The Phoenix Preacher Podcast

I was interviewed for The Phoenix Preacher Podcast the other day to respond to the various discipline scandals at Mars Hill and Calvary Chapel. You can click here to listen.

Obama's Jagged Little Pill

A friend of mine recently drew my attention to this article from the Gospel Coalition about the issue of civil disobedience against President Obama's healthcare plan, which provides contraception to those it covers. Evangelical leaders like Chuck Colson and Rick Warren are calling on their constituents to join with Catholics in engaging in civil disobedience against this initiative.

Rather than discussing the issue of contraception itself, I am curious to hear what you all think about whether this counts as worthy of civil disobedience against the state.

I have discussed the topic of civil disobedience here, here, and here, and my take on it is that it is permissible under certain conditions. First, is it the result of being forced to break an explicit command of God's law? Second, is it non-violent? And third, does it avoid appealing to spiritual liberty as our ground for civil liberty? If the answers to these questions is yes, then it seems to me that civil disobedience is allowable for the Christian.

The question for us is, Are my criteria valid, and if so, does the Obamacare contraception debacle qualify?

I'm Not That Original....

In the section of his review of my book titled "Stellman's Originality," John Frame states that despite Dual Citizens being for the most part "a party line document" I do depart from the other Escondido theologians in a couple of areas.

The first, which Frame calls "a fairly remarkable discussion," centers around my view that the relationship between the cross and glory (which Luther sharply distinguished) is much closer and organically connected than many today in the Reformed world allow. Rather than dwell here upon this issue, let it suffice to say that I believe a robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit creates a bridge between earthly cross-bearing and heavenly glory that precludes their being set in strict antithesis (see Dual Citizens pp. 138-40).

What I found more interesting was Frame's second example of my supposed originality. He writes:

"The other difference between Stellman and some of the other Escondido theologians is that he takes issue with Kline's view of the Sabbath. Kline believed that Sabbath observance in the new covenant pertains to the Lord's Day worship service alone. He thought that the Sabbath pertained only to what is 'holy,' and in the new covenant holiness pertains only to worship, not to work. Therefore we should not rest weekly from the tasks we pursue on the other six days.

"Stellman, however, argues that since the Lord's Day is a day, and not just a few hours, we ought to withdraw from cultural tasks on that entire day (pp. 57-59)."

Frame goes on to say that despite the fact that I "tend to belittle private worship" like the rest of the Escondidoites, I still depart from them on this point.

Now I admit that my memory is not perfect and I would be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't remember a single professor during my three years at Westminster Seminary California ever agreeing with Kline's view of the Sabbath, either privately or in class. In fact, I would be shocked if Horton, Hart, Godfrey, Clark, or VanDrunen (the usual suspects) believed that the Lord's Day can be used however one wishes once the morning service is out of the way.

So it seems odd for Frame, a supposed expert on "the Escondido theology," to see anything remarkable in my differing from Kline on the Sabbath since all of the other Escondido theologians do the same.

Am I missing something here?

Mystify, Mystify Me

As promised, I am beginning a series of responses to John Frame's review of my book, Dual Citizens: Worship and Life between the Already and Not Yet (which you should totally buy, because of how awesome it is). I am not promising to respond to everything Frame says, it will just depend on how things go. If you haven't noticed, I'm kind of sick and tired of fighting with everyone all the time.

First, I'd like to express my sincere thanks to Frame for calling me a "gifted communicator" whose book is "similar to Horton's popular works" (The Escondido Theology, p. 283) I take both statements as compliments.

Frame then seeks to use my communicative skills against me, however, by saying (after pointing out that I open most chapters with an illustration to draw the reader in):

"One might almost suppose that Stellman is trying to make his theology 'relevant,' though he assures us again and again (as Horton does) that relevance is anathema (pp. 15, 17-28). Here he mystifies critical students of the movement as to what the Escondido theologians mean by 'relevance.'"

Before we attempt to peel back the layers of my mysticism we must first remind ourselves of one of the tenets of Escondido Theology according to Frame: "It is wrong to try to make the gospel relevant to its hearers." If this is one of my cardinal rules, Frame asks, then how can I possibly illustrate something without betraying my theology?

Let's take a look at the sections of my book that Frame adduces as evidence for my "anathemization" of relevance. Judging from the pages he listed, he certainly had passages like this in mind:

"The church and its members must not seek the world's approval by providing programs that pander to people's need to feel popular and appreciated. The 'more relevant than thou' approach to ministry may fill churches, but often at the expense of the cross and all its glorious foolishness and shame" (p. 15).

"When we, rather than Scripture, determine what is relevant, we make ourselves the central axis of the universe around which all things--including God--must revolve. Hence, any semblance of Christian oddity and peculiarity is sacrificed on the altar of relevance during church on Sunday, the one time above all others when such oddity and peculiarity should be celebrated. Karl Barth's complaint about the liberalism of his own day rings equally true in our own: 'God' is often reduced to 'MAN!' said in a loud voice. 'Alas,' lament Hauerwas and Willimon, 'in leaning over to speak to the modern world, we have fallen in'" (p. 25).

Now, I hope that most discerning readers can see that what I am attacking is not the attempt to make oneself understood, but rather, the attempt to lessen the cross's offense toward unbelievers in corporate worship by avoiding any expressions of our faith that would look strange to the world. In other words, what I am saying is that we should not let the enemies of Christ define relevance and expect us to fall in line, but instead we should realize that the message we proclaim is the most relevant message imaginable since it cuts right to the heart of the matter, namely, sin and salvation from it.

It seems to me that whether one agrees with me or not, understanding what I am trying to say isn't all that difficult for those who put forth a little effort. For Frame to begin with the thesis that all Escondido theologians consider it "wrong" to make the gospel relevant, and then to act "mystified" when I begin my chapters with stories or illustrations, is nothing more than sophistry (especially since I go on to define quite clearly what it is I am arguing against under the guise of relevance).

In sum, the only reason why I should "mystify" anyone is if they refuse to try to understand me on my own terms and instead insist on imputing to me positions I clearly repudiate, thus putting the worst possible gloss on everything I say.

Horton Responds to Frame

In case you haven't seen it, Michael Horton's response to Frame's book can be found here. I hope to begin a response of my own on Monday or Tuesday, so stay tuned.

The Escondido Response

In case you haven't seen it, the faculty of Westminster Seminary California has offered a brief response to John Frame concerning his book, The Escondido Theology. The most telling portion is where the faculty highlights Frame's 32-point synopsis of the seminary's theology and disavows each and every one. The response is posted below:

***

Westminster Seminary California Faculty Response to John Frame

W. Robert Godfrey

All of us on the faculty of Westminster Seminary California are shocked and saddened by John Frame’s book, The Escondido Theology. Several of us were colleagues with John and several had been his students. We have appreciated particularly over the years his teaching of the apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, his critique of open theism, and his strong defense of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. (The statement of Andrew Sandlin on p. xxxi of this book claiming that John had been a polemicist against inerrancy is surely a mistake.) We are very troubled, then, to find John so utterly misrepresenting and misstating our views. We do not wish to engage in a protracted discussion of these things with John, but we do find it necessary to set the record straight.

Perhaps the simplest way to do that is to refer to the thirty-two bullet points with which John has summarized our views at the beginning of the book (pp. xxxvii-xxxix). He introduces these bullet points by claiming: “Below are some assertions typical of, and widely accepted among, Escondido theologians. Not all of them make all of these assertions, but all of them regard them with some sympathy” (p,xxxvii). In response all of us on the WSC faculty wish to state clearly that we reject all of these thirty-two points as a fair or accurate presentation of our views. We have the most sympathy with the bullet point which says “There is no difference between being biblical and being Reformed” (p. xxxviii). Yet we would state it differently: we are Reformed because we believe that the Bible is most faithfully understood and taught in Reformed Christianity. In relation to most of John’s bullet points we believe and teach the very opposite of what is attributed to us. We hope that those interested in our work will read some of the many works written by our faculty and see for themselves the inaccuracy of John’s book.

