Betraying the Reformation

[steadfast7]

I think the ideal is being made an enemy of something good. Why cant we be thankful that more people are having the chance to hear a gifted communicator expound the doctrines of grace. If it turns out they are not a true church then let God remove their lampstand. only let rejoice that Christ is preached.

 

[sdesocio]

From my first post there seemed to be a suggestions that the circumstances behind why a church is Reformed or not...this seems odd.
If the suggestion that to be a faithful reformed church a local preacher is needed, then we must say that regardless of the reasons a church without a local preacher is missing a vital element of what it means to be Reformed. (I don't agree with this line of thinking).

I'm gonna follow Clowney and point out that the Scriptural use of the word Church encompasses both regional groups and small home groups.

 

[au5t1n]

Josh, you do realize CCRPC's currently a multisite church, right?

 

[py3ak]

From my first post there seemed to be a suggestions that the circumstances behind why a church is Reformed or not...this seems odd.
If the suggestion that to be a faithful reformed church a local preacher is needed, then we must say that regardless of the reasons a church without a local preacher is missing a vital element of what it means to be Reformed. (I don't agree with this line of thinking).

I'm gonna follow Clowney and point out that the Scriptural use of the word Church encompasses both regional groups and small home groups.

It doesn't seem like the point should be terribly hard to follow. The Reformation protested certain things (absenteeism and pluralism). They decried them as things that should not be encouraged or promoted. That doesn't mean that every church that perhaps had a circuit riding preacher was in sin, but it does mean that this is not the ideal we're working toward. And there is all the difference in the world between being providentially hindered from obtaining something and not seeking it at all.

It has always been understood that the work of Reformation does not happen from one day to the next. But the (pretty simply and straightforward) point of the article is that in deliberately pursuing pluralism and the accompanying absenteeism, churches claiming a Reformation mantle are embracing the very things the Reformation protested. However you slice it, that's not very Reformational.

Dennis, that line of argument won't work. If you read the article you will notice it is not just that these multi-sites are reaching people otherwise unreached: it is that they are leaching people out of churches without the celebrity pastor, but with local accountability. It's not those who protest this phenomenon who are making the ideal the enemy of the good - those who promote it are making the good the enemy of the ideal.

 

[M21195]

I'd buy what Trueman is selling. As Fred and Ruben have noted, the multi-site, megachurch pastor of today seems to set up this style of church simply for no other reason than numbers. And the infatuation with numbers seems not due to a desire for God's glory, but rather a preoccupation with self-glory.

Self-glory and MONEY

 

[sdesocio]

The Reformation wasn't about protesting "absenteeism and pluralism". And while I'm not as well read as I should be, I've never seen a reference to the word pluralism being used in the sense it is used above. I wonder if it is a novelty that Dr. Trueman created.

My point isn't to necessarily defend multisite ministry, but to argue that suggesting that such ministry is by default historically unreformed is not a good argument.
Arguing from history is at best a secondary reference, the line of thinking from Dr. Trueman seems at best to be tertiary.

 

[steadfast7]

The multisite churches that I know of: Mars Hill and Bethlehem Baptist are not "Reformed Churches" and have never claimed to be. If they were, then there is reason to protest their actions. As it stands, they have every right to be 5-point Calvinists and spread their message however they want, don't they? In these multisite campuses, are they not hearing the word rightly preached, and receiving the sacraments? What other definition of church is there?

 

[py3ak]

The Reformation wasn't about protesting "absenteeism and pluralism". And while I'm not as well read as I should be, I've never seen a reference to the word pluralism being used in the sense it is used above. I wonder if it is a novelty that Dr. Trueman created.

My point isn't to necessarily defend multisite ministry, but to argue that suggesting that such ministry is by default historically unreformed is not a good argument.
Arguing from history is at best a secondary reference, the line of thinking from Dr. Trueman seems at best to be tertiary.

