What Attracts People into the Young, Restless, Reformed Movement?

What Attracts People into the Young, Restless, Reformed Movement?

That is probably the question I’m asked most often when I talk about the “new Calvinism” that has swept up thousands of Christian young people in the last twenty to thirty years. There’s no doubt this has been and is a religious phenomenon. Most recently even the New York Times has taken notice; a few years ago Time magazine mentioned it as one of ten great ideas changing the world. Everyone seems to be talking about it even though it’s not exactly new.

I first became aware of the Young, Restless, Reformed Movement (YRRM) before anyone thought to give it that moniker. I was teaching theology at Baptist-related Bethel College and Seminary (now Bethel University) in Minnesota. John Piper had left the faculty to take the pulpit at nearby Bethlehem Baptist Church about a year before I arrived. He was still much discussed by students and faculty alike and seemed to have been a polarizing figure on campus. People tended either to love him or despise him. I had read his article about “Christian Hedonism” in HIS magazine (the now defunct publication of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship) before then and had met Piper when I first visited Bethel a few years before joining its faculty. (I still have that article in my files! I tore it out of the issue thinking maybe someday it would be important to have. Little did I know….)   Continue at Roger Olson

If it Looks Like Rome …

I’ve been noticing a trend within the Reformed Presbyterian world. Many churches seem to be drawn to practices that have more in common with Rome than with Geneva. I’m not really sure what exactly the attraction is, but here are some of the things I’ve noticed, in no particular order:

• Eucharistic liturgy
• Intinction
• Monastic Retreats
• Contemplative prayer
• Vestments
• Observance of Ash Wednesday/Lent

It seems worthwhile, given the current fascination, to consider these practices and to ask whether they are in keeping with Scripture and our Reformed Presbyterian heritage.

First, while there are many opinions and preferences on liturgical style in worship, there is more going on here than simply responsive readings. Some churches have begun to borrow liturgy from the Catholic Eucharist mass to use in their own communion services. Most often what is used is the “mysterium fidei”   Continue at Rachel Miller

A Reformed Critique of Alcoholics Anonymous

This article was first written in 1987. It was first published in the Reformed Herald in 1989. It appears here with only minor revisions.

Since I first posted this essay on the web in 1999, it has generated more response than I expected. Before you write to complain that I have misrepresented AA or to tell me how much AA has helped you or to give me sources to read on the history of AA, please note that this is not my current field of research nor will it be any time soon. Please note that this essay is not intended as a personal criticism nor does it intend to deny that God is free to work as he wills. I understand that some have been helped by AA. That fact, however, does not change the will of God revealed in Holy Scripture (Deut 29:29). That God has used AA to bring one to faith in Jesus is a cause for thanks but it is not a reason to withhold criticism of AA. This essay is intended primarily to encourage confessional Reformed and Presbyterian churches to take up their responsibility to love sinners. Revised February, 2006.   Continue at Scott Clark

IMAGE

Issues in the SBC

I was recently interviewed by Scott Oakland at Reformed Cast about my book 10 Sacred Cows in Christianity That Need to Be Tipped. I ended up discussing several issues that I see in the SBC:

1. “Entertaining Sermons”: Some preachers pursue entertaining their hearers while preaching since we live in an entertainment-centered culture. Biblically speaking, however, the word of God should keep the attention of God’s people because it’s God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Where the Bible speaks, God speaks.

2. “Anything for Souls”: Several churches bribe their hearers to attend worship so people will hear the gospel, but such practices undercut the value of the gospel. These practices are antithetical to repentance of sin and faith in Christ for reconciliation to God.

3. “Numbers Equal Revival”: There’s a temptation to believe that if our churches are growing then we’re experiencing revival. Yet, I believe the New Testament church was “revived” even when sinners were killing Christians, even when their numbers were decreasing. Faithfulness to God is the goal. If we’re not being obedient to God’s word, we’re not experiencing revival regardless how much our numbers are increasing.    Continue at Jared Moore

Is Sanctification Monergistic or Synergistic? A Reformed Survey

Recently, in a leadership training class at our church, a spirited discussion broke out on whether sanctification is monergistic or synergisitic. No, this is not what every class is like at University Reformed Church. But this one was. I wasn’t there, but I was told the discussion was energetic, intelligent, and respectful. I’m glad to serve at a church where people know and care about this level of theological precision.

