Stephen W. Hiemstra's Blog, page 264

Longfield Chronicles the Fundamentalist/Liberal Divide in the PCUSA, Part 3

Bradley J. Longfield. 1991. The Presbyterian Controversy:  Fundamentalists, Modernists, and Moderates. New York:  Oxford University Press. (Go to Part 1;  Part 2)

Review by Stephen W. Hiemstra

The Scot’s Confession of 1560, which is included in the Book of Confessions of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (PCUSA), outlines three conditions for a true church.  A true church is one where the word of God is rightly preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and church discipline rightly administered.

When the PCUSA abandoned its ordination requirements centered on the 5 fundamentals of the faith in 1925, it effectively lost the ability to distinguish itself as a true church as defined in its own confessions. The boundaries between church and society were fuzzed because of doctrinal diversity and with the passage of time the fuzz grew as elders were elected and pastors ordained that held increasingly diverse views.  In effect, Presbyterians began a transition from being a reformed, confessional church to being a church united primarily in a common polity . This fundamental change, which is often misunderstood and frequently denied, Longfield articulates primarily in terms of the person of a pugnacious son of the South, J. Gresham Machen.

Longfield sees Machen differing from his opponents in the Presbyterian controversy in a number of ways, most importantly philosophically.  He writes:

“The education Machen received at Princeton complemented and refined the religious heritage of his boyhood.  Like the Thornwellian theology of the Southern Presbyterians, Princeton held tightly to the doctrines of the Westminster [confession] divines undergirded by Common Sense philosophy and the Baconian method.  The Princeton Theology insisted on the primacy of ideas in religion and stood firmly for a strict doctrine of biblical inerrancy.  Additionally, Princeton adhered to the traditional Reformed belief that Christians must strive to bring all of culture under God’s rule….Princeton was a bastion of Calvinist orthodoxy in an increasingly hostile world…” (40)

Old School Presbyterianism, as articulated by James Henley Thornwell was strictly confessional and viewed theology as “a positive science grounded in observation and induction, consisting of facts arranged and classified according to the necessary laws of the human mind.” (33) This philosophy, known as Scottish Common Sense Realism, maintained that: ”we can and do know the real world directly through our senses… [and that] Anyone in right mind… knew that the objective world, the self, causal relationships, and moral principles existed.” (34)  Following Thornwell, Machen firmly believed that once the facts were known irrefutable conclusions (events not interpretations) could be drawn (222) [4.

Machen’s focus on correct doctrine, as embodied in the confessions, flowed immediately from his philosophical presuppositions (223). Obviously, from Machen’s perspective, deviating from correct doctrine was not only wrong; it was immoral, because it led one away from God.  In some sense, a liberal was anyone who deviated from correct doctrine.

Robert Hastings Nichols, a professor at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, drafted a formal statement of the liberal positon in the PCUSA in 1923. The paper, which argued for theological diversity within the bounds of evangelical theology, evolved into the Auburn Affirmation and was endorsed by 174 signatories (79).  The affirmation basically said that 5 fundamentals of the faith offered only one theory allowed by the scripture (77-79).

In other words, for the liberal no one, objective reality existed—history was not a matter of facts, but of interpretations (89). The emphasis was on religious experiences, not historical events such as found in the Bible (90-91).  Writing about Henry Sloane Coffin, Longfield writes:  “the Bible was not the ultimate authority for the Christian, Jesus alone was the Word of God; the Bible simply contained the Word.” (91)

At the end of Presbyterian Controversies, Bradley Longfield prods the PCUSA to “affirm a normative middle theological position with clear boundaries.” (235)  The focus among evangelicals on the inerrancy of scripture and the doctrine of divine inspiration of scripture provide the boundaries on Biblical interpretation suggested.

The weakness in the evangelical position is philosophical:  very few PCUSA pastors and theologians today subscribe to Scottish Common Sense Realism.  If to be postmodern means to believe that scripture can only be interpreted correctly within its context, then we are all liberals in a Machen sense [5].  A strong, confessional position requires philosophical warrant—a philosophical problem requires a philosophical solution—which we can all agree upon[6].  In the absence of philosophical warrant and credibility, the confessions appear arbitrary—an act of faith [7].  In a practical, denominational sense,  the philosophical diversity that characterizes the denomination makes it unlikely that boundaries can be agreed upon even if those boundaries are based on a shared history.

Clearly, Longfield’s book is an interesting read, very relevant to current controversies, and certainly worthy of ongoing study.

 

“The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the Word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, with which must be associated the Word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God’s Word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished.” (PCUSA 1999, 3.18)

 In 2012 at the General Assembly in Pittsburg, PA (which I attended), for example, the stated clerk opined before the entire body that the Book of Order need not comply with requirement of the Book of Confessions. They served different functions. This opinion paved the way, in part, for that body to endorse the ordination of homosexuals.

 Very ironically, from the perspective of the liberal-fundamentalist divide, Scottish Common Sense Realism was foundational in the development of the scientific method. By contrast, the liberal philosophical position, borrowing heavily from Darwinian evolution—hence, the term progressive, actually undermined scientific advancement inasmuch as it came to question the existence of objective reality—a trend in thinking that later matured into postmodernism. If one does not believe in one, objective reality, then why invest time and money in researching it?

