THINGS THAT BOTHER ME: I’M REFORMED… BUT PT. IV

This is the final writing in this series.

In summary therefore, we have need to ask ourselves what are the consequences of this Reformed... But Pentecostal thinking. To what does it point and what are its consequences? A few remarks are submitted below. It:

 rejects the comprehensiveness of Reformed Theology by denying that there is a unique pattern of worship corresponding to this teaching. Clear teaching on the theology and liturgy of Reformed worship can be found in such profound writings as Worship by Hughes Oliphant Old (part of the “Guide To The Reformed Tradition” series by John H. Leith and John W. Kuykendall); With Reverence And Awe: Returning To The Basics of Reformed Worship by D. G. Hart and John R. Muether; (my highest recommendation) Give Praise To God: A Vision For Reforming Worship, edited by Philip Graham Ryken, Derek W. H. Thomas and J. Ligon Duncan III; and others.

 regards worship as a market transaction, an interchange between consumer and provider, both of whom enjoy a win-win situation by jointly partaking of what best suits and entertains them.

 reveals a tragic situation in which our hermeneutics and experience determine our theology, and not vice versa. In this case, the contours of custom and the conveniences of culture form the basis for our theological understanding.

 rebuffs the internal coherency and consistency of Reformed Theology by promoting a schism between doctrine and practice.

 undermines the unity and cohesiveness of this teaching and creates unnecessary confusion and distraction by claiming to present an acceptable or suitable alternative. The fact is we are not promoting a new and competing brand of Reformed worship but are in fact distorting its true existing forms according to the whims of a democratic mass appeal.

 in the end, is a wearisome repetition of liberal thinking that Scripture can be rejected when it doesn't please us.


The dreaded conjunction BUT is one of contrariety, not one of consequence, one of exception, not one of enhancement. It speaks contrarily to the meaning and essence of Reformed teaching and is in fact a partial rebuttal of such thought. Since Reformed Theology, as we have stated over and over in this as well as in other writings, is a complete framework for understanding our world, the REFORMED ... BUT proposition presents a fragmented worldview. This is a sad oxymoron. Why? Because the evil exception BUT leaves us with an "almost" worldview, a "not exactly" (like the Hertz car rental commercial) perspective. It says we are Reformed except that we choose to be Pentecostal in our worship. We’re 95%, 96%, or 98.7% (pick a number) Reformed!! We’re almost there except for this one aspect. This simply does not and cannot make sense.

The most fundamental question at this point, and indeed, at all points, is not what I want but what does God require of me? Has He given us clear instructions on this subject? Have the historic Reformed churches handed down to us sound interpretations and applications of these principles? Does the Theological concept Reformed have its own principles pervading all of life? The answer to all of these questions is of course, yes. It is our task, therefore, to uphold these principles by faithfully applying them to all matters of faith and conduct.

The Reformation assertion that the church is semper reformanda intends a continuing application of these eternal principles to our local conditions in accordance with the increased illumination God grants us by His Word and Spirit. But (here is that dreaded word again!) there is a drastic difference between faithful application and pragmatic modification, between creative contextualization and convenient mutation. As the “pillar and buttress of truth” 1 Tim 3:15, the church is called to make this distinction continually. Faithfulness to this divine vocation renders her able to reject the Reformed… BUT anomaly and to uphold the Reformed AND continuum. It is a distinction between the common and the consecrated.

THE 1st ANNUAL STONE MOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ON RT

The First Annual Stone Mountain Conference On Reformed Theology, hosted by All Saints Redeemer Church, was held at Grace Presbyterian Church (PCA), Friday July 14-Saturday, July 15.

Our Lord was very gracious: He sent us far more attendees than we expected. We are ever grateful to Him for this grand token of His evangelical presence among us.

Ambitiously patterned after the Philadelphia conference of the same name which was sponsored by our dearly departed brother, Dr. James Montgomery Boice, and The Alliance Of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE), this conference was aimed at testing the waters. With very limited material resources, inadequate planning and insufficient advertising, its main purpose was to alert the professing Reformed community of a new, organized movement to promote and further this sound teaching in the Atlanta area. Needless to say, the Lord also allowed us to have encouraging interaction with many attendees who are still inquiring into the distinctives of the Reformed faith. The question and answer sessions were very encouraging, lively and supportive. In a sense, the conference confirmed what we already knew, that is, in spite of the widespread influence of non- and even anti-Christian teaching in the "church," there is a (slowly?) growing number in whose hearts the Lord has placed the intense desire to know Him rather than to bring Him "vain oblations." It was racially mixed.