The terms monergism and synergism refer to the working of God in regeneration. Monergism teaches that we are born again by only one working (mono is Greek for “one,”  erg is from the Greek word for “work”). Synergism teaches that we are born again by human cooperation with the grace of God (the syn prefix means “with” in Greek). The Protestant Reformers strongly opposed all synergistic understandings of the new birth. They believed that given the spiritual deadness and moral inability of man, our regeneration is owing entirely to the sovereign work of God. We do not cooperate and we do not contribute to our being born again. Three cheers for monergism.   Continue at Kevin DeYoung

Joel’s Not So Bad After All? Mark Driscoll on Joel Osteen

So says YRR (Young, Restless, and Reformed) leader Mark Driscoll in an interview (regarding his forthcoming book) published by the TGC:

Q: You observe that “appreciated people” exchange grumbling for praying, competing for celebrating, bitterness for thankfulness, performing for serving, and boasting for encouraging. What’s an “appreciated person”? Isn’t that what Joel Osteen wants me to be?

A: I am aware of the theological differences that exist between our tribe and Pastor Joel. I also know my Reformed brothers like to treat Pastor Joel like a piñata, but there are worse things than being happy and encouraging at a time when the most common prescription medications are antidepressants. A few guys in our tribe could learn to talk about something other than painful, arduous suffering once and a while—if nothing else than for the sake of variety. Our identity is not in our joy, and our identity is not in our suffering. Our identity is in Christ, whether we have joy or are suffering. 

So, there are two utterly competing accounts of Joel Osteen’s message before us.  Either Osteen’s is a false gospel or he has been misunderstood. James Gilmore, author of The Experience Economy, has produced a scorecard by which to evaluate Osteen’s message. The key phrases under the Osteen column are telling. More pointedly, Mike Horton writes:  Continue at R. Scott Clark

A Year of Biblical Womanhood: A Review

There are several reasons why I decided to read and review Rachel Held Evans’ forthcoming book A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband "Master" (Thomas Nelson; October 30, 2012). 

I certainly am not writing this review out of any sense of convenience and comfort. Here’s why I did: 

First, as a Christian woman who adheres to Reformed doctrine, I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, written by men, inspired by God, infallible in all that it teaches, sufficient for all of life and doctrine, and the very words of God, words from God. And this new book from Evans is a recent example of how this essential truth is lost.

Second, I write this review because I have something of a relational history with the author. I have had the pleasure of corresponding with her over emails and have enjoyed our brief interactions. 

Third, and even more centrally, I write this review out of a love for my fellow sisters in the church who are trying to walk with integrity as women, as I am, before God. 

Finally, I write this review out of a love for the lost who are searching for answers about God and the Bible and will read this book and sadly be misled. 

Before I begin the review, let me say that I find this book to be most troubling because of Evans’ handling of Scripture. As much as I hoped to be pleasantly surprised, as I read my heart became heavy. And yet, for all its weaknesses, this book is sure to draw a lot of attention in the coming weeks.  Continue at Trillia Newbell

A Plea to Al Mohler, Nettles and the Founders

I feel so much like Michael Corleone right now.  I want to ignore the Calvinism wars. I want to talk about something else. I want to move on the things that I think are more important that are being ignored in our obsession with promoting or assailing Calvinism.  But, as soon as I make a commitment, then:

Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in!

Alan Cross wrote a powerful article at his site, Downshore Drift, called, “Does Al Mohler Need to Repent of Promoting Calvinism?”  In that article, he calls on Dr. Mohler to change his ways, asking him to tone down the rhetoric on the Calvinism front. I would encourage you to read Alan’s post before you move on from here.

Okay, I’ll take your word for it that you read Alan’s take on the subject. Alan makes some great points there, which I think need to be heard. I want to expand on what he says with some points of my own.   Continue at Dave Miller

What Romanism Really Is

By Dr. James White – Part 1:

 

Jason Stellman just announced his defection to Romanism in these words:

More specifically, I no longer see the Reformed doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide as faithfully reflecting what the Bible teaches, which is why I will, Lord willing, be received into full communion with the Catholic Church sometime in the next several months.

Dr. James White writes: Just a few weeks ago I leaned over and looked Jason in the eye. He was sitting on the couch in my office, a matter of feet from where I am sitting right now. I’m sure he noted with some humor my lava lamps, which would have been directly behind me as I spoke. “If you are going to Rome, go all the way. Mary, Popes, the whole nine yards. Then debate me on it.” He laughed. 

