and even idealized for all ages.

He’s making a lot of the same observations that Reformed critics have been making for quite some time, though perhaps more tempered. He recognizes that some of these youth-targeted methods are appropriate for youth, yet they make a poor template for adults. His criticisms are sound — the immaturity and emotional baggage that has been wrought; yet, he claims that without this juvenilization the churches in America would be empty (hyperbole of course), because American culture at large has become adolescent and immature. The churches are tracking with this cultural shift. So, I’m interested to see if Bergler offers any proposals in the book for how to overcome this immaturity without emptying the churches (i.e., the fear among evangelicals of America becoming like Europe).

Unfortunately, the interviewer is not, ummm, my favorite.

The directing of attention away from self and toward God is necessary and good, but there is a next step of directing attention toward one’s neighbor, especially those who are not beloved. We are to imitate God’s calling of those who are not beloved, “beloved,” through a love that subverts the norms that give attention to the powerful, beautiful, and healthy. That’s the logical next step, if we are true to our Reformed convictions. That, in fact, is the thing that will most aid us in directing our attention away from ourselves. If we stop at the glory of God and don’t take this next step, we will invariably conflate God and self as the object of our attention and affections — which is perhaps more sinister than what the scribes and Pharisees were doing.

I’m sure this is not fair to the whole corpus of Chandler’s sermons. I’d be surprised if his teaching is completely void of this “next step.” Yet, this should be so ingrained in our thinking that it is impossible to give a sermon like the one at Elevation without making this next step. It is what they needed to hear, as a pastoral necessity, not just a dogmatic truth.

Even with this criticism in mind, I highly encourage you to watch the sermon. It is outstanding:

As someone considering ordination in the PCUSA, the latest developments in Orlando will likely have direct consequences for how (if) I pursue ordination in the PCUSA. Things just got complicated, yes, even more complicated. Similar to what Anglican groups have been doing for the last ten years (e.g., the ACNA), evangelicals within the mainline denomination have adopted a multi-tier polity for a new denomination: the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (ECO). In true Presbyterian fashion, they already have the pension plans set out! There will be three levels of membership:

1. affiliate as a “ministry association,” which involves no change in PCUSA membership status and is apparently open to non-PCUSA churches
2. pursue “union membership,” which involves a joint union with the PCUSA and ECO
3. join ECO as a “full member,” which involves leaving the PCUSA

I’m really curious to see how the PCUSA responds. The Fellowship of Presbyterians (the body initiating all of this) is not to be taken lightly. 500 churches were represented in Orlando, with many more in sympathy, and these are some of the strongest churches in the PCUSA, such as First Presbyterian of Orlando (David Swanson) and Menlo Park Presbyterian (John Ortberg), plus my own Westminster Presbyterian of Charlotte. The Huffington Post, not surprisingly, has reduced everything to gay marriage and homophobia, in an ungracious and pathetic representation of Fellowship motives: “Cowardly Lions.” Don Sweeting, the president of RTS-Orlando and an EPC minister, has a far more helpful analysis of the Fellowship and ECO. As my pastor has emphasized over and over, there is no denying that the 10A amendment was a decisive moment for the networking and organizing of evangelicals in the PCUSA, but the amendment was simply a manifestation of something far more disconcerting: the nearly complete disregard for biblical authority in underwriting the amendment. To their credit, many scholars and leaders in the revisionist camp are not even claiming biblical warrant, instead focusing on supposed ambiguities in the text, contextual differences between the ANE and today, and the relative newness of homosexual monogamy and the need to “baptize” homosexual relationships with Christian marriage. To put it another way, would the apostles accept homosexual marriage? No, but that’s neither here nor there, according to the GLBT lobby. That’s where evangelicals fear to tread. I have lots of questions, and few certainties, about homosexuality, but I have to remain captive to the canonical norms, not the fallibility of my experience or wisdom, which is otherwise highly sympathetic and attracted to much that is written in favor of homosexual relationships…Sarah Coakley and Rowan Williams come to mind.