Its theme, "When Grace Comes Home," was taken from Terry L. Johnson's book of the same title. Addresses centered on the impact of Reformed Theology on the lives of those encountering it. For example:
Anthony Carter's presentation, "Why Reformed Theology?", emphasized that Reformed Theology is biblical and utilized many quotes from the old masters including Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Abraham Kuyper, Wilhelmus À Brakel, and others, to emphasize the profoundly historic and comprehensive character of this body of teaching. He particularly emphasized its experiential nature in the realm of worship and in all of life.

Robert Benson, Pastor of Southwest Christian Church in Atlanta, used the theme of the conference for his presentation' s title and powerfully described the joyful and illuminating impact of Reformed Theology upon the hearts of church members through non-preaching pastoral discourses such as visitation; formal and informal conversations; counseling; etc.

My talk, “Covenant Theology: The Forgotten Part Of Reformed Theology,” drew attention to the increasing non-recognition of Covenant Theology as an intrinsic dimension of Reformed thinking. This was done in two ways: by tracing their historical relationship and by showing that the entirety of Scripture is founded on a bi-covenantal structure-- God's Covenant of Works with Adam prior to the Fall and, since the Fall, His Covenant of Grace with His elect through Jesus Christ as Surety. Both of these have their foundation in the inter-Trinitarian, ante-creation Covenant of Redemption.

Lastly, Keith Tolbert summarizeb the conference by issuing a challenge in the form of a question, “Can You Handle The Truth?” That is, now that we had been enlightened by the eternal verities of Reformed Theology, it was necessary for us to place ourselves in churches that preach and teach these doctrines faithfully. Truth always has consequences. To return to our Semi-Pelagian securities; to our beguiling bishops; to our prolix prophetesses; to a gospel of dis-grace guaranteeing roseate futures through all kinds of ridiculous religious rigmarole, was indeed to show that we could not handle the truth.

Lord willing, this conference will be an annual event. Prior notices will be made far in advance through blogs and web sites and provision will be made for early registration. We look forward to seeing you next year around mid-July. In the meantime, be semper reformandi.

THINGS THAT BOTHER ME: I’M REFORMED… BUT PT. III

My recent experience at a ranking African-American PCA church was one of lament and frustration. Its leaders repeatedly emphasized that they were Reformed in their theology but Pentecostal in their worship. That is to say, their theology did not impact their worship format and content. Their views about God, man, sin, redemption, sanctification, glorification, predestination and election, history, and so on, did not affect their worship which they “liberated” to be determined by other theological distinctives, in this case, Pentecostal. These leaders have been making this public profession for several years now.

By being Reformed, they went on to say, we mean that God is sovereign. What did they mean by sovereign? That God is in charge of everything. Yes, that’s it!?** That is exactly how they defined and explained Reformed Theology. In a sweeping act of classic deconstructionism, they effortlessly equated Reformed Theology with one of God's attributes.

Two observations are necessary here. Firstly, the sovereignty of God is not a distinctive of Reformed thinking; rather, it is the confession of catholic evangelicalism, of universal Christianity. In other words, all Christians believe that the biblical God is the sovereign God. Secondly, there's more to the sovereignty of God than the bare declaration of His being in control. The psalmist tells us “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases," 115:3, and Daniel writes “all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"" 4:35. From these texts and from the many other expressions of the divine sovereignty found in Scripture, for example in Isa 40:12-15, 21-31, etc., we learn that divine sovereignty necessarily includes the incommunicable attribute of Self-determination. That is to say, God is the only being in Whom that attribute inheres.

No, Reformed Theology includes more than the sovereignty of God. For introductory purposes, it is a complete system of doctrine emphasized in the 16th century Reformation and ensconced in such historic documents as The Heidelberg Catechism, The Belgic Confession, The Westminster Confession of Faith, and so on. As we said in Parts I and II, it is mostly an entire way of viewing and understanding the world. It is the lens or the framework through which we comprehend the world around us.

The ancient church employed the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi - literally, the law of prayer is the law of belief. This means that the content and manner of our prayer determine what we believe. This has been safely extended to mean that how a person worships ultimately reveals what that person really believes: our prayer and worship are sound indicators of what we believe about God, etc. This principle has many implications for us today and in the context of this writing, it principally warns us that it is the very character of God that determines our manner of worship. The way the church conducts its worship service is indicative of its theological convictions. Putting it in other way, our theology informs and instructs our doxology. If we say we are Reformed, then we have at least the responsibility to ensure that our worship is also Reformed in all its ways. This maxim applies not only to our liturgy, our order of worship, but also to the very songs we sing and to the way we reveal our emotions in response to the character of God and to His redemptive works in history, all of which have their fulfillment in the Person and in the atoning sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Since the Reformed Faith believes that the Scripture alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and life -- sola Scriptura -- then all aspects of worship, its form and its content, are to be derived from the Word of God. How has the Reformed Faith understood worship? Calvin observed that "God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word." Article 32 of the Belgic Confession and Question 96 of the Heidelberg Catechism affirm the same. The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Philadelphia (Baptist) Confession of 1742 emphasize that "The acceptable way of worshiping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures" (22.1). [These quotes were taken from Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III's "Does God Care How We Worship" in Give Praise to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship, 21, 22]. This principle has come to be known as the regulative principle of worship.