To see our commitment to applying the Bible in preaching and to a wide range of contemporary issues, we list below a few faculty books which illustrate this commitment:

Dennis Johnson, Him We Proclaim
W. Robert Godfrey, Pleasing God in our Worship
Michael Horton, Law of Perfect Freedom
R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession (with chapters on the application of the second and fourth commandments)
J. V. Fesko, The Fruit of the Spirit Is and The Rule of Love
David VanDrunen, Bioethics and the Christian Life
Audio recordings of the faculty conference on “The Law of God and the Christian” and our most recent conference on "The Unfolding Mystery: Reading and Applying the Bible."

In light of the potential for this book to confuse our friends and the general public, we wish to restate our Doctrinal Commitment (as is stated in our Catalogue), “The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, breathed out by the Spirit of God through human authors, are the very Word of God written—the only infallible and inerrant authority for faith and life. The doctrines of the Christian faith, held by orthodox churches throughout the ages, express the central truths concerning the triune God and his works of creation and redemption, particularly as they confess the saving work of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture. The Reformed confessions (Westminster Confession and Catechisms, Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort) are the fullest and most accurate summary of the system of doctrine revealed in Holy Scripture.”

Westminster California has been and remains a confessional school. As a whole our faculty supports and promotes the consensus views of the Reformed community as summarized in the Reformed confessions. These confessions express most precisely our theology.

If you have questions about this matter, please contact Westminster Seminary California.

You Got Framed!

I have heard tell that John Frame's new book, The Escondido Theology, has an entire chapter dedicated to reviewing my book, Dual Citizens (my guess would be savagely). Now I don't own Frame's book, nor do I plan to buy it. But from what I have gathered from various online sites, and from what I have seen of his work elsewhere, I expect his treatment to reflect the distaste with which he looks back at his former employer, Westminster Seminary California.

I am hoping to get a photocopy of Frame's review sent to me (or if that doesn't happen I am hoping to be directed to some online source where I can read it), and when I do I will offer some responses and, undoubtedly, some clarifications of the two-kingdoms position I espouse.

And while we're on the subject, remember the outcry by the Federal Visionists and their defenders about how supposedly none of their critics ever bother to check with them before going to print to make sure their critiques are fair? Well, maybe it got lost in the mail, but I am still waiting for an advance copy of Frame's review so that I can reassure him that he understood my position before attacking it.

On Expertise and Idiocy

OK, this is going to seem a bit random, but it's been on my mind lately and is a source of frustration.

It seems to me that it is not until one achieves an expertise in one subject that he becomes aware of his limitations in everything else. In other words, the true expert ought to be the most humble when he is discussing matters outside his field, whereas the person who's an expert at nothing often thinks he's an expert at everything. "Jack of all trades, master of none" and all that.

The reason I bring this up is due to the various discussions I get in about political or economic issues (conversations in which I almost always find myself in the minority, and which I almost always end up regretting). Due to my having earned a Master's degree in divinity and thus a pretty good handle on what counts as valid argumentation in that field, I inevitably feel like I'm just bluffing when I argue about anything else. What always happens is I regurgitate the arguments of the experts I have read while my opponent regurgitates the arguments of the experts he reads, while neither of us really knows what we are talking about.

When it comes to political or economic issues, I have probably read a stack of books three feet high (which is admittedly somewhat meager), and pretty much everything I have to say comes from those books and on the authority of those who wrote them. So instead of getting into all these discussions that betray my own ignorance, maybe what I should do is just hand people who want to argue with me a list of books to read in order to cut out the moronic middle man.

And of course, no one in their right mind will ever agree to such a reading assignment, which kind of makes talking about anything seem pointless.

OK, all done. Just needed to rant a bit....