Books:

The Assurance of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin by Randall Zachman (Fortress, 1993). A gracefully written and fascinating historical monograph. Can assurance truly have an objective ground? His conclusions are basically in line with Barth.

The Theology of Schleiermacher by Karl Barth (Eerdmans, 1982).

The Theology of the Reformed Confessions by Karl Barth (WJK, 2002). These lectures, and those on Schleiermacher, were delivered in Göttingen during his first major academic post, following his pastorate at Safenwil. These early lectures are immensely interesting for anyone with even a remote interest in Barth. They have shed a lot of light on my reading of the CD.

Reformed Theology by R. Michael Allen (T&T Clark, 2010). For those who want a higher level introduction to Reformed theology, respecting both the classical and modern strands, Allen will be my first recommendation. A much-needed book.

The City of God by Augustine (Modern Library, 1993). At times, I really wished that Augustine would just condense the material and move on. The choice morsels are spread throughout.

Seven Days that Divide the World by John C. Lennox (Zondervan, 2011). Lennox is Professor of Mathematics at Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science. This is one of the very few books that I have read with a satisfied sense that the author actually respects both Scripture and the work of scientists. Unlike John Walton (The Lost World of Genesis One), Lennox believes that material, not just functional, claims are being made by the creation narratives, which thus limits the reach of evolutionary explanations, especially in regard to the origin of humans.

Music:

Lonesome, On’ry and Mean by Waylon Jennings (RCA Victor, 1973). I’ve been collecting country albums from the sixties and seventies. So far, this has been my favorite. If you have never given country music a chance, start here.

The Taker/Tulsa by Waylon Jennings (RCA, 1971). This is the beginning of Waylon’s “outlaw” break with Chet Atkins, the famed Nashville producer who created the “Nashville sound” of smooth, pop-sensible country. Despite this fact, Atkins was really quite brilliant, but Waylon needed to expand and produce his own material. It begins here, and it is amazing.

Mama Tried by Merle Haggard (Capitol, 1968). A good place to begin with the great Merle Haggard. The title track, “Mama Tried,” is a favorite.

I’m a Lonesome Fugitive by Merle Haggard (Capitol, 1967). More proof that Haggard was doing outlaw country long before it gained a moniker.

Barton Hollow by The Civil Wars (Sensibility, 2011). These are two of the loveliest voices I’ve ever heard. Even if the songs sucked (they don’t), I would still listen.

Actus Tragicus by J. S. Bach (a long time ago). This has become my favorite piece from Bach. Haunting. Strikingly similar to Jar of Flies by Alice in Chains — I’m probably the only person who makes that connection.

Film:

Forget movies. Television has dominated for the last decade as Hollywood continues to lose all the best writers to the TV networks. I have watched more television series than I care to admit (thanks to Netflix). My favorites this past year have been Dexter and, of course, Friday Night Lights. On the surface, these are two completely different shows with completely different demographics, but it is hard to name any other show with better personalities and character depth than Dexter and FNL. Truly remarkable and utterly addicting. Also, The Tudors was surprisingly well done. Based on the first couple episodes, I thought it was just soap opera and eye candy, but it quickly becomes a nuanced account of civil strife and personal turmoil, with great sensitivity to the religious and moral struggles of the characters. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is captivating in every single episode. His performance is worth the price of the DVD set.

Bear Rinehart’s voice is astounding.

A conflict emerges therefore between the influential high Calvinism of the Beza school and the more historicist Ramist school generally opposed to it. The essence of the Ramist position was to take with a new seriousness a less abstract, less syllogistic, more empirical and practically engaged philosophy of history in the humanist tradition. This was seen in some Calvinist circles as a carrying through of the Protestant reformation into the realm of philosophy, the triumph of historical revelation over deductive philosophy. Over against Beza’s a priori, deductive approach to dogma, Ramus was positing a new a posteriori position which accented salvation history. In turn this was foundational for the growth of federal theology (foedus = covenant) which was rooted in the history of the biblical covenants.