 William Jennings Bryan, for example, also maintained that “true science and the bible could not disagree.” (56)

[5] The other tell that one has slid into a liberal leaning is the focus off of theology and onto experience.  Liberal theology focus on feeling rather than thinking which reflects a debt to the romanticism of the 19th century.  For the liberal, God is experienced through feelings, not through the mind.  This makes it unreproduceable among and between individuals.  By this lining of reasoning, we can have common experiences of God through service, crises, and mission trips, but we will have trouble describing what just happened.  This makes agreement on and adherence to language, creeds and confessions difficult.  Words denoting theological concepts become squishy. We like feeling words like progress, spirituality, and love which are hard to define; we have trouble with thinking words like creed, morality, and duty which have specific content.

[6] Plantinga (2000) attempts to fill this philosophical gap by offering the concept of warrant.  He argues from a postmodern perspective that warrant is a reasonable standard for justifying Christian  belief.  The modern perspective of requiring logical proof, which is also not attained by the critics themselves, is argued not to be a reasonable standard on which to base judgment.

[7] My belief is that the existence of one God is obvious from the existence of only one set of physical laws in the universe.  In some sense, the existence of one objective truth immediately follows from God’s immutability.  Relative truth is more of an optical illusion.

REFERENCES

Plantinga, Alvin. 2000.  Warranteed Christian Belief. New York:  Oxford University Press.

Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PC USA). 1999. The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)—Part I: Book of Confession. Louisville, KY: Office of the General Assembly.

Prayer Day 26: A Christian Guide to Spirituality by Stephen W. Hiemstra

Available on Amazon.com

Gracious God. Give us the humility to pray for our daily needs. Walk with us during every step we take. Help us to be satisfied in all circumstances and to recognize your presence also in abundance. May we follow your example and be generous with those around us. In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen.

Dios Misericordioso. Danos la humildad para orar por nuestras necesidades diarias. Camina con nosotros durante cada paso que tomamos. Ayudanos a estar satisfechos en cada circunstancia y a reconocer tu presencia también en abundancia. Que sigamos tu ejemplo y semos generosos con los que nos rodean. En el nombre del Padre, del Hijo, y del Espíritu Santo, Amén.

God’s Meekness Speaks Volumes

“Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth.” (Num. 12:3 ESV)

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

The idea of tension resolving into identity suggests a learning process. This is because meekness is not a natural state; rather, meekness is a fruit of the spirit [1]. If meekness is a fruit of the spirit and Jesus is meek, does that imply that God Himself learned to be meek? What can we say from the law and the prophets about Jesus fulfilling this Beatitude? [2]

The Law. Meekness is not directly mentioned very often in the Books of the Law. However, meekness is indirectly manifested in the narratives. The image of God in the Books of the Law is that of creator, covenant maker, and, with Noah, destroyer by means of flood. The primary direct reference is to Moses who has an especially intimate relationship with God (Num 12:3).

As creator, God is pictured as a sovereign issuing decrees. The first decree is: “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” (Gen. 1:3 ESV) We are not told how light came to be, only who decreed it be done. God is verbal, but he is not chatty. His next statement is a declaration: “And God saw that the light was good.” (Gen. 1:4 ESV) He does not brag; he simply observes. While his ability to create illustrates God’s power, God could also be said to be meek—“…not [being] overly impressed by a sense of one’s self-importance, gentle, humble, considerate” (BDAG 6132). Creating is “no big deal” for God.

As covenant maker, God is objective and thoughtful, not vengeful and domineering. The covenant with Adam, for example, is mostly implicit. Basically, God creates Adam and Eve, gives them a mandate (be fruitful and multiply), sets them in a garden, and leaves only one limitation—don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When Adam and Eve disobey God’s limitation, he does not kill them on the spot, as expected, and create another couple. Instead, God punishes (curses) them and sends them out of the garden. But before they go, like a mother preparing her child for the first day of school, “God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.” (Gen. 3:21 ESV) While God was perfectly in his right as covenant maker to be harsh with Adam and Eve, in fact, he treated them gently—another indication of meekness.

As destroyer, God sends a flood to wipe out humanity and every living thing—almost. The writer of Genesis records God’s motivation as follows:

“The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them. But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.” (Gen. 6:5-8 ESV)

What we see here is a reluctant destroyer. God is moved by grief over sin to send the flood. This is interesting because we expect anger, not grief, as the motive for sending the flood—not the image of a wrathful God that some might advance. And God is careful to spare Noah, his family, and a pair of each of the animals. The ark with Noah, his family, and the animals is a kind of prototype of the remnant of Israel later spared during the Babylonian exile. This care of the remnant is another example of a meek God choosing to exercise only a portion of his rights, like a parent offering discipline and not like a judge imposing penalties.

From this brief review of the Book of the Law, we can argue that God does not need to learn to be meek—he is already meek.

The Prophets. Meekness and humility are widely mentioned in the Books of the Prophets, especially Isaiah and Psalms, and appear in important Messianic passages. Guelich (1982, 82) observes that: “there is little or no difference between the poor and the meek in the Psalms or Isaiah”. For example,

“There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD… but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked. Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist, and faithfulness the belt of his loins.” (Isa. 11:1-5 ESV)
“He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way.” (Ps. 25:9 ESV)
“But the meek shall inherit the land and delight themselves in abundant peace.” (Ps. 37:11 ESV)
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” (Zech. 9:9 ESV)

The association of meekness with Messianic passages suggests that meekness is understood by the writers of the prophets to be an important property of God’s image.

Fulfillment. Meekness appears in the Old Testament has both a character attribute of God and a kind of solidarity of God with his people. Elliot (2006, 123) notes that “Israel’s God was emotionally stable” and his attribute of meekness typifies this stability.  Theologians use the term, immutability, which means that God does not change [3]. Thus, when Jesus describes himself as gentle or meek (Matt. 11:29), a Jewish audience might rightly hear such words as a Messianic claim.  The stability of God’s emotions and character is part of his transcendence. It implies that there is only one, objective truth.  Why? [4]

Meekness is a fruit of the spirit for us, but for God it is just who he is.

[1] “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” (Gal. 5:19-23 ESV)

[2] Note: Matt 5:17.

[3] “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.” (Mal. 3:6 ESV) Horton (2011, 235) writes: “Building on a patristic consensus, Thomas Aquinas argued that God is actus purus (’pure act’), which means that there are no potentialities in God. Complete and perfect in himself from eternity to eternity, God has no potential that is not already fully realized. God cannot be more infinite, loving, or holy tomorrow than today. If God alone is necessary and independent of all external conditions, fully realized in all of his perfections, then there is literally nothing for God to become.”

[4] One God, one set of physical laws to the universe, one objective truth.

REFERENCES

Bauer, Walter (BDAG). 2000. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. ed. de Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. .

Elliott, Matthew A. 2006. Faithful Feelings: Rethinking Emotion in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Guelich, Robert. 1982. The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding. Dallas: Word Publishing.

Horton, Michael. 2011. The Christian Faith: A Systemic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Longfield Chronicles the Fundamentalist/Liberal Divide in the PCUSA, Part 2

Bradley J. Longfield. 1991. The Presbyterian Controversy:  Fundamentalists, Modernists, and Moderates. New York:  Oxford University Press.

Review by Stephen W. Hiemstra

After sensing a call to pastoral service in 2004 my first response was to attend an inquirer’s weekend at Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS) in Princeton, NJ. I was never more excited in my entire life. Still, tension clouded my excitement—I had waited months to attend the Passion of the Christ produced by Mel Gibson with fellow seminarians.  Who would come with? On Saturday night when 60 inquirers were asked who wanted to attend only one other student responded. (The others preferred to attend a play named after a female body-part). I eventually wrote PTS off my list of prospective seminaries, but not for a lack of interest.

My Saturday night disappointment at PTS trivially highlights tensions in the PCUSA that were already evident in the 1920s. Longfield highlights 3 significant disputes within the church over the period from 1922 through 1936: ordination requirements, the mission of Princeton Seminary, and the orthodoxy of the Board of Foreign Missions (4).  Let me address each briefly in turn.

Ordination Requirements. Longfield dates the Presbyterian controversy to a sermon preached by Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick on May 21, 1922 at the First Presbyterian Church in New York City entitled:  “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” (9)  The sermon turned on knowing the difference between a fundamentalist and a liberal Presbyterian.

At that time, a candidate for ordination in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (PCUSA) had to subscribe to the 5 fundamentals of the faith:

The inerrancy of scripture;
The virgin birth of Jesus;
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement (Christ died for our sins);
The bodily resurrection of Christ; and
The miracle-working power of Christ (9, 78).

These requirements were instituted in 1910 by the General Assembly of the PCUSA.  Thus, a fundamentalist was not a pejorative term at that point; it simply meant that one met the requirements for ordination.

By contrast, Fosdick saw liberals as: “sincere evangelical Christians who were striving to reconcile the new knowledge of history, science, and religion with the old faith.” (9).  The liberal view of scripture was not inerrancy, but “the progressive unfolding of the character of God and that development, not supernatural intervention, was God’s way of working out his will in the world.” (10) Note the influence of evolution on the liberal interpretation of scripture (12-15).

Fosdick resigned his pulpit at First Presbyterian Church on October 22,1924 to avoid censure (126-127), but was immediately called to pastor Park Avenue Baptist Church.  Notwithstanding, in 1925 a special commission of the General Assembly relinquished the 5 fundamentals of the faith as an ordination requirement (161).  Moderator Charles R. Erdman engineered the change out of a belief that:  “Christian living had precedence over matters of precise doctrine…any man good enough to go to heaven…is good enough to be a member of our church” (141-142). In other words, practical theology trumped systematic theology—previously the hallmark of reformed theology since the reformation.

The Reorganization of Princeton Theological Seminary. The College of New Jersey (later called Princeton College) was chartered in 1746 on account of the expulsion of a young student named David Brainard from Yale College who said in private conversation that one of his tutors had “no more grace than a chair”.  Brainard had the support of the Presbytery, but Yale refused to readmit him (Piper 2001, 128, 156).  In 1812, Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS) was organized separately from Princeton College, in part, because modern universities no longer considered theology one of the sciences and certainly not “The Queen of the Sciences”, as it was known in the Middle Ages.

Throughout its history PTS defended Old School Presbyterianism which taught strict Calvinism, opposed the teaching of Darwin, and defended scriptural inerrancy (22, 133).  Princeton Theology, as it was known, made PTS the standard-bearer of fundamentalist theology in the PCUSA.  The point man during this controversy was Professor J. Gresham Machen who described PTS as “a lighthouse of orthodoxy in an increasingly secular world.” (169)

After the General Assembly abandoned the 5 fundamentals of the faith in 1925, attention shifted to PTS and Machen, who had so staunchly defined those fundamentals. Having lost the battle in the denomination, Machen’s promotion to Professor of Apologetics and Christians Ethics at PTS, which had been offered by the board of directors, would not likely be confirmed by the General Assembly (161,163).  In 1926, the General Assembly appointed a special committee to study at PTS.  In 1929, the General Assembly adopted a reorganization plan which strengthened the office of the president and merged the board of directors and the trustees into a single committee.

While no changes were proposed to the PTS charter or mission, the new committee included two liberals (out of 33) who had signed the Auburn Affirmation (a liberal manifesto; 173).  Machen and three other PTS faculty members responded by leaving to organize a new seminary to carry on the traditions of the Old Princeton known as Westminster Theological Seminary which was set up in Philadelphia, PA (176).

Board of Foreign Missions.  Foreign missionary activity reached an all-time high in the late nineteenth following the formation in 1886 of the Student Volunteer Movement (SVM), essentially the missionary agency of the Young Men’s Christian Organization (YMCA).  SVM’s founding following a call by Dwight Moody to: “The evangelization of the world in this generation.” (18, 185).  Between 1886 and 1936, roughly 13,000 missionaries were recruited. An important leader in the SVM was Robert E. Speer who personally recruited 1,100 undergraduates for missions during his last two years at PTS (186).

Speer was a charismatic and pragmatic leader.  Longfield writes:

“Speer’s emphasis on a simple Christocentric gospel, conducive to Christian unity and missionary success, his disparagement of systematic theology, and his understanding of the church as a missionary body persisted throughout his career.” (188)

Speer’s theological pragmaticism likely alienated him from Machen who in 1933 organized an Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, a move opposed by Speer.  The Independent Board was eventually shut down by the General Assembly (180).  Speer retired in 1937.

Longfield dates the close of the Presbyterian Controversy in 1936 following Machen’s death in 1935 and the formation of the Presbyterian Church in American in 1936 (213).  While in this review  I have focused on the decisions reached during this controversy,  Longfield goes further.  Part 3 of this review will look at the ideas motivating these decisions and some of their implications.

 

The Vagina Monologues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vagina_Monologues).

 I was working full-time in federal service at that time.   PTS and the other Presbyterian seminaries focused on providing a full-time, residential seminary experience.

Also see: Longfield Surveys Interface of Presbyterians and Culture, Part 2 (http://wp.me/p3Xeut-Tp).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Emerson_Fosdick

Today, we might describe that tutor as an atheist but in 1746 such a charge would be considered slander even if true.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

 Calvinists subscribed to a systematic understanding of theology summarized in the acronym, TULIP. TULIP stands for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints (Sproul 1997, 118).

REFERENCES

Piper, John.  2001.  The Hidden Smile of God:  The Fruit of Affliction in the Lives of John Bunyan, William Cowper, and David Brainerd.  Wheaton:  Crossway Books.

Sproul, R.C. 1997. What is Reformed Theology:  Understanding the Basics.  Grand Rapids:  BakerBooks.

Longfield Chronicles the Fundamentalist/Liberal Divide in the PCUSA, Part 1

Bradley J. Longfield. 1991. The Presbyterian Controversy:  Fundamentalists, Modernists, and Moderates. New York:  Oxford University Press.

Review by Stephen W. Hiemstra

Have you ever experienced a déjà vu moment?

Reading good historical accounts can give one a sense of being a fly on the wall or even participating actively in the moment. It can also leave one with a sense of lost opportunity or loss glory.  For Bradley Longfield’s The Presbyterian Controversy the past is more ominously a story from the past, a rehearsal, that informs the present.

Longfield (3) writes:

“The mainstream churches in America today face a serious crisis…Through the reasons for this hemorrhage in membership are many and complex, one contributor to the decline noted by analysts is the nebulous doctrinal identity of the churches…Without clear theological boundaries distinct from the ideals of the surrounding culture, the churches have been increasingly subject to cultural currents…The roots of this nebulous identity lie, at least in part,  in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the 1920s. The churches in the 1920s, in response to the growth of liberal theology and the resultant reaction of fundamentalism, chose to allow for diverse doctrinal views in order to preserve institutional unity.”

So what was the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the 1920s, who was involved, and why do we care?

Longfield (4) chronicles:

“From 1922 until 1936 the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (PCUSA) was wracked by conflict.  Sparked by a sermon of Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick [“Shall the Fundamentalists Win”(9)], a liberal Baptist preaching in a Presbyterian pulpit, the Presbyterian controversy raged for fourteen years over such issues as ordination requirements, the mission of Princeton Seminary, and the orthodoxy of the Board of Foreign Missions.”

The controversy raged among leaders of the PCUSA denomination, including: J. Gresham Machen, William Jennings Bryan, Henry Sloane Coffin, Clarence E. Macartney, Charles R. Erdman, and Robert E. Speer. Longfield tells this tale by examining the biographies and thinking of these six men (5).

Why do we care?  The PCUSA crisis today has its roots in the decisions made primarily in 1925, yet the same struggles persist as if the controversy occurred only last week.  The question is: what fruits arose from the decisions made in this prior controversy?

At the time (1991) when Bradley J. Longfield wrote The Presbyterian Controversy he was a visiting professor of American Christianity at the Duke University Divinity School where he received his doctoral degree.  He is currently Vice President and Dean of the Seminary and Professor of Church History at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary.  This book is written in 9 chapters, preceded by an introduction and followed by an epilogue, including:

The Conflict Erupts: Harry Emerson Fosdick and the Presbyterian Church,
Gresham Machen: Princeton Theology and Southern Culture,
Williams Jennings Bryan and the 1923 General Assembly,
Henry Sloane Coffin and the Auburn Affirmation,
Clarence E. Macartney and the 1924 General Assembly,
Charles R. Erdman and the 1925 General Assembly,
The Reorganization of Princeton and the Birth of Westminster,
Robert E. Speer and the Board of Foreign Missions, and
The Close of the Controversy: The Entanglement of Religion and Culture (ix).

The epilogue is followed by notes, a bibliography, and an index. The book cover depicts a group picture of the 1927 General Assembly of the PCUSA.

Longfield is an interesting read and a thorough biographer.  For each personality chronicled, he discusses at length their personal background, education, the background of parents, idiosyncrasies, and influences.  In many cases, serious influences are studied in like manner.  In part 2 of this review, I will look at the particular controversies—ordination requirements, the mission of Princeton Seminary, and the orthodoxy of the Board of Foreign Missions—and in part 3 of this review, I will review the lessons learned.

 

 Yogi Berra’s famously said: “It’s like deja-vu, all over again”. In French, déjà vu literally means—already seen—so his malapropos was hilariously redundant (http://bit.ly/1HK0wbJ).

 Savage( 1996, 84-85) writes:  “In the rehearsal story, the individual tells a story out of the past.  Through hearing it, the listener can become aware that the event retold contains the same themes as the current problems facing the person.” Savage, John. 1996. Listening and Caring Skills:  A Guide for Groups and Leaders.  Nashville:  Abingdon Press.

 Jesus warned:   “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.”  (Matt. 7:15-20 ESV)

Prayer Day 25: A Christian Guide to Spirituality by Stephen W. Hiemstra

Available on Amazon.com

Heavenly Father, beloved Son, Holy Spirit. We praise you for the hope of the resurrection, the inspiration of heaven, and the gift of your love in both. For we have seen our names carved in the palms of your hands (John 20:27) and are ashamed. Forgive our sin. Bless us with your presence both day and night. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Padre Celestial, Hijo Amado, Espíritu Santo. Te alabamos por la esperanza de la resurrección, la inspiración del cielo, y el don de tu amor en ambos. Hemos visto nuestros nombres labrados en las palmas de tus manos (Jn 20,27) y estamos avergonzados. Perdona nuestros pecados. Bendice nos con tu presencia tanto de día como de noche. En el nombre de Jesús oramos, Amén.

Jesus: Resolve Tension into Identity

“Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; fret not yourself over the one who prospers in his way,

over the man who carries out evil devices!” (Psalm. 37:7 ESV)

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

One way the tension in our life can be resolved is for it to become who were are—an aspect of our identity. When we accept the pain of life and refuse to yield to it, in some sense we come to wear it as a badge of honor.

The third beatitude is unique to Matthew: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matt. 5:5 ESV). What does it mean to be meek? Meek means to: “…not [be] overly impressed by a sense of one’s self-importance, gentle, humble, considerate” (BDAG 6132). Meek is like applied humility (poor in spirit)—a character trait of being humble [1]. Three verses in Matthew suggest that Jesus was meek:

“Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Matt. 11:29 ESV)
“Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.” (Matt. 21:5 ESV)
“And the high priest stood up and said, Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? But Jesus remained silent.” (Matt. 26:62-63 ESV)

These three events—Jesus’ invitation to discipleship (bear the burdens that I bear), his parade into Jerusalem, and his trial in some sense defined who he was—meek. The Apostle Paul explicitly described Jesus as meek (2 Cor 10:1). The writings of the Peter and James also echo this description [2].

Neyrey (1998, 181-182) discusses honor in meekness in these terms:

“…It can indeed be understood as grounds for praise for refusing to be a victim…according to the choreography of honor challenges, the ‘meek’ person could be one who makes no honor claims (e.g. Matt 21:5), or, more likely, one who does not give a riposte [response] to challenges and does not respond in anger to insults. In this light, a ‘meek’ person disengages entirely from the typical honor games of the village…failure to seek revenge”.

The sermon on the Mount is full of allusions to meekness lived out. For example, Jesus said:

“…everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” (Matt. 5:22 ESV)
“Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No'; anything more than this comes from evil.” (Matt. 5:37 ESV)
“Do not resist the one who is evil [3]. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” (Matt. 5:39-41 ESV)

In other words, when given an opportunity for vindication is possible through conflict, offer no response or make peace instead. The echo of identity is present here because by refusing to engage in a response, one remains true to one’s meekness rather than allowing the conflict to snatch it away.

Meekness steals the thunder from one’s adversary.

 

[1] “…there is little or no difference between the poor and the meek in the Psalms or Isaiah…” (Guelich 1982, 82)

[2] See for example: 1 Pet. 3:13-17 and James 1:21.

[3] Savage (1996, 57-61) offers an interesting application of this principle of not resisting evil which he refers to as “fogging”. When one is criticized, one responds by finding something in the criticism to agree with—even if only implied. This frustrates the attacker and keeps one from becoming defensive. Jesus employs a variation on this approach when asked about taxes (Matt 22:17-22).

REFERENCES

Bauer, Walter (BDAG). 2000. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. ed. de Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. .

Guelich, Robert. 1982. The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding. Dallas: Word Publishing.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 1998. Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Savage, John. 1996. Listening and Caring Skills: A Guide for Groups and Leaders. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Murrow Invites Churches to be Man-friendly

David Murrow. 2011.  Why Men Hate Going to Church.  Nashville:  Thomas Nelson.

Review by Stephen W. Hiemstra

What are the signs of a healthy church?

One of the big advantages that I experienced growing up in the church arose as I got older.  In college when life was forever confusing, I had a rough idea of what it meant to be a faithful and successful 21 year old, a faithful and successful 25 year old, a faithful and successful 30 year old and so on.  I also learned what it means to be a godly man.

How did I know?  I knew because I had seen others in those age groups and I watched who succeeded and who did not.  I knew this first hand—my parents did not need to tell me.  My story about the 3 kinds of people—those that never learn, those that learn from their own mistakes, and those that learn from other people’s mistakes—came from observing people in church.  Healthy churches are churches where everyone—all age groups, men and women, and races/ethnicities—worships together.  Unfortunately, such churches are not the norm.

In his book, Why Men Hate Going to Church, David Murrow writes:

“New research reveals the importance of men to congregational vitality and growth.  Almost without exception, growing church draw healthy numbers of men, while declining congregations lack male presence and participation…Men are the world’s largest unreached people group” (xii-xiii).

Why do we care?  Murrow writes:  “It’s no coincidence that the nations in which Christianity was the freely chosen religion of men are also bastions of tolerance, charity, and political stability.” (xii)

A lot is at stack in raising the issue of men’s participation in the church, but there is also a lot of resistance to talking about it.  Murrow writes an entire page listing things that the book is NOT about—at the top of the list is blame.  He refuses to spend any time blaming anyone (not men, not women, not pastors) for the gender gap—his purpose is:  “to illuminate the problem and seek solutions” (xiv).

What is the problem? Murrow writes:

“According to polls, 90 percent of American men claim belief in God.  Five of six call themselves Christians. But just two out of six U.S. men claim to have attended church in the previous week. Some experts believe the true number is fewer than one in six.” (13).

While men and women are roughly split evenly in the population, 61 percent of those in the pews are women and only 39 percent are men (14).  For African American congregations, the numbers are even more skewed with 75 to 90 percent of those attending church being women (16).  If saving men’s souls does not inspire sufficient concern, then think about money—the absence of men hurts church giving .

The gender gap is not a new problem. Recent changes in gender politics in the church are accordingly not the primary reason for the problem. Citing Leon Podles, the gap has been growing since the thirteenth century, but widened dramatically in the nineteenth century when male intellectuals began: “…publically rejecting religion as superstition or myth.” Meanwhile, working class men had to leave their homes to work in industry (55-56) . What remained in the church were women, children, and elderly men (57). Pastors confronted with a female audience increasingly softened the preaching, music, and theology to suit their audience. And, of course, less manly men found their way into the pastorate. Each of these proclivities alienated men who did come to church.

Again, why do we care?  Murrow writes:

“So men avoid church [like they avoid a prostate exam]—and suffer for it.  Men are more likely than women to be arrested, die violently, commit and be victims of crimes, go to jail, and be addicted.  They also die more often on the job, have more heart attacks, commit suicide in greater numbers and live shorter lives than women…If men want to avoid these pathologies, they should go to church.  Studies indicated that churchgoers are more likely to be married and express a higher level of satisfaction with life.  Church involvement is the most important predictor of marital stability and happiness. It raises most people out of poverty.  It’s also correlated with less depression, more self-esteem, and greater family and marital happiness.” (23)

It is interesting that my wife, who is Muslim, pushes our daughter harder than I do to attend church—hoping that she will meet “someone nice”—something never said about attending a local mosque even though either option is equally convenient.  What happens if my daughter goes to church and does not meet any “nice, eligible men”? Obviously, both the church and the family are hurt when this happens…as a father, I really do feel that pain [4].

What can be done about it? Murrow focuses on giving “men opportunities to use their skills and gifts” (202).  The typical church, in his opinion, focuses on offering men opportunities to join in activities that women are more comfortable with (201).  He makes his point by offering the following hypothetic church announcement:

“As of next month…we are canceling the nursery and Sunday school. We will no longer offer weddings, baptisms, baby showers, or funerals [feeling not doing events].  We will be dropping our choir and pulling out of our partnership with the soup kitchen.  Instead, we’re going to minister in a new way.  Our children’s ministry will be based on sports leagues. We will offer free automotive repairs to the working poor.  We will provide carpentry, plumbing, and electrical upgrades to senior’s homes.  We will deploy our member as security ambassadors, walking the streets of high crime neighborhoods.  And our mission team will dig wells in Honduras.” (201).

He then asks how women might feel about such changes.

Murrow offers a boat load of suggestions on how to refocus to make men feel more like part of the church team. Interestingly, nowhere does he say that the pastor has to be a man.  Instead, he suggests a boy band up front in worship, male parking attendants, male ushers, wide-screen television, prayer huddles [not circles], signs [men hate asking direction], and get rid of the banners [they bring a nursery setting to mind] and robes—real men don’t cross-dress or want to. Some of these suggestions lean into working-class, male stereotypes a bit but the point is valid—the church should not alienate men unnecessarily.

Author David Murrow is a marketing professional and has studied anthropology.  He has worked in as a television producer, writer, speaker and government spokesperson. He is not a pastor. At the time of writing, he was from Alaska (where else?) His book is divided into  25 chapters and 3 parts:

Where are the men? (1-45),
Church Culture versus man culture (53-115), and
Calling the church back to men (125-219).

These chapters are preceded by an introduction and followed by notes.

This book was recommended to me by my homiletics professor [6] who was at one point active in Promise Keepers (a recent group attempting to fire up men for the Gospel) .  The homiletics connection is that pastors cannot preach a generic sermon to generic churchgoers—we all come to the Gospel with a different identity, which includes gender.

For me, this book was a wake-up call—churches that do not strive to maintain a balanced demographic may not be around in the future. For Murrow, balance means taking men’s sensitives and talents into account.  In his final chapter—a church for everyone—he talks about a female pastor in Illinois who actually had a church with more men than women. In talking about how she managed to cultivate this outcome, she said:

“Other than the Bible, your book has shifted the way I do ministry more than any other book…As I write liturgy and prayers and sermons, I’m thinking, How would a guy like a bricklayer, a farmer, a mechanic, or a line work hear this?” (220-221)

I am not sure that her church is a church that I would choose to attend, but it is interesting that Murrow’s work has born such obvious fruit.  This book is a great read and may expand your understanding of how your church can reach more people—even men.

 

Murrow quotes an honest pastor:  “When Sally comes to church and Sam doesn’t, you get the tithe off the grocery money.  When they come together, you get the tithe off the paycheck.” (26). While the analogy is a bit dated, the underlying concept remains valid.

 Leon Podles. 1999. The Church Impotent:  The Feminization of Christianity. Dallas:  Spence Publishing.

By 1830, Charles Finney noted that the majority of church members were women. (56)

[4] Murrow candidly remarks that young men today are especially challenged attending church today because in our highly sexualized culture, attending church is a defacto admission that you are “not getting any”.

 http://bit.ly/1EkC9C7

[6] Dr. Rodney Cooper.  From 1995-1997, Dr. Cooper served as the National Director of Promise Keepers.  (http://bit.ly/1P3fqdE)

Nouwen Ministers Out of Pain

Henri J.M. Nouwen.  2010.  Wounded Healer:  Ministry in Contemporary Society (Orig pub 1972). New York:  Image Doubleday.

Review by Stephen W. Hiemstra

Many call stories recited by pastors started at the foot of a hospital bed. Mine did. Others have suffered chronic illness of a sibling or child.  Been there.  Awareness of our own pain helps us appreciate the pain of others (4).  Lived it. I first read Henri Nouwen’s book, Wounded Healer, in the years before attending seminary.  Reading and understanding did not, however, immediately go hand-in-hand.

Thinking in terms of the scientific method, the hardest step in problem-solving is often defining the problem—defining the problem in such a way that further inquiry is both doable and productive . For Nouwen, the core problem of postmodernity is a lost sense of God’s transcendence (20-21).  Citing Robert Jay Lifton, modern people are characterized by historical dislocation, fragmented ideology, and a search for new immorality (12). Nouwen sees these characteristics as more lost connection with the past or the future (12-13), lost belief in objective reality (15), and lost meaning in the traditional symbols of the church (18-19).  This lost sense of transcendence leaves the postmodern person only able to perceive an “existential transcendence”—a kind of breaking out of their private lives to get lost in mysticism or revolutionary causes (20-23).  He sees Christianity itself through a dual lens of mysticism and revolution; conversion is itself a personal revolution (23).

Churches are clearly experimenting with this idea.  Pub ministry offers a kind of bottled mysticism [2]; mission trips present a “revolutionary” breaking of the routine; all sorts of “causes célèbre”, however kinky, give people a sense of being “edgy” or “revolutionary” giving a dull life some sparkle.  The problem with this sort of transcendence is that it is not transcendence at all.  Nouwen’s existential transcendence is more a kind of participatory immanence than transcendence—transcendence is  a divine attribute, not a human one.  Only someone lost to themselves or lost in themselves requires surrender to an external “cause” or mountain top experience.  Existential transcendence is an ersatz sense of the divine, not divinity in the usual sense [3].

Still, Nouwen is onto something significant here–the church’s task is to point to God both in our daily experiences of life and in our mind’s eye.  God is not dull and boring; we are negligent disciples if we make him appear that way.  The Psalmist writes: “Sing to him a new song; play skillfully on the strings, with loud shouts.” (Ps 33:3 ESV) Tension, however, exists in existential transcendence between reflecting the divine image (Gen 1:27) and reaching for one of those shiny apples (Gen 3:6).

Nouwen makes use of two important case studies.

The first case study is more of a description.  He describes a troubled young man named Peter.  Peter is 26, drifting through life, having trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality—likely a psychiatric patient (7-9).  Nouwen writes:

“Peter was not torn apart by conflict, was not depressed, suicidal, or anxiety-ridden.  He did not suffer from despair, but neither did he have anything to hope for…Perhaps we can find in Peter’s life history events or experiences that throw some light on his apathy, but it seems just as valid to view Peter’s paralysis as the paralysis of all humans in the modern age who have lost the sources of their creativity, which is their sense of immorality [transcendence].” (17)

Peter is a kind of archetype—perhaps a younger Henri Nouwen.

The second case study is what chaplains refer to as a verbatim—a case study of a pastoral visit that went poorly which is discussed in a chaplain group as a learning tool.  The case is of a middle-aged blue collar worker, plagued with loneliness and despair, in the hospital for surgery who is visited by a young seminarian and later dies in surgery (56-58).  How might this pastoral visit gone better?  Had the chaplain dealt more effectively with the man’s loneliness and despair, would the man have survived? (72)

Out of this impressive case study, Nouwen derives 3 principles of Christian leadership:

Personal concern;
A deeply-rooted faith in the value and meaning of life; and
Hope that always looks for tomorrow, even beyond death. (76)

It is a bit odd at this point that a Catholic priest, like Nouwen, would not draw his principles of leadership more directly from the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  For example, What leads us to be concerned? Why does he reference faith in life rather than faith in Christ?  What leads us to look beyond death?  Maybe his principles have a biblical origin, but we will never know from his meditation.

Nouwen does give us some origins.  His title, wounded healer, is drawn from a story recorded in the Jewish Talmud about the coming Messiah.  Nouwen writes:

“The Messiah, the story tells us, is sitting among the poor, binding his wounds only one at a time [unlike others who bind them all at once], always prepared for the moment when he might be needed” (88).

Nouwen sees one of the greatest wounds being loneliness which is compounded for the minister by professional loneliness—more a sense of being irrelevant (89-93).  Nouwen sees our own woundedness as helping the minister to connect with the suffering and offer them both hospitality [a safe space to share] and community (93-99).  In this way, the minister empowers the suffering to confront their own issues and find peace with God (Psalm 95:7; 102).

Henri Nouwen’s book, Wounded Healer, deeply influenced me early in my seminary career, in part, because of my own experience of loss and pain. His lost sense of transcendence troubles me now that I understand better what he was saying and what he was not saying. Where is God in his pain? How can a priest be so radically alone? These are troubling questions for a book so influential among pastors and seminarians.  Nouwen redeems his own pain through ministry, but one gets the sense that he is still ministering out of his own anti-strength, strength not Christ’s.  Still, his writing is ever-fresh and his case studies are helpful and will be of interest to seminary students for years to come.

 

 The steps in the scientific methods are:  felt need, problem definition, observation, analysis, decision, execution, and responsibility bearing.  See:  Stephen W. Hiemstra, “Can Bad Culture Kill a Firm?” pages 51-54 of Risk Management, Society of Actuaries, June 2009 (http://bit.ly/1H0Vt68).

[2] http://PubTheologian.com

[3] The idea of approaching God through human experience runs counter to scripture.  God stands outside of time and is holy in the sense of set apart—he must approach us, we cannot approach Him.  In the Tower of Babel story (Gen 11), for example, God comes down and laughs at the people trying to build a tower to heaven.  The uniqueness of Christ arises is that in Christ God comes to us.  With spiritual disciplines, we strip away impediments to God approaching us, we do not ourselves approach God.  This is one aspect of God’s sovereignty.

Prayer Day 24: A Christian Guide to Spirituality by Stephen W. Hiemstra

Available on Amazon.com

Heavenly Father. We praise you for hope in the future and for the gift of patience. We praise you for the vision of Eden and for the promise of new creation where the fullness of salvation will be revealed and all things made new. For in Christ we know the end of the story. You are our rock and our salvation. To you and you alone be the glory. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen.

Padre Celestial. Te alabamos por la esperanza del futuro y por el don de la paciencia. Te alabamos por la visión del Edén y por la promesa de una nueva creación donde se dará a conocer la plenitud de salvación y todas las cosas hechas nuevas. Porque en Cristo sabemos el fin de la historia. Tú eres nuestra roca y nuestra salvación. Para Tí y sólo a Tí sea la gloria. En el nombre del Padre, el Hijo, y el Espíritu Santo, Amén.