As I sadly read the above cited words I could not help but shake my head. Jason knows the Apostles did not teach what Rome teaches on so many things. He knows there wasn’t a single person at Nicea who believes what Rome requires him to believe de fide today, and that he has to buy into a massively complex, easily challenged house of philosophical cards to keep the Roman authority system standing. I do not understand what drives the kind of agnosticism about the authority of God’s Word that has driven him into a system that offers no peace and no finished work of Christ. He refused to defend Romanism when we talked, he only wanted to pose hypotheticals that Rome has no meaningful answer to. But in any case, I can report with honesty that I gave it to him straight: if he went to Rome, he was abandoning the gospel, abandoning his call, abandoning all that is good and right and just and true, for a man-made system of endless penances, alter Christi, non-perfecting sacrifices, satis passio, and enough mythical dogmas about Mary to make the devotees of the Queen of Heaven blush. It will not satisfy, it will leave him empty and forlorn, once that initial “honeymoon” phase is over. When he sees it from the inside, when the glow of the New Convert Syndrome wears off, he will see he has accomplished nothing outside of the destruction of his own ministry and the trust others had placed in him. It is sad to see, but he will have to testify: I warned him clearly, and without compromise. I even asked him, “Has anyone else spoken to you with as much passion?” “No” was his reply.   Continue at James White

Spiritual Dyslexia

Chapter 19 of my new book “Twelve What Abouts…”

Dyslexia warps reality; the consequences of which can be catastrophic. It is something that causes great hardship to multitudes in our day. People with normal, or even above normal, intelligence suffer from dyslexia as the brain reverses numbers, letters or words. It is a huge learning handicap and, in severe cases, can greatly limit education and employment opportunities. 

For those unfamiliar with the problem, imagine having the word “GOD” written clearly in front of you and yet your brain interprets the information as “DOG,” as the first and last letters of the word are transposed. I am sure you will agree that there is a vast chasm of difference inherent in this misinterpretation. My heart truly goes out to those who have to go through life having to combat dyslexia.

Moving from the physical to the spiritual realm, I believe multitudes of Christians suffer from what I would call “spiritual dyslexia.” It’s a phrase I heard some years ago and found it to be a striking one. Theologians don’t use this language of course. They would be much more comfortable describing this concept as “the noetic effects of sin,” which is the simple recognition that since the Fall of Adam, all of mankind’s faculties have been negatively affected, including his mind. In simple terms, we just don’t think now as clearly and precisely as we would have done if there had been no Fall. 

According to 1 Corinthians 13, this side of glory, we only see through a glass darkly. One day, we will all comprehend things exactly (as much as finite minds can grasp the infinite). Yet right now, we all have our traditions and blind spots. If we knew exactly where we were wrong, we would change our viewpoint immediately. But the point is that we do not see these things until God the Holy Spirit enlightens us and overcomes the effects of our depravity.  Continue at John Samson

Does Foreknowledge Explain Election?

The term 'Election' occurs frequently in the New Testament, referring to God's choice of some for salvation. All Christians hold to a doctrine of election since it is a biblical word. The notion of God choosing some for salvation and not others is so clear throughout the entire Bible that no serious student of Scripture denies it. Contention occurs, however, when we ask what is basis of God's choice.

Two answers exist within the Christian community

The first view holds that Election has no basis whatever in man.

It is a mystery, hidden forever in God's sovereign will. Though God is not arbitrary in his decrees, nevertheless the decree of Election is a righteous one since no one deserves salvation anyway. 

This view is frequently called 'Reformed', because it was prominent during the Reformation period and is held today by those churches who identity their theology as 'Reformed.' 

The second view claims divine 'foreknowledge' as the basis for Election.

God supposedly looks into the future and notices who will accept Christ and 'elects' those. This view is normally called 'Arminian', after the Dutch pastor in the 16th century, Arminius, who invented the doctrine toward the end of the Reformation period. The meaning of foreknowledge, when used of divine decisions, it carries the connotation of 'appointed.' It therefore means something like 'foreordained' in connection with Election. It is the person who is 'foreknown', or 'appointed' to salvation, not some quality in the person.

The evidence is:  Continue at Smallings

Historical Claims Concerning Union with Christ

“Union with Christ is finally getting its just place as a central dogma in organizing the Reformed view of how we are saved.” “Charles Hodge, among others, placed the forensic (especially justification) at the center, rather than union.” “Reformed paradigm: justification and sanctification have their source in union; Lutheran paradigm: minor role for union, if anything, and sanctification has its source in justification.”