Your own lack of awareness seems quite a shaky foundation on which to found a speculation about a professional historian. A source as accessible as Wikipedia is better informed: "The holding of more than one benefice is termed pluralism."

The multisite churches that I know of: Mars Hill and Bethlehem Baptist are not "Reformed Churches" and have never claimed to be. If they were, then there is reason to protest their actions. As it stands, they have every right to be 5-point Calvinists and spread their message however they want, don't they? In these multisite campuses, are they not hearing the word rightly preached, and receiving the sacraments? What other definition of church is there?

They're not Reformed, but they may need to give up the claim to be "Reformational" as well. That doesn't mean there's nothing left to criticize. The cult of celebrity is still a major problem; the carelessness with regard to what other churches may already exist in another area is a problem. And no, none of us have a right to do things however we want: whether we like to confess it or not, we are bound to the word of God. And the word of God places "feeding" and "oversight" together, onto the shoulders of the same people, and makes it be specifically of the flock among them, not of the flock in distant places.

And beyond all that, there is also the question for those who are looking for a church to attend, if a multi-site church should be considered when local churches are available.

 

[fredtgreco]

The Reformation wasn't about protesting "absenteeism and pluralism". And while I'm not as well read as I should be, I've never seen a reference to the word pluralism being used in the sense it is used above. I wonder if it is a novelty that Dr. Trueman created.

My point isn't to necessarily defend multisite ministry, but to argue that suggesting that such ministry is by default historically unreformed is not a good argument.
Arguing from history is at best a secondary reference, the line of thinking from Dr. Trueman seems at best to be tertiary.

Your own lack of awareness seems quite a shaky foundation on which to found a speculation about a professional historian. A source as accessible as Wikipedia is better informed: "The holding of more than one benefice is termed pluralism."

One could actually argue that pluralism (the holding of more than one benefice) was THE proximate cause of the Reformation. It was Archbishop Albert's desire to add the open bishopric of Mainz to his already two offices that led to the payment of a large bribe to the Pope, who arranged for the funding through the Fuggers, who were paid off by a special dispensation for the selling of indulgences, that were sold by, yes, Tetzel.

 

[steadfast7]

They're not Reformed, but they may need to give up the claim to be "Reformational" as well.

You're making the smaller issues of the Reformation into the main thing. "Reformational" is a simple adjective. Even Brian McClaren has the right to use that label if he chooses. the five solas and the five points are clearer markers of the Reformation's essence. Your complain is little more than a branding issue, like Starbucks suing coffee companies that use a green circle on their logos.

 

[sdesocio]

Ha. Fred there you go you got me.

 

[py3ak]

They're not Reformed, but they may need to give up the claim to be "Reformational" as well.

You're making the smaller issues of the Reformation into the main thing. "Reformational" is a simple adjective. Even Brian McClaren has the right to use that label if he chooses. the five solas and the five points are clearer markers of the Reformation's essence. Your complain is little more than a branding issue, like Starbucks suing coffee companies that use a green circle on their logos.

Dennis, no: on your logic, I have the right to call myself Wesleyan, if I should so choose. People choose adjectives not only because they sound cool, but because they want to be identified with something - they want to make a connection between their brand and another, if you want to use marketing language. But not all brands are associated. Hopefully as people learn more about the Reformation, they will either embrace it or have the honesty to admit that they really don't want to be associated with it.

The Reformation was born out of crises of several kinds, often overlapping. I don't know that Dr. Trueman is the first to do so, but he certainly has drawn attention to the pastoral crisis that was part of what led to the Reformation, both with regard to the question of assurance and with regard to the lack of pastoral care. That there were other issues also doesn't mean that this one is minor.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

I thought these thoughts on the "multi site video link" church from Thabiti Anyabwile were pretty interesting:

Multi-Site Churches Are from the Devil – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile

 

[Zach]

I thought these thoughts on the "multi site video link" church from Thabiti Anyabwile were pretty interesting:

Multi-Site Churches Are from the Devil – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile

Thanks for sharing this Mark. The original post and this post have definitely made me rethink my position on multi-site churches.