Since Reformed Theology is a worldview, it is comprehensive and it does not allow us the "privilege" of leaving any area of our faith and conduct unaffected. Particularly, in such a grave area of worship, we cannot jettison our historic teaching and opt for some other ecclesial or theological distinctive. Such a departure quickly removes the focus from our Triune God, the Subject and Object of worship, and places it on ourselves. In the end, we find ourselves worshiping our worship. This is precisely what took place that day. In full display were a form of religious pluralism fueled by a consumerist attitude of choosing the best brand that suits and pleases me; a diminished biblical theological substance of worship; a truncated view of God’s holiness; a permissive individualism enabling personal self-fulfillment; and a profound confusion between a "praise fit" and praise that is fitting. Incidentally, despite all the pervasive talk about the sovereignty of God, in that activity the creature and not the Creator/Redeemer was in charge.

Next issue: Concluding Observations of the Reformed… But Pentecostal View.

THINGS THAT BOTHER ME: I’M REFORMED BUT… PT. II

Here is a small sample of some Reformed But… claims.

• I’m Reformed but I don’t have to mention it every time I preach or teach.

Real meaning: this is a private matter and I don’t have to publicly announce my views or prove them to anyone. After all, the Lord knows my heart and that’s what really matters.

Here, as in the following examples, is the mistaken notion that our theology-- I’m using this word in the subjective sense of what we believe about God, man, sin, life, death, and so on-- does not and should impact all our thoughts and actions. In this scheme, my theology is a highly privatized matter, somewhat like my politics and my banking account. It is tightly compartmentalized and this protective insulation forbids it to interact with, influence or impact my other perspectives and analyses of life. It helps me to have a better grasp of religious matters which I apply to my own walk with God but it is not necessary to make it a foundational or foremost aspect of my ministry.

Clearly this position at least misunderstands the nature and purpose of all theology. It enjoys a comfortable and carnal disjuncture between private views and our corporate duty to preach the whole counsel of God. It also smacks of indolence in the patient, loving instruction of the flock of Christ with the totality of the divine revelation which has its center in Him.

• I’m Reformed but I don’t have to be offensive about it.

Real meaning: I’d rather be considered affable and “nice” rather than hurt or offend one of my Arminian or even Pelagian acquaintances. Love and peace are the effective instruments that will draw them. Bees are easier caught in honey than in vinegar. You can’t catch fish with a baseball bat!!

While it is true that some Calvinists have justly earned the monikers of “frozen chosen” or “sanctimonious sour-pusses,” all Christians are commanded “to truth in love,” a necessary condition for individual and corporate growth “.. into him who is the head, into Christ, ..” Eph 4:15. Truth and love are God’s inseparable tandem for promoting the health of His church, the body of Christ. Rejecting this essential balance is fraught with problems: an overdose of truth alone leads to rampant legalism and Pharisaism and a one-sided deluge of love results in a sloppy, maudlin sentimentality capable of erupting into wicked licentiousness.

It is a transparent attempt to use the excesses of some as a covering fig-leaf of our unwillingness to communicate this most excellent teaching to others. By driving a wedge between truth and love, it commits the fallacy of the false dilemma . In the end, it is a de facto rejection of both truth and love as well as a belittling of the divinely appointed means of growing the church.

• I’m Reformed but I don’t “wear my theology on my sleeves.”

This is an actual quote by a self-professing Reformed pastor of one of Atlanta’s highly visible mega-churches.

Real meaning: similar to those above-- it also countenances and advocates the closet Calvinist mentality.

The major problem here is simply that we are ashamed, afraid or diffident to proclaim faithfully and compassionately the whole theology of the Bible. Instead, we sheepishly hide behind the Reformed slogan(s) and sloppily clothe ourselves with the unfit garments of clandestine Calvinism. Reformed Theology is good for me. I enjoy reading the works of Edwards, Piper, Sproul and Ferguson. I experience deep spiritual upliftment when I read the Westminster Confession Of Faith. Calvin is intellectually challenging and Luther, profoundly pastoral. I enjoy wrestling with Van Til. I even (privately) encourage some of my members and friends to attend Ligonier Ministry’s annual March conference in Orlando because it would be of tremendous benefit for them. But I really don’t see the need to make a big deal about it.

• I’m Reformed but Iwould rather not preach or teach it because it would do more harm than good now in the life of my church. After several years of intense challenges, our congregation seems to be doing fairly well now and to change things at this time would return us to those unpleasant days of commotion and conflict. Besides, Black people are turned off by much talk about doctrine; they have an aversion to –isms which, in many cases, only serve to produce schisms in the church.

This is a conflation of actual quotes by a couple of popular mega-church pastors who are graduates of the most prominent Reformed seminary in this country.

Real meaning: I admit that the Reformed doctrine is thoroughly biblical and I concede its theological stoutness but I have my career to consider. To effect any change at this time would be disastrous and I’d rather be a healer than a divider of people. In the meantime, I still read Berkhof (’s Systematic Theology) every now and then; I fellowship with my Presbyterian brothers when I have time. As a matter of fact, I consult my seminary notes from time to time to help me in my sermon preparation. At this time, however, it would neither be attractive nor advantageous for me to introduce it into my ministry.

In all of the above examples, there is an obvious dichotomy between a personal acknowledgement of the Reformed Faith and the neglect of its corporate preaching and teaching. By the latter I refer not to sporadic presentations or to intermittent investigations of some aspect(s) of Reformed distinctives but to the actual incorporation of the whole body of Reformed doctrine as the systematic teaching of the church. Tragically, this troubling conjunction (BUT) seems to be playing a greater role in some of our professing churches.

Next Issue: The Reformed But… Pentecostal view.

THINGS THAT BOTHER ME: I'M REFORMED BUT... PART I

Recent events have compelled to me to put these views into writing.

Initiates into the Reformed Faith
Our God is forever to be praised for His gracious sovereignty by which He continues to reveal the glorious depths of His truth to our people. Our hearts should overflow with incessant gratitude for His divine delight in disclosing the deep mysteries of His Person and work, especially in the message, mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, to those that are blind babes. The fact that many of us are the undeserving, privileged recipients of God's objective, ab extra Self-disclosure, a revelation that attains its highest significance in the divine redemption of sinners justly deserving death, is at once humbling and self-abnegating. Why? Because His divine choice originates solely in His eternal purposes which are founded upon (the immutable purpose and pleasure of) His will. Yes, we are experiencing the influx of a growing number of initiates into the Reformed tradition… soli Deo gloria, to the glory of God alone.

What is even more revealing is that, in spite of my fleshly anxiety to see an acceleration in this growth, the undeniable reality is that it is a process over which I have no control and which, in fact, requires "time, times, and half a time," figuratively speaking, of course. Its duration will quite likely extend beyond my fleeting lifetime. My ardent desire to see our people leave the dried and blanched deserts of non-Reformed affiliations, especially those that are of the Word Faith, Prosperity and garden-variety Arminian brands, to feed on the lush and verdant pastures of the Reformation thought, cannot hasten their exit. It’s all of God Who alone has the sovereign power to remove the scales from their eyes and to part the waters of doubt and ignorance that they may step onto the environs of wholesome nourishment.

Our task at this time is to be fervent in prayer, vigilant in seeking divine appointments for sharing our faith, and faithful in establishment “deliverance ministries” [we’re not sheep-stealers, we’re sheep-deliverers] to recognize and receive them when the Lord sends them in our direction. Our constant petition should be that God will continue to open up the eyes of all of His elect, more and more, to the manifold riches and wisdom of His grace which are so robustly and consistently captured in what is known as Reformed Theology. Amen.

So much for those that are being constantly initiated into the faith. But ..

What about Those Already Professing to Be Reformed?
But what about those who claim to be already grounded in Reformed thinking? What about those of us who believe we have a clear grasp of the faith once for all handed down to the saints? What are the responsibilities of those who have already tasted the goodness of the Lord as superbly protected and promoted by the Reformed Faith? Further, what is the impact of Reformed thinking on those of us who are already in Reformed denominations such as the PCA, ARP, EPC, and so on?

Yet further, what are the duties of those who are members of independent, non-connectional Reformed churches, for example, our Baptist brothers and sisters? Are we striving to apply Reformed teaching to all areas of our corporate and private lives? Are we constantly employing the maxim ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda (the Reformed church is always reforming) in all facets of our lives? Are we earnestly striving to bring every thought captive to this all-embracing rubric? Since Reformed Theology is a theistic worldview, should we not be about the business of diligently seeking to submit all areas of our lives to its principles? Or, are we satisfied to be quasi-Reformed, that is, Reformed in our acceptance of the minimal Five Points Of Calvinism without seeking to apply the entire body of truth to our views of the sacraments (Sacramentology); the nature, purpose, constitution, leaders, etc., of the church (Ecclesiology); to our liturgy, worship, and preaching; and lastly, to our evangelism and discipleship? Are we taking up the challenge to be semper reformanda, if in fact we are the ecclesia reformata?

The theological buck does not stop with an initial embrace of the Five Points but of necessity must continue to expand and to be extended to all areas of our lives, including sports, the arts, education, economics, politics, and the like. To fail to do so is to fall into the Reformed But… sindrome (sic).

Next issue: Some examples of the Reformed But… mindset.