Comments on: Is the FV Anti-Modern?

By: c holdridge

c holdridge — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:17:23 +0000

Thanks for your response. I guess being 32, I may not recognize a “sustained” response to such a thing as modernism. My impression is that the response is possibly “notable” and my sense is that you were not “noting” it. The voices I mentioned are indeed the ones that dragged me from the clutches of American evangelicalism–so they ring more true and sure to me. I hope they prove to exist as such in history as well. Speaking of which, if I and other church leaders knew more history we’d have much more to bring to this discussion. I fully agree with you on that. After all, our ecclesiology kind of comes apart if our doctrine is disconnected from our history. Thanks for that point.

By: barlow

barlow — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:34:10 +0000

I’m not sure that’s the case anymore. Most of the men teaching theology at reformed seminaries were trained in historical theology, not systematics or positive theology. Historical theology is a tricky discipline. In the hands of Muller, I mostly like the results. But in the hands of some, it becomes a way to establish historical point A and historical point anti-A and then to paint oneself as holding the mediating position of the hero of the story. Just look at the theological statements that have been produced lately – chiefly about the Federal Vision and related controversies – the documents do not bear the marks of being written by theologians, and in fact, they are not often written by theologians.

Yes, I am being trained in historical theology, so pot kettle black. Everyone thinks he is the exception to the rule

By: Caleb Stegall

Caleb Stegall — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:18:34 +0000

Chris,

Sure, evangelicals have embraced modernity and Reformed Christianity has embraced evangelicalism (generating a reaction of discontents). Some of those you list are among the discontents. But they hardly constitute a sustained, coherent, and thoroughgoing critique of modernity. This failure is what I suggested was the motivating force at the root of the discontent, even if that motivation is only dimly understood or poorly voiced. One interesting point is that possibly a reason for this is that Reformed Christianity has been dominated by theologians rather than historians. Lots of blind spots there.

By: James Jordan

James Jordan — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:02:05 +0000

I have no idea what the “whole FV thing” is. I and everyone else has said for half a decade that there is no such thing as the FV. You have to tell us what you’re talking about. All we are is some men interested in the Bible and having a PASTOR’s (please note) conference dealing with PASTORAL (please note) matters. The initial controversy arose over our collective desire to bring God’s people into closest possible contact with God’s own rhetorical choices. That’s where the controversy started. That’s what I wrote. I said nothing about how we do theology in non-pastoral contexts. None of us has ever rejected the use of systematic and philosophical language in other contexts.

Beyond this, let me say that we’re all in our 50s, have been doing theology for 30+ years, are all completely Reformed and believe the Canons of Dordt and historical Calvinism, so if we are doing exegesis that you don’t particularly agree with, it’s hardly germane to compare us to sectarians.

By: Dave Reese

Dave Reese — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:39:08 +0000

Mr. Jordan claims that the whole FV thing is a matter of them wanting to use biblical language and Confessional Protestants saying ‘no’ to that desire (or maybe I am missunderstanding you…?). This rings a bit hollow, particularly in light of their inability to explain themselves without resorting to extra-biblical, philospohical language of their own (e.g. Trinitarian, historical/escahatological, etc.) It seems to me that the desire to use different extra-biblical language, than the currently received language of the Confessions, is an indication that they have a different belief that they are desiring to express (thus need to use different words). It is just hard to swallow that you all believe the same conclusions as the Confessions, and yet just want to use different, more biblical, language to say it, when you also use language to express your beliefs which is not found in the Bible.

Furthermore, it would be good to recall at this juncture of the discussion, and particularly concerning this topic of who is being more “biblical”, that Paul rebuked those who tried to take that moral high road, right along with those who said that they were of Paul or Apollos in 1 Cor. 1:12. There were some sectarians claiming that they only followed Jesus…sounds much the same as those who say they only want use biblical words…

Finally, it is claimed that, “those who WROTE those Confessions would be 100% on the side of the FV in this matter.” Not only would I quote Kip Dynamite here, “Like you could even know that…”, but I think that the Catechisms provide a hint at the direction that those who wrote the Confessions thought ministers should go with their pastoral application of their theology.