 

[dudley]

I agree

Reformation21 on the subject of "video screen churches:" Is the Reformation nearly over? Perhaps, but maybe not for the reason you think, - Reformation21 Blog

"Yet these small church pastors can only offer their people hard work and the need for real get-your-hands-dirty commitment. By contrast, the video hook-up brings the fetish to town and makes few demands upon anyone beyond the tech guy, the head of physical plant and the local praise band. In today's consumer world, there is no doubt who has the more attractive product to sell. Presumably the cancer wards will offer similar video link-ups when members of the virtual congregation lie dying and in need of final comfort."

I agree with Trumann “The Reformation was about more than a doctrinal insight into justification; it was also about abolishing the fetishisation of certain great figures as if they possessed some special magic and about instituting an ideal of educated, personal, local ministry.”

I left the Roman catholic church like the reformers did. I rejected the notion of the pope as head of the church and having some magical abilities above others. I rejected the notion of the roman catholic priesthood as did the reformers and their supposed magical ability to change a bread wafer and wine into the actual physical body and blood of Christ at the Roman catholic worship they call the mass .which denies Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary for all who place their faith in Him alone.

I renounced the Roman catholic pope and have done so many times on the PB because I believe like the reformers I wanted to abolish such a figure as if he possessed some special magic. I became a Reformed protestant and a Presbyterian because I believed in the ideals of the reformation the five solas and I wanted a church that was composed of educated , personal local ministry , which I found at he First Presbyterian church of Manasquan where I became a full member last October by public affirmation of faith.

The large mega churches to me resemble in so many ways the huge Roman catholic church I left. However I predict a new and continued Protestant Reformation in the coming years. Many more Catholics will be leaving in the future and I do think many will become protestants as I did and 15 million others alone in the US in the last 2 decades.

 

[steadfast7]

They're not Reformed, but they may need to give up the claim to be "Reformational" as well.

You're making the smaller issues of the Reformation into the main thing. "Reformational" is a simple adjective. Even Brian McClaren has the right to use that label if he chooses. the five solas and the five points are clearer markers of the Reformation's essence. Your complain is little more than a branding issue, like Starbucks suing coffee companies that use a green circle on their logos.

Dennis, no: on your logic, I have the right to call mywelf Wesleyan, if I should so choose. People choose adjectives not only because they sound cool, but because they want to be identified with something - they want to make a connection between their brand and another, if you want to use marketing language. But not all brands are associated. Hopefully as people learn more about the Reformation, they will either embrace it or have the honesty to admit that they really don't want to be associated with it.

The Reformation was born out of crises of several kinds, often overlapping. I don't know if Dr. Trueman is the first to do so, but he certainly has drawn attention to the pastoral crisis that was part of what led to the Reformation, both with regard to the question of assurance and with regard to the lack of pastoral care. That there were other issues also doesn't mean that this one is minor.

Granted, there were many issues that acted as kindling for the Reformation. But what does Luther say is "the article of the standing or falling church"? If a church or movement wants to align themselves with the central theological tenets of the Reformation, I don't see how they ought to be excluded on the grounds that the other issues are not central to their ethos. Who gets to decide what it means to be "Reformational"? If one cannot be "Reformational" by standing upon THE ARTICLE, then that word has lost meaning, in my opinion.

---------- Post added at 07:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 AM ----------

Also, as an add-on, it's not these celebrity preachers of our day who are guilty of "pluralism", but even our contemporary Reformed heroes: Pastors, who also double as seminary lecturers, traveling speakers, authors, radio hosts, ministry heads, etc. Should they not be rebuked as well for potentially failing to keep their flock and get to know their parishioners personally?

 

[VictorBravo]

Also, as an add-on, it's not these celebrity preachers of our day who are guilty of "pluralism", but even our contemporary Reformed heroes: Pastors, who also double as seminary lecturers, traveling speakers, authors, radio hosts, ministry heads, etc. Should they not be rebuked as well for potentially failing to keep their flock and get to know their parishioners personally?