…

Calvin by contrast [to the Beza school] was no speculative metaphysician but biblically speaking a rational empiricist, a dialectical positivist and a psychologist, patiently tracing the acts and works of God as revealed in salvation history and seeking to hold conflicting statements dialectically in tension. Ramism, and its effects upon later Calvinist recoveries of Calvin from the distorting impact of Beza’s approach, represented a legacy that was to form the basis of subsequent Calvinistic humanism, empiricism and pietism. It also contributed an impulse that would in time issue in the Enlightenment’s concern with history. For Moltmann, Petrus Ramus supports a recovery of the doctrine of predestination from its systematisation as a series of decrees and places it within the workings of the Triune God in history in intimate association with the purposes of God achieved through the covenants of God with humanity, with Israel and in Christ.

[Nigel Wright, "Predestination and perseverance in the early theology of Jürgen Moltmann," Evangelical Quarterly 83.4 (2011), 336-337. The article is available as a pdf on EBSCOhost, assuming you have access through a college or seminary account.]

I tend to see these two approaches (rationalistic and empirical-historical) as complementary and not necessarily opposed as Moltmann has it. Moltmann’s reading is likely skewed a bit by his disdain for double predestination. He has to see this doctrine as a rationalistic slip in Calvin’s otherwise historical and practical orientation, whereas I would see it as evidence for my own position that the categories are complementary (with Calvin being a model of this).

I’m not too optimistic that one of these in-between positions will actually triumph, not in my lifetime, but maybe they will serve to lessen the tension in the evangelical community at large.

That may sound like a silly question. Surely the opposite — evangelicals becoming more liberal — is actually what’s happening. Look at Rob Bell! Isn’t he symptomatic of what’s going on in our midst?

No, I’m not convinced. Bell is an anomaly — a fringe figure, with an enthusiastic fan base but still on the fringe. Who, then, truly represents far greater swaths of the evangelical landscape? Names like Al Mohler and John Piper, bloggers like Justin Taylor and Tim Challies, conferences like Desiring God and Ligonier, ministries like Sovereign Grace and Crossway Publishers, and parachurch organizations like The Gospel Coalition, The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and the CBMW. Despite this variety of networks and leaders, there is remarkable cohesion and a monolithic vision. This is where seminarians are being fed, and truly there is a lot of good (spiritual) meat to be found. I even attended last year’s Desiring God conference and largely praised it. At RTS, these ministries are where the students find sustenance, and I’m sure the same can be said for non-Reformed seminaries: TEDS, Southwestern, Gordon-Conwell are full of energetic young men with their ESV Study Bibles, a string of Crossway books on the shelf, and John Piper sermons on their laptop. Once again, there are far worse trends that could beset evangelicalism, so my criticism has to be tempered. In fact, I would say this is a mostly positive trend, as I’ve touched upon before.

Yet, I cannot help but compare this group of leaders and networks to the great leaders and networks of the past, when evangelicalism was forged anew through the likes of J. I. Packer, John Stott, Billy Graham, Harold John Ockenga, Christianity Today, and so on. Plus, I’m thinking of the influential Reformed scholars of this time, such as Meredith Kline and Roger Nicole. How would these men fair today? Not too well I’m afraid.

• Most of them accommodated evolutionary science, to some degree or another.
• Most of them were inclusivists. This includes, most famously, Billy Graham.
• Many of them supported women’s ordination. This includes Roger Nicole at RTS and, with some qualifications, J. I. Packer and John Stott.

I could list more examples, but these are particularly volatile issues among The Gospel Coalition crowd. The Gospel is at stake; the authority of the Bible is at stake — yet, if this is so, how did evangelicalism of yesterday not think so? The answer is, briefly, that the evangelicalism of Graham and Stott grasped the essentials of our faith better. Among our new crop of leaders, this has been lost.