By: c holdridge

c holdridge — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:25:59 +0000

Gosh, didn’t take long to get behind in this. But I do think there is another layer in Mr. Stegall’s view that ” we should be able to come to some consensus that American Reformed Christianity has, during the past 70 years, made peace with modernity.”

I think the point is that Reformed Christianity has made peace with American evangelicalism; this is the problem. The evangelicals (a group to which many of us have belonged or do belong)have more than made peace with modernism; they have embraced it. But I can’t believe we would forget about Reformed thinkers who have in no way made peace; Packer, Lloyd-Jones, Schaeffer, Bahnsen; heck, Pipa, Horton, et. al. These guys are no pushovers and certainly no lovers of modernism. Why act like they’re absent from the scene?

I just can’t believe that self aware Fvers are saying, “yeah, we’re standing against modernism.” Maybe I’ve had my ears shut to that line.

By: barlow

barlow — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:48:32 +0000

Generalizations about biblicists aside, the rhetorical moment of a sermon is stripped of its force if “proclaiming the whole counsel of God” means somehow blunting the force of Jesus’ words (in this example of the vine and branches). It’s a bit like explaining a punchline to include warnings about perseverance and assurances about the impossibility of true apostasy in the same sermon. Even if we batten down our systematic theology, we still have to consider the *use* of doctrine. I believe the FV perspective has a theological agenda, but there is also the agenda Mr. Jordan talks about above that is a kind of pastoral-theological agenda that tries to allow the word of God to cut the hearers up a bit – to instruct real people, assure them, warn them, knock them off kilter one week, soothe them the next, even as the Bible does. I think also that Jordan and others are concerned that this reformed tradition of viewing the bible as *accommodated* to human understanding serves as an impetus to “see behind” the text. Jordan has the literary version of that – the text is the message, communicated as God intended, designed to work on real people. Leithart has the sacramental version of that – baptism isn’t a “means of grace” it is a grace. Just as a birthday present isn’t a means of transmitting a toy, it is a toy. Now, both of them clarify; Jordan is not averse to the analogy of faith or making sure that the meaning is understood.

(I also grant that this pastoral-theological approach bleeds over into systematics, and perhaps the theology of apostasy is the lynchpin for the whole deal. But that’s a different subject.)

By: VCrisler

VCrisler — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:52:14 +0000

I like what D Hart said about biblicism. Isn’t the claim about speaking the language of the Bible instead of the language of systematic theology just the old Lutheran caricature of the Reformed method of dogmatics? G. C. Berkouwer has a good discussion of this in his *Faith and Perseverance* in the section entitled, “The Controversy with the Lutherans” (pp. 55ff). That discussion is an uncanny precursor to all this FV business.

Vern Crisler
vcrisler3@cox.net
http://vernerable.tripod.com

By: D Hart

D Hart — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 03:17:11 +0000

Biblicists generally think that sneering at them is sneering at the Bible. Why do they act as if they had written it?

To be clear, I took exception to the use of one phrase from a book that is as big as the Norton Companion to English literature, onion leaves and all. I would have thought at a self-professing Reformed Christian might have also wanted to reckon with another phrase — “proclaiming the whole counsel of God.”

By: James Jordan

James Jordan — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:33:59 +0000

Oh, I think there’s plenty wrong with it, especially liturgically. Pop worship is liberalism through the back door. And I think reducing the faith from confession to ideology (which is how our broad confessions are being treated in conservative circles these days) is a grave evil, tantamount to operating by intellectual sight rather than submissive faith — though this evil is one that the so-called FV business has exposed. My point was that the original FV conference was not a response to some crisis, and that what was controversial about it was not that it dealt with a crisis but that the speakers were calling attention to the text and dealing directly with it. The lectures were positive and pastoral. But to be sure: The people involved in FV were involved in Christian Reconstruction 25 years ago, and for the same reasons (following the Bible against modern culture). And there is a long lineage before that, back to Groen and beyond. We’d all read Symington, for instance. Same conflict, just a different name. But it all goes back to the Bible. And sneering at the Bible, Mr. Hart, will get you nowhere with any of us. When you stand before Jesus, you can let Him know what kinds of metaphors He should have used instead of the vine.