And your point is?

Or . . . : Well, yes, they should be. I think some of these folks were included in the rebuke that opened this thread.

But even if for some reason one doesn't think they were, how does that detract from the points Trueman raised? He doesn't have to criticize every wrong he comes across. Sometimes he saves those for another post.

 

[py3ak]

Granted, there were many issues that acted as kindling for the Reformation. But what does Luther say is "the article of the standing or falling church"? If a church or movement wants to align themselves with the central theological tenets of the Reformation, I don't see how they ought to be excluded on the grounds that the other issues are not central to their ethos. Who gets to decide what it means to be "Reformational"? If one cannot be "Reformational" by standing upon THE ARTICLE, then that word has lost meaning, in my opinion.

Also, as an add-on, it's not these celebrity preachers of our day who are guilty of "pluralism", but even our contemporary Reformed heroes: Pastors, who also double as seminary lecturers, traveling speakers, authors, radio hosts, ministry heads, etc. Should they not be rebuked as well for potentially failing to keep their flock and get to know their parishioners personally?

Luther also told Erasmus that in speaking of free will he had touched the real root of the division: it is clear that to Luther there was more than one issue, there were a complex of related issues. Obviously the question of Scripture was also tremendously significant. For a fuller perspective, Calvin's analysis in The Necessity of Reforming the Church is possibly the best place to start. I doubt that an atomistic insistence on one doctrine to the exclusion of the whole context in which it arose, and the new circumstances it created is very Reformational.

Working in multiple capacities is not the same thing as pastoring multiple churches. Luther and Calvin had an overwhelming amount of labour - Calvin attributes the slander about his immoderate influence to the vast amount of work he had to undergo. But naturally every minister/professor/author/DJ has to ask himself how much can be done without interfering with being given to prayer and the ministry of the word. A good example of genuine pluralism from last century is J. Frank Norris.

 

[steadfast7]

it comes back to the thinkers who have the time and luxury of pointing to how the culture is deviating from the absolute ideal, and potentially missing that there are some very good things that are coming out of it as well, not least, that Christ is being preached!

 

[py3ak]

Now we're starting to go in a circle.
Criticism of what is wrong does not equate to a lack of appreciation for what is right. Christ told us that in our discipling we are to teach them to observe all things that he commanded. That means that having one thing, even the main thing, right is not sufficiently comprehensive. It also means that we shouldn't set the things in opposition, as though calling for an implementation of the model suggested by 1 Peter 5 is somehow contrary to the gospel being preached.

 

[steadfast7]

Luther also told Erasmus that in speaking of free will he had touched the real root of the division: it is clear that to Luther there was more than one issue, there were a complex of related issues. Obviously the question of Scripture was also tremendously significant. For a fuller perspective, Calvin's analysis in The Necessity of Reforming the Church is possibly the best place to start. I doubt that an atomistic insistence on one doctrine to the exclusion of the whole context in which it arose, and the new circumstances it created is very Reformational.

I think it needs to be appreciated that while there were many things, even for Luther, that stirred Reformation, the movement as a whole (as with most movements) need a single battle cry that everyone can rally around. I am convinced that the culture of that time chose theology as that battle cry. and that is the battle cry that continues to ring out in our day, by those who would call themselves Reformational. I believe it is most appropriate.

 

[py3ak]

I think it needs to be appreciated that while there were many things, even for Luther, that stirred Reformation, the movement as a whole (as with most movements) need a single battle cry that everyone can rally around. I am convinced that the culture of that time chose theology as that battle cry. and that is the battle cry that continues to ring out in our day, by those who would call themselves Reformational. I believe it is most appropriate.