These statements illustrate a type of exaggeration that I’d like to unpack very briefly, in part because there different nuances in this discussion that have pretty significant implications. Since my focus here is the historical claim about defining the Reformed consensus on this point, rather than exegesis.

Union with Christ at the center

Hunting down central dogmas that distinguish one tradition or school from others was a hallmark of 19th-century historians. Yet a host of specialists in Calvin and Reformed orthodoxy have shown conclusively that this is a wrong approach. It imposes our own constructs on historical views and, furthermore, there is no central dogma in Calvin, much less in Reformed theology. A central dogma is not just an important truth; it functions as a theory from which everything else is deduced.

For Calvin and the whole Reformed tradition, Christ’s person is the source of everything and his work is inseparable from Christ himself. Christ himself, not any one of his gifts, is the center and object of our faith. (That’s Lutheran, too, by the way.) However, there’s a big difference between something being important—even in tying together other important doctrines—and something being a central dogma. Many are discovering union with Christ, and that’s great, but it has been there in our Reformed bloodstream all along. It is not something that was somehow buried after Calvin and then just uncovered recently in a particular school or circle of contemporary Reformed thought.  Continue at White Horse Inn

IMAGE

Co-operative or Effectual Grace

IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE BELIEVER'S "CO-OPERATION" WITH GRACE; THE WILL IS FIRST ACTUATED THROUGH GRACE

But perhaps some will concede that the will is turned away from the good by its own nature and is converted by the Lord's power alone, yet in such a way that, having been prepared, it then has its own part in the action. As Augustine teaches, grace precedes every good work; while will does not go before as its leader but follows after as its attendant. This statement, which the holy man made with no evil intention, has by Lombard been preposterously twisted to that way of thinking. But I contend that in the words of the prophet that I have cited, as well as in other passages, two things are clearly signified: 

(1) the Lord corrects our evil will, or rather extinguishes it; 

(2) he substitutes for it a good one from himself. 

In so far as it is anticipated by grace, to that degree I concede that you may call your will an "attendant." But because the will reformed is the Lord's work, it is wrongly attributed to man that he obeys prevenient grace with his will as attendant. Therefore Chrysostom erroneously wrote: "Neither grace without will nor will without grace can do anything." As if grace did not also actuate the will itself, as we have just seen from Paul [cf. Philippians 2:13]! Nor was it Augustine's intent, in calling the human will the attendant of grace, to assign to the will in good works a function second to that of grace. His only purpose was, rather, to refute that very evil doctrine of Pelagius which lodged the first cause of salvation in man's merit.  Keep Reading >>>

Warning Passages Ahead

The Book of Hebrews daunts even the most gifted preachers and scholars. For one thing, we don't know the author. He quotes the Old Testament at length and repeatedly, but his method of interpreting these passages doesn't always make sense to readers. His arguments about angels, Moses, and the temple require more than cursory understanding of the Hebrew Bible.

And then there are the so-called warning passages. It might be hard at first to grasp the significance of the priest Melchizedek, but many Christians viscerally understand the practical importance of these warnings. Can I lose my faith? What if I doubt? Fail to overcome sin?

To answer these questions and more, I turned to the acclaimed scholar Peter O'Brien, professor emeritus at Moore College in Sydney, Australia. Many who have studied Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians have benefited from his rich, insightful, and faithful commentaries. He has also written an immensely helpful commentary on the Letter to the Hebrews. He draws on some of that study to help us understand the famous warning passages in their immediate and canonical context.

Some Reformed teachers find it hard to teach the five warning passages of Hebrews (2:1-4; 3:7-4:13; 5:11-6:12; 10:19-39; 12:14-29). How do we reconcile our theology with what appears to many to be the plain meaning of these passages, that believers can lose their faith?  Keep Reading >>>

The Missing Factor in the Justification & Sanctification Discussion

We have much to be thankful for in the recent discussion regarding justification and sanctification in the Reformed community. And it appears that this will continue to be a discussion for years ahead. First, I am thankful for the renewed zealousness and commitment to the doctrine of justification. It seems every few decades this doctrine needs to be reconsidered and appreciated due to some assault upon it. Second, I am thankful for the seriousness with which some are looking at the doctrine of sanctification. The Reformed community throughout its history has always maintained a strong teaching on the Christian life and the “working out” of our salvation by the Spirit.

However, one position of the recent discussion is of concern. In some of the current conversation it has been advocated that sanctification purely flows out of our justification.With this tact the Christian is encouraged to merely look back to the reality of their justification in order to grow in sanctification or we are told that sanctification is just “getting used to our justification.”  But often missing in this pastoral advice or theology is the essential and necessary doctrine of union with Christ. This doctrine also has a long and robust history in the Reformed community. One only needs to think back  to Calvin to realize how important this doctrine has been in our circles. Dr. Richard Gaffin in a short article entitled, “Justification and Union with Christ” (which can be found in Theological Guides to Calvin’s Institutes edited by David Hall and Peter Lillback) states:  Keep Reading >>>

The Five Points of Reformed Baptist Churches

A brief out-line of our distinctive convictions

I REFORMATIONAL

A. Sola Scriptura  -  The Bible is the complete, closed and clear authority in all matters of faith.

B. Solus Christus  -  Our confidence is in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.

C. Sola Gratia  -  Grace secured redemption without reference to works.

D. Sola Fide  -  We are declared righteous by God through faith alone.

E. Soli Deo Gloria  -  Goal of creation and redemption is God‘s praise.

II CALVINISTIC

A. Total Depravity  -  The fall of Adam affected the totality of man’s person.

B. Unconditional Election  -  Election is not based on foreseen faith or works.

C. Limited Atonement  -  Redemption was accomplished by Christ for elect.

D. Irresistible Grace  -  Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is efficacious for elect.

E. Perseverance of the Saints  -  God will, by grace, complete what He began in regeneration of the elect.

III PURITAN

A. Godliness in Worship  -  Regulative Principle of Worship, the Lord’s Day as a Christian Sabbath.

B. Godliness in Preaching  -  Primacy of preaching. Both exposition and application emphasized.

C. Godliness in Instruction  -  Confessional and catholic. Publishing what we believe the Bible teaches.

D. Godliness in Family  -  Parents are to instruct (catechize) and discipline their children in the Lord.

E. Godliness in Behavior  -  Maintaining a good conscience before God and man.

IV COVENANTAL

A. Unity of the Bible  -  Many parts yet one message.

B. Christ-centered interpretation  -  Jesus’ person, work and kingdom is the theme of the Bible.

C. Law / Gospel distinction  -  Law commands and condemns. Gospel saves.

D. One way of salvation  -  Christ has saved all the elect throughout all the ages.

E. Optimistic view of history  -  Jesus Christ is now King ruling over all. He will soon come again.

V BAPTIST

A. Biblical Church Practice  -  Ordinances for believers only. Church discipline lovingly exercised.

B. Biblical Church Freedom  -  The state is not to intrude into matters of conscience.

C. Biblical Church Government  -  Elders and deacons. The local congregation chooses its leaders.

D. Biblical Church Growth  -  Gospel proclamation to the world. Repentance and Faith demanded of all.

E. Biblical Church Ministry  -  Priesthood of all believers.

HT:  Reformed Baptist Fellowship

Young, Restless, Reformed: "Hip, Hip, Hurrah!" or "Bah Humbug!"

Young, Restless, Reformed is “a journalist’s journey with the new Calvinists.” Collin Hansen, an editor for Christianity Today describes the contemporary resurgence of Reformed theology, particularly among young evangelicals. The book consists largely of interviews with young people who have been drawn to Calvinism and the leaders whom God has used to foster the resurgence. In particular, Hansen devotes the bulk of his attention on the ministries of John Piper, Albert Mohler, C. J. Mahaney, and Mark Driscoll. He also devotes one entire chapter to the renewed interest in a dead pastor-theologian, Jonathan Edwards. Moreover, Hansen highlights important events such as The Passion Conference, Together for the Gospel, and New Attitude, as well as college campus ministries like Reformed University Fellowship, Campus Outreach, and University Christian Fellowship. My purpose is not to provide an extended review of the book. Several such reviews can be googled online. Instead, I’d like to reflect briefly on some of the responses to the book, especially from those within the Reformed camp.

Most responses to the book have been overwhelmingly positive. The back cover features accolades from the well-known blogger Tim Challies, author Jerry Bridges, NT scholar Donald Carson, and church historian Douglas Sweeney. When I posted this blog, there were 31 reviews in Amazon.com, 29 of which give the book 4 to 5 stars. After a thorough review, British Reformed Baptist Erroll Hulse queries, “Criticisms?” and tersely responds, “No!” The only weak spot Tim Challies finds is that the book’s “focus is more on today than on yesterday and tomorrow.” He wishes Hansen would have given a bit more time on “how this movement grew” and on “where it might be going.” Challies concedes, however, that the author’s narrow scope probably precluded such an analysis.   Keep Reading >>>

Does Calvinism Make God a “Moral Monster”?

Among the caricatures of Calvinism is the widespread claim that it renders God the author of evil, suffering, sin, and even the fall of humanity itself. In his recent book, Against Calvinism, Roger Olson carefully distinguishes the official teaching of Calvinism from where he thinks it logically leads. However, there are over three dozen statements in his book about Calvinism leading by good and necessary logic to a deity who is a “moral monster,” indistinguishable from the devil.

I respond to this charge directly in my companion volume, For Calvinism. A thoughtful review of my book from an Arminian perspective came to my attention today and this question again rose to the surface. (By the way, Calvinists talk so much about predestination more because of the charges leveled repeatedly against it than because of its alleged centrality.)

If God knew that Adam and Eve were going to transgress his law, why didn’t he change the circumstances so that they would have made a different choice?

Why would God create people he knew would be condemned for their original and actual sin?

The questions multiply.

Taking on this question in a blog post is a little dangerous. For a statement of the Reformed position and its scriptural basis, I’d refer readers to For Calvinism. 

However, there is one point that is worth pondering briefly: Non-Calvinist theologies are just as vulnerable on this question. Classic Arminian theology shares with Calvinism—indeed with all historic branches of Christianity—that God’s foreknowledge comprehends all future events. There is nothing that happens, nothing that you and I do, that lies outside of God’s eternal foreknowledge.    Keep Reading >>>

Church Planters and Missionolatry

I heard a pastor say recently: “If you know Jesus, I am sorry to break it to you: this church is not for you.” He continued by addressing those who came to know Jesus the previous week at the church: “Last week was the last week that [this church] existed for you.” Though maybe not to this degree, I think many of us fledgling-planters have erred on the side of an “its-all-about-mission” philosophy of ministry.

Certainly it is exciting when droves of souls are genuinely converted to Jesus Christ. No doubt, the church always needs a zeal for evangelism and I frequently see a lack thereof in myself, rooted in pride and laziness. Repentance is needed. Insofar as doxological zeal exists in church-planters, we ought to praise God.

However, grave consequences result among young church-planters and pastors who—even unknowingly—embrace an “all-about-mission,” “this-church-is-no-longer-for-you,” and “the-gospel-causes-us-to-look-up…not-in-to-ourselves-and-how-we’re-doing,” philosophy of ministry.

The error is that sanctification gets sacrificed on the altar of mission. It is an error I have made in my ministry, being so fixated on getting people in, I have neglected those who are already there.     Keep Reading>>>

Collateral Damage in the Invitation of T.D. Jakes to the Elephant Room

In 2007, the Lord granted me the privilege of publishing The Decline of African-American Theology: From Biblical Faith to Cultural Captivity (IVP).  The book was a labor of sorrow and love–sorrow because of how sharp and deep theological decline has been since the first writing African Americans of the late 1700s and early 1800s, and love because I ache to see my kinsmen according to the flesh brought into the gracious realms of God’s salvation.  For me, the book was an attempt to (a) accurately trace the history of African-American theology using available primary source material, and (b) fulfill a pastoral obligation to advance the gospel and refute error (Titus 1:9).

Because the book “breaks rank” and “the party line,” I expected to be alone against an avalanche of criticism and angry protest.  But the Lord has a people who have not bowed the knee to the baals of theological heresy, a people who want to know the truth and who instinctively if not explicitly knew something had gone wrong in the African-American church.  Jesus’ sheep hear and know His voice, and they follow Him.  Instead of an avalanche of criticism, I’ve pretty much heard a chorus of “Finally” and “It’s about time!”

When theologically conservative, Evangelical or Reformed African Americans call for reform in the African-American church, they feel like midgets facing the titans and juggernauts of a word-faith, charismatic pantheon.  The task can seem so daunting and isolating.  Internally, there’s the constant fight with unbelief and resignation.  There’s wrestling with questions like “Can the African-American church be reformed?”  ”Is the church essentially apostate?”  Sometimes these questions have more to do with us than they have to do with the church.  But the questions illustrate how intense and serious a battle this is.   Keep Reading...