The PyroManiacs devote space at the beginning of each week to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive.The following excerpt is from "Progressive Theology," an article appearing in the April 1888 issue of The Sword and the Trowel. The article echoes some of the Spurgeon material we have posted before, where Spurgeon seems to speak directly to the postmodern spirit.In fact, we've pointed out such comments from Spurgeon many times. We think they offer convincing proof that "evangelical postmodernism" is really little more than Victorian-style modernism decked out in tattoos and punk clothing. See especially here and here. (Phil Johnson)
"Do men really believe that there is a gospel for each century? Or a religion for each fifty years? Will there be in heaven saints saved according to a score sorts of gospel? Will these agree together to sing the same song? And what will the song be? Saved on different footings, and believing different doctrines, will they enjoy eternal concord, or will heaven itself be only a new arena for disputation between varieties of faiths?We shall, on the supposition of an ever-developing theology, owe a great deal to the wisdom of men. God may provide the marble; but it is man who will carve the statue. It will no longer be true that God has hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes; but the babes will be lost in hopeless bewilderment, and carnal wisdom will have fine times for glorying.
Scientific men will be the true prophets of our Israel, even though they deny Israel's God; and instead of the Holy Spirit guiding the humble in heart, we shall see the enthronement of "the spirit of the age," whatever that may mean. "The world by wisdom knew not God," so says the apostle of the ages past; but the contrary is to be our experience nowadays.
New editions of the gospel are to be excogitated by the wisdom of men, and we are to follow in the wake of "thoughtful preachers," whose thoughts are not as God's thoughts. Verily this is the deification of man! . . .It is thought to be mere bigotry to protest against the mad spirit which is now loose among us. Pan-indifferentism is rising like the tide; who can hinder it? We are all to be as one, even though we agree in next to nothing. It is a breach of brotherly love to denounce error.
Hail, holy charity! Black is white; and white is black. The false is true; the true is false; the true and the false are one. Let us join hands, and never again mention those barbarous, old-fashioned doctrines about which we are sure to differ. Let the good and sound men for liberty's sake shield their "advanced brethren"; or, at least, gently blame them in a tone which means approval.
After all, there is no difference, except in the point of view from which we look at things: it is all in the eye, or, as the vulgar say, "it is all my eye"! In order to maintain an open union, let us fight as for dear life against any form of sound words, since it might restrain our liberty to deny the doctrines of the Word of God!But what if earnest protests accomplish nothing, because of the invincible resolve of the infatuated to abide in fellowship with the inventors of false doctrine?Well, we shall at least have done our duty. We are not responsible for success. If the plague cannot be stayed, we can at least die in the attempt to remove it.
Every voice that is lifted up against Anythingarianism is at least a little hindrance to its universal prevalence. It may be that in some one instance a true witness is strengthened by our word, or a waverer is kept from falling; and this is no mean reward.It is true that our testimony may be held up to contempt; and may, indeed, in itself be feeble enough to be open to ridicule; but yet the Lord, by the weak things of the world, has overcome the mighty in former times, and he will do so again.
We cannot despair for the church or for the truth, while the Lord lives and reigns; but, assuredly, the conflict to which the faithful are now summoned is not less arduous than that in which the Reformers were engaged. So much of subtlety is mixed up with the whole business, that the sword seems to fall upon a sack of wool, or to miss its mark. However, plain truth will cut its way in the end, and policy will ring its own death-knell.
-CH Spurgeon
17 comments:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it appears to me that he is ranting more against the Universialism/Unitarianism effect of modernism than just the cultural shift of modernism itself.
And while the cultural shift into postmodernism certainly isn't influenced by Jesus Christ or His gospel, it doesn't mean that followers of Jesus are swayed by such universalism. "The gospel for each century" is quite the opposite of what I hear from ministries and emergents trying to reach the postmodern. It's actually the stripping off of the religious obligations, rhetoric, and restrictions so that the postmodern, the unchurched, etc can access the gospel that Jesus saves! It's a movement to remove the stigma that the religion and the Church can save you.
And while I agree that there is not a different gospel for different people (a very modern thought of relativity), there are certainly different ways that Jesus reveals Himself to the unsaved, just as He revealed Himself differently to different people in the gospels. This is very good! Just as God is infinite in His characteristics, Jesus shares those same characteristics in seeking out lost souls to heal and call to follow Him.
Hey Tim, you said:
[quoting Spurgeon]"The gospel for each century" is quite the opposite of what I hear from ministries and emergents trying to reach the postmodern. It's actually the stripping off of the religious obligations, rhetoric, and restrictions so that the postmodern, the unchurched, etc can access the gospel that Jesus saves! It's a movement to remove the stigma that the religion and the Church can save you."
I think that's exactly the problem. We think that the gospel needs to be altered in order to make an impact. My hang up with the emergent movement isn't so much stylistic issues but doctrinal issues. I said it before but what Spurgeon is reacting against is the shifts in his "modern" period to liberalism, its odd that what he says seems as though it could be addressing emergents in our post-modern period. I think because the movements really have the same sort of ideologies. We think that it is our job to revamp the gopsel message to get people to accept it..."Post-moderns won't accept the classic presentation!" is the cry... well I was raised on post-modern culture and here I am a bible believing Christian not because I wised up, or had some "hip" emergents preach to me, but because the grace of God opened my eyes.
The "stripping off" is my main hang up again, I am not so much hung up on style. Rather my hang up is in this "stripping off" what is it based on? Is it a return to sola scriptura? Why do post-moderns need a new "gospel" (so to speak) so that they can "understand"? I just think that a simple message of a) man is fallen and sinful b) God will punish sin because it is rebellion c) Through Christ we can be reconciled through faith in His work (cross). What is so difficult to understand? I got it when the Spirit opened my eyes. It seems almost disingenously pragamatic, to revampt the gospel and "strip off" stuff that POMO's dont groove with.
As I noted before Brian McLaren has "stripped off" the reality of hell...he is also (contrary to what you are saying) in support of a sort of universalism. But hey that's the sort of stuff POMO's want to hear right? Gotta reach em! Well I think we need to reach people and perhaps we can revamp the presentation style wise, however, not at the expense of truth. So I have big issues with "rethinking" orthodoxy, and changing the message to appeal to rebelious fallen men. I wasn't saved because of some slick POMO presentation of the gospel (nor do I think anybody genuinely is), but because God drew me to Christ. In some ways I think that this sort of pragmatism is really unbelief in the power of God and the gospel to save.
"there are certainly different ways that Jesus reveals Himself to the unsaved, just as He revealed Himself differently to different people in the gospels."
I just hope that the common denominator will be a revealing that He is the only hope for men to be saved. I can't see the emergent movement as being anything but a "gopspel for this century", I mean that's the point right? We have to change the message to reach POMO's right?
Michael-
Good post you said what I was trying to say as well (I read your post after I responded to Tim) you said:
"We have a saying around my parts that: "THE GOSPEL BEARS IT'S OWN FRUITS".
That's it. God really doesn't need us to make the gospel palatable to fallen man...the mere fact that modern man doesn't like aspects of the message is a testimony of their rebellion against God...we are not to coddle that rebelion by catering to it through altering the message.
Oh yeah POMO=Postmodern
and POMO's=Postmoderners.
Greetings to you, Michael.
I appreciate your comments, though I fear that your view of my short comments to Bob's post lacked the foundation of my previous comments both here and on my blog that Bob is aware of.
I completely agree that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. There's a nice worship song that's been on my iPod that I appreciate which has that for a title.
I also agree that there is no pre- mid- or post- anything with God and the Bible and that postmodernism is a world and cultural identity. However, my most recent post can shed some light on how God can use the Church to "steal" ideas from postmodernism in order to be a catalyst to tear the Church away from modernity and back to where it belongs, as the body of Christ, not just a system of truth or ideas.
But I would ask that you be careful about taking my words out of context, as well as the context of Paul's letters. I did not say that there are many gospels or ways to salvation.
But what I did say is that Jesus reveals Himself, or as you quoted Galations called (us) by his grace, in different ways. I haven't counted, but there are many different ways Jesus called people to follow Him in the gospels. Nicodemus, the rich young man, the prostitues, the lepers, the disciplines specifically were different ways, Zaccheus, etc, etc, etc. It's still Jesus saving them, just as Jesus is our only salvation.
The context of Paul's writings indicate that he, too, present the gospel differently based on the people to whom he was evangelizing. To the Greeks, he used their philosophies and gods to show them salvation through Jesus. To the Corinthians, Ephesians, Philipians, Galations, etc, he found a path from their sin to show them the grace and mercy of Jesus. But each had a different context.
James wrote to advocate that faith had to be backed-up actively and in community. John's epistles challenged the gnostics, focusing also on community and love to show Jesus' salvation to others. The author of Hebrews tapped deep into the the Jewish to formulate the salvation of Jesus.
Even the gospel books share the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in different contexts. Mark focused on Jesus's miracles and interactions based on those. He presented nothing (!) after discovering the empty tomb. Matthew and Luke spent more time on the sermons of Jesus. Luke was probably influenced greatly by Peter's recount. And John challenged the Jewish community with his presentation of the salvation through Jesus, trying to prove to them that Jesus was indeed the prophecied Messiah.
All of these examples are presentation of the same gospel message, that Jesus is our salvation, but each of them present it from a different context, angle, and point of view. Differently, to different people.
I hope that helps ease your concerns of me cursing myself. :)
Bob, you said:
I just think that a simple message of a) man is fallen and sinful b) God will punish sin because it is rebellion c) Through Christ we can be reconciled through faith in His work (cross). What is so difficult to understand?
The issue I have with this is that you just gave me a modern-based, three-point scientific approach to a salvation decision that has assumptions that (for argument sake in general) a.) people will acknowledge there is sin, b.) people will recognize there is a God and c.) people will acknowledge that 1.) Jesus existed (and lives) and 2.) believe in something called a resurrection.
Now, while I absolutely acknowledge that these are essential elements to salvation, there has to be a context in which a.) you exhibit this salvation in your life (namely "for the joy set before us by Christ") and b.) you recognize a context in which the unsaved can come to knowledge and experience of that very love of Jesus you live out in your life.
Modernism suggests we preach it scientifically and intellectually for the individual. Postmodernism requires that we live it out, and if I am going to be true to the calling of Jesus to me to bear witness to His salvation, then I better know who I am witnessing to and where they are coming from.
Tim,
Of course I would join you in rejecting the mere intelectual assent to facts and calling that "faith". However, there are facts in the bible, God has revealed these facts to us like I laid out in a systematic approach. This is just a condensed way of presenting man's dilemma and need of Christ's salvation. Conversion is altogether different. Where true conversion occurs it will result in affections and a treasuring of Christ not a mere factual assent. What I think you are doing is making a false dichotomy nixing the one in favor of the other when really both are part of true Christianity.
If God did not want us to speak in propositions why does He speak in factual propositions in His word? Peter's whole sermon in Acts (which converted thousands) was by and large what you are labeling "scientific". My point is that the proclamation of the gospel will be propositional in nature (scientific) if we reject this I think we will be led to a doctrinally bereft Christianity that is reduced to a sort of subjective mysticism where all we do is "experience" Christ. Yet without propositions and doctrinal outlines how do we know it's the Christ of the bible we are experiencing?
C.S. Lewis gave a good analogy giving the proper relation of the two. He described doctrine like a map, and experience as the sea, a map is useless unless you go out to sea with it, and likewise if you go out to sea without a map you are in grave peril of being lost. We need both.
Oh no this is a different Tim.
Michael,
Bob is correct that I am not the same Tim. Though I'd like to visit San Fran someday, at the very least to ride a trolley. :)
I hope that I'm not reading into your question or taking it more simply than you mean, but I believe that Jesus commanded us to love God with our whole self, and our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus also spoke over and over, and walked his talked everyday and through the cross, of laying our lives down for others because he called us to follow Him with our crosses in tow.
So in that, I pray that my life of loving God and others bears witness that I do so because I am following Jesus, my Savior.
Does that answer your question?
Bob, I might get in hot water with you on this one, but I would challenge you that we don't have "facts", we have witness accounts (testimony), stories, narratives, and commentary, passed down. Facts, again, takes a scientific view of writings of a non-scientific world.
That is why faith is so crucial. Facts need to be substantiated and proven in a scientific world. God requires us to use faith.
Here are some examples of why it's dangerous to call them facts:
What day of the week was Jesus cruficied? Matthew, Mark, and Luke present it on one day, but John presents it on another. This is because John is writing his account to show that Jesus was indeed the Lamb of God in connection with Passover.
In the story of Joseph being sold to slaves by his brothers in Genesis, you will see two different brothers who decide that he should not be killed. This is because two different oral traditions of the stories were combined: one from Judah and one from Israel.
Why does God require Aaron to give both a goat to Him and one to Azazel on the day of Atonement? It appears that God is recognizing the authority of another spiritual being besides Himself in the offering of Atonement of the sins of Israel.
Maybe we are dealing with symantics, but our salvation is not driven by facts. It is driven by faith in a God who is infinite in His grace and mercy by doing the most unfathomable thing of giving His Son to be our atonement. As a soon-to-be father, I still can't wrap my mind or heart around that. There are no facts that make it any more believable. So I must live by faith and experience His grace and mercy through my community, the body of Christ, and love others as Jesus loves me.
As for the doctrine element, I'm confident in the map of the Bible and the community (past and present) that surrounds me. It doesn't have to be the 12-point statements of faith we've made it out to be. The map doctrine of the great commandment supported by the salvation provided by Jesus will guide us well.
Tim,
"but our salvation is not driven by facts. It is driven by faith in a God who is infinite in His grace and mercy by doing the most unfathomable thing of giving His Son to be our atonement."
Aren't these facts about God? It is in the Bible that we see the facts of God's grace, mercy, soverignty and omnipotence. How do we know this statement that you made is factual? We can't escape this fact-business.
I don't think faith is believing things we don't understand or are uncertain. I don't think faith is defined by the blind leap that I make but rather it is a confidence in God, a trust that He is who He says He is and He will do what He promises. I don't think we can separate faith and "facts" because how can we be expected to have faith in something that is not true/factual. As you said, perhaps we are dealing with some symantics issues here but why can't we have facts in a non-scientific world?
Hope you are still enjoying this discussion. Although you did willingly jump in the "hot water!"
Tim-
Lisa really said what I thought when I read your comment. You want to abandon presenting the message in a "fact" manner yet to justify your position you must rely on "facts". Where did you get the idea that God sent His Son into the world? I wont dwell on this long because I think it is obvious your point about abandoning the notion of facts is self refuting.
You however, brought up a bunch of alledged discrepences of the bible, to say the bible is not "fact". Again I think you shoot yourself in the foot here. I could deal with these one by one and show that they really aren't problematic or contradictory but that isn't really the main point you are getting at. You said:
"So I must live by faith and experience His grace and mercy through my community, the body of Christ, and love others as Jesus loves me."
This of course presuposses there is in fact grace to be experienced. What the real issue is in you abandonement of sola scriptura is the notion that we must live a sort of irrational "faith" experience. Now this begs the question of why do you think faith is irrational and not founded upon facts? Like I said to Rob on his page as he denies innerancy of the bible, and subtly sola scriptura, "faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God."
So as Lisa stated faith is founded upon something, the word of God. The word of God contains promises which we are to trust. For instance God makes a promise to Joshua saying "I will never leave you or forsake you." this promise not only is to be believed but actually causes belief. I have put up an article by Francis Schaeffer on Faith versus "Faith" the one is irrational blind kind mystical experiential leap, the other is based upon promises (facts) from the word of God.
Also, this statement raises questions:
"As for the doctrine element, I'm confident in the map of the Bible and the community (past and present) that surrounds me. It doesn't have to be the 12-point statements of faith we've made it out to be. The map doctrine of the great commandment supported by the salvation provided by Jesus will guide us well."
This sounds like the Catholic church sees scripture and tradition as authoratative as rules of faith. Sounds like a denial of sola scriptura to me. And the "great commandment" is the map? Gosh it just sounds like your commiting all the errors of 20th century liberalism in a POMO form.
Sounds like a reduction to a social gospel, just love God and love others, that's all Christianity is.
Wow - so much to respond to, but I fear my words will fail me yet again. Let's see if I can be concise to each of the three responses.
Michael - I am not troubled by your reply at all. My salvation is secured by Jesus' death and resurrection, and my devotion and faith in Him causes me to love others with the blessings God give me in my live. Just as the birds build nests and share food with their kind from what God has given them to live. If I used the word requirement it was the wrong choice of word. But there are certainly commands and commissions Jesus has given us as part of following Him. The first is believing in Him in the first place. But of all that I do, should it not be motivated by my love of Jesus and the wonders of his salvation to share with others?
Lisa - I do indeed think we can escape the fact business, in a manner of speaking. In using only my words here, because you are unable to witness my entire life, I don't expect anyone reading to necessarily know that the statement you quoted is factual. I gave you a testimony/statement of my faith, not a fact. I would pray and hope that if you and I were in community, the evidence of God's grace, mercy, and love in me combined with God moving in you would help you to know.
I think faith is a combination of believing in things we do and don't understand. I don't understand the Trinity, the vast descriptions and actions of God, what heaven really is like, etc. But I do understand that by the grace and mercy of God through Jesus we are saved. There is evidence of this all around me in the community of believers. I do not understand how the creation of world happened, but I see the beauty and function of that creation.
Lastly (and this can be my response to Bob's comment, too), and probably more hot water, while facts might be true, truth does not have to be dependent on facts. Truth is not limited to be proven by facts. So in that, I can say without a doubt that I believe the Bible is true. I agree in the inerrancy of the Bible. The truth of God is and is declared through the Bible. And I also can agree with sola scriptura, because the Word is living in the communities of believers everywhere!
More specifically, I don't at all think that the examples I gave to Bob are discrepancies. They are elements of the stories as revealed to the authors by God. God sustained the kingdoms of Judah and Israel and it makes sense that God would desire His story to continue through each of them. They are, still, the same story of the truth of God.
A religions study professor wrote articles in a book for a Christianity class that I took entitled "Who Really Killed Goliath?" which is based on two Goliath stories, one in Samuel and one in Chronicles. His point wasn't that there is an error in the Bible, but rather that the truth of God is not based on scientific or courtroom facts as we think of them today. So what if David wasn't the actual person to kill Goliath? So what if it was a moral tale similar to George Washington chopping down the cherry tree as a child? The truth is that God chose David to be a leader for Israel, that God saw that David heart was close to God's and God raised this man to be the leader of His people. (NOTE: this is my summary of his teaching)
Do I believe David really killed Goliath? Yes, but if he didn't, I wouldn't believe the truth of God any less.
As far as the reduction element, do you really not believe that a follower of Jesus should love God and love others? Is not the love of God due to His salvation of us through Jesus? And is not that love and mercy to be shared with others so that they may also be saved?
Thank you, all, for keeping me on my toes!
Well if you want to view the bible as all alegorical to eliminate talking in a literal factual sense I think you are imposing your post-modern precepts on the bible. There really is nothing to indicate that these events did not literally happen. The example of Judah and Rueben not wanting to kill Joseph did not come from some two kingdoms perspective of the story that is nonesense and imposing an interpretation on a book written hundreds of years prior to there being two seperate Jewish kingdoms. Both brothers were against the killing of Joseph, Rueben had him thrown into the pit and Judah had him sold to the Ishamelites so that he would not be killed, no problem. This literally happened.
I will just ask you this Tim and move on to a different topic:
What would you say to someone who asked you: 1)What is Christianity? 2) What must I do to be saved?
I don't think you can escape an answer that is not based upon some form of a factual presentation. Yoyu might not present it in a bullet 1...2...3 format but you will be presenting facts to answer these questions derived from reading and interpreting the bible or other men's writing about these issues. To not present things in a factual manner will render responses to questions superlous and impossible.
So this just brings me to challange your presupostions: Why should I avoid factual language? Why should I avoid a systematic presentation of the truths of scripture? Just because our culture is becoming pluralistic and relativistic and to speak in such a way is "arrogant" in POMO eyes?
No, I think I will strive to be counter cultural rather than mimic the culture.
I don't mean to keep going this was meant to be short but I gotta address these errors:
"Truth is not limited to be proven by facts."
Where are you getting your definition of truth from?
Bob,
In short, I would answer that Christianity is a religion centered around the salvation of God through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. But I would also say that following Jesus does not have to be religious.
I would answer that salvation is responding to Jesus's love for us by accepting/believing that his life, death, and resurrection is our substitute of the consequences and reparation (sp?) of our severed relationship with God, our Creator, by our sin.
As far as the definition of truth issue, I'm not trying to mimic postmodernism; I'm trying to mimic 1st-century followers of believers. But I am trying to understand postmodernism so that I can better love the people are affected and influenced by postmodernism. If there happens to be elements of postmodernism that can be stolen to help us love people better, I'm open to that. Just as a missionary going abroad spends much time in preparation of learning the language and culture of the people to whom they are witnessing, I think it's important to do that same here in the US.
Hi Michael,
No, I'm not a glutton for punishment. I'm just trying to work through and understand the convictions and calls of action God is placing on my heart. And I'm happy to stick with you. :)
To answer your first question simply, God loves us first.
I'm confused where you are pulling the "as for being really really GOOD" part from? I'm not finding anywhere where I said anything about being really really good. Are you referring to our call to a life of love motivated by our faith in Jesus and his salvation?
As for the conversation of Jesus with rich young man, there is a glaring omission in Jesus's response of which commandments should be kept: Jesus only mentions the commandments that relate to a horizontal people-to-people; He leaves out the commandments of loving God. Ah, but those commands are summed up in Jesus's response to the young man's question of what he then lacks: Stop putting your riches ahead of God as a idol and follow me.
The rich young man is so close to recognizing Jesus as the Son of God. He calls Jesus "good" which is true, because Jesus is God. And Jesus doesn't deny it, but in fact acknowedges it through His calling the rich young man to back that statement up by actually setting aside the god of his possessions and depending on Jesus, who is good and God, with all that he has left - his life.
Michael, I'm afraid that I am confused as to connections with some of your statements to me. It appears that you are trying to correct me in things you think I wrote which you may think I'm off base or not quite there with you. But I'm not finding where you are coming from or what you are trying to connect. Maybe you are reading into my words too much?
Please don't take this as I'm offended, because I am certainly not. But I am not sure I am following properly to continue the conversation. And I definitely think we should let Bob's blog be of Bob. Feel free to come over to my blog and post as you feel led.
Post a Comment