That depends on how narrowly you define theology; obviously for Luther and Calvin it was intensely practical as well, and it certainly wasn't reductionistic. Consider the breadth and scope of the Institutes, consider the variety of Luther's writings, consider the involvement of both men in outreach and education. Of course they addressed themselves primarily to the soul of the church - the doctrine of salvation and the worship of God; but they by no means left the problems of the body (e.g., church discipline) unaddressed. They were churchmen as well as theologians: indeed, you might say that they were churchmen because they were theologians, or even vice versa.

 

[steadfast7]

That depends on how narrowly you define theology; obviously for Luther and Calvin it was intensely practical as well, and it certainly wasn't reductionistic. Consider the breadth and scope of the Institutes, consider the variety of Luther's writings, consider the involvement of both men in outreach and education. Of course they addressed themselves primarily to the soul of the church - the doctrine of salvation and the worship of God; but they by no means left the problems of the body (e.g., church discipline) unaddressed. They were churchmen as well as theologians: indeed, you might say that they were churchmen because they were theologians, or even vice versa.

Good point. Now, how closely is the current pastoral situation mirroring the problems in the 16th century? If theology and practice are closely linked, then that is also true of the corrupt Roman church, who believed the same thing. Their practice would have flowed from their theology and vice versa. Can it be said that the current situation with evangelical churches (and their theology) really mirrors the corrupt church all that much when you view everything organically?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

A little leaven affects the whole lump. I am not sure if the current pastoral situation directly mirrors the problems of the 16th Century but I am sure you can trace the same problems back to the three temptations, the lust of the flesh, eyes, and pride of life. So if there is a divergence of the prescribed way that God has set up for ecclesiastical order then it directly does come from the same roots. There are prescribed means and order set up. Are they being violated?


========================

The word Pastor means something. In light of Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Peter 5:1-4 there is a tremendous amount of responsibility concerning it.

(Heb 13:17) Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.



(1Pe 5:1) The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
(1Pe 5:2) Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
(1Pe 5:3) Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
(1Pe 5:4) And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

 

[py3ak]

Good point. Now, how closely is the current pastoral situation mirroring the problems in the 16th century? If theology and practice are closely linked, then that is also true of the corrupt Roman church, who believed the same thing. Their practice would have flowed from their theology and vice versa. Can it be said that the current situation with evangelical churches (and their theology) really mirrors the corrupt church all that much when you view everything organically?

Well, what does it say about the theology of the evangelical churches that this is their practice?

 

[J. Dean]

It sounds like the issue is one of a pastor being a pastor vs. being a celebrity speaker and nothing more.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

It sounds like the issue is one of a pastor being a pastor vs. being a celebrity speaker and nothing more.

I think the issue is a bit deeper than this.
It really asks the question, what is the relationship of a Pastor to his congregation(s). Is he simply a preacher[one who preaches] full stop?
It also asks another important question, what is the relationship of congregations, families, and individuals to their pastor?

Is there a distinction that is being made here between a preacher and a pastor?

 

[MightyManfred]

A multi-site or multi-service "church" is popery! I think mega-churches in general are too. Such none sense elevates a man above the message. Here in Houston, not only has Ed Young, Sr. been preaching and teaching a very wide path and endorsing some of the heresy put on stage by his son in Dallas, he has "satellite" churches around this big city that have "local pastoral teams" for everything in the service except the sermon - which is beamed from Peter's Chair (or whatever he actually calls it) into each satellite facility. I've been referring to Ed Young, Sr. as the Pope of Houston for several years.

Of course, he's not reformed - but he is a prime example of the dangers of this mindset.

 

[Zach]

I was thinking about this some more the other day and the question that I had was when does the local church cease to be local? Can multi-site churches claim to be the local church if the sites are all in the same city? I would say Mars Hill is definitely NOT a local church, but what about Bethlehem Baptist? Maybe someone who knows the meaning of ekklesia could help?

 

[MightyManfred]

I have my own perspective on Bethlehem Baptist - would never join it for many reasons. Thabitti Anyabwile has a good write-up here: Multi-Site Churches Are from the Devil – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile