banner

Thought For The Day

10/13/08

Permalink 07:30:31 am, by dissidens Email , 450 words, 348 views   English (US)
Categories: Old Main

Thought For The Day

A reader sent me this link, and I think it would be worth your time to listen to it. It may well be an irritant to those who object to "second books", but I think it will be a help to those who want an accurate depiction of our present circumstance.

David Wells is discussing his book The Courage to Be Protestant at the White Horse Inn, and he tells us that there has been a disintegration of God-centered, Christ-honoring, truth-loving piety and that foul waters have seeped into the church. He also laments the loss of classical preaching and the trivialization of the religious impulse.

I think this is profoundly true and naively overlooked.

We have heard fundamentalists repeatedly telling us that the crux of the problem was the threat of heterodoxy and the failure of separation. That turns out to have been one of those partial truths that, like rat poison—which is 98% corn meal—is far more harmful than the proportion of healthy food to active ingredient might suggest. As it turns out fundamentalists now sit around giggling at Oscar Wilde and worshiping out of Majesty Hymns, a dizzying monument to trivialization. Separation seems to be the first thing they lost sight of; factionalism never left their side.

(If the report we heard last week is true—and I see no reason to doubt it—some fundamentalists counsel parents not to have serious conversations with their own children. Can we imagine a corruption of Scripture more relevant to our problem?)

We have heard evangelicals incessantly jabbering about the church's responsibilities in the public square only to suffer the humiliations of Ted Haggard, Jan Crouch, Benny Hinn, Amy Grant, Joel Osteen, Camerin Courtney...and the long, hallowed evangelical tradition of commercialization and trivialization. Gravitas is not a word anyone associates with the Billy Graham, Christianity Today or the NAE. Evangelicalism and public scandal go together like cuff links.

I think this interview is worth your time because, first, you would be hard-pressed to find a mentally competent person who will argue that the church is healthy. No one says it is healthy, but everyone blames the disease on someone else and then smoothly transitions to his tribal spiel.

It is not just the things we have done but the things we have left undone. And an awareness of our degrading culture, a commitment to contending for the truth is not a thing that should ever have been left undone. No amount of posing as militant defenders of the sacred Scriptures and no conspicuous prancing about as zealous exponents of evangelization has spared American churches from the greatest blasphemy since Avignon.

You really must think about this.

Trackback address for this post:

This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

Please enter the characters from the image above. (case insensitive)

Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:

1 Comment from: WLJ [Visitor] Email · http://www.cogitavi.wordpress.com
Thanks for the link. I would highly recommend the entire series of books by Wells, starting with No Place for Truth and ending with The Courage to be Protestant. It is a well-thought out commentary on what happened to evangelicalism in the West, much of which is also regularly discussed here at Remonstrans.
PermalinkPermalink 10/13/08 @ 12:59

Reply to comment 5590 by WLJ

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Comment from: exlibris [Visitor] Email
A good read. I just finished his Courage and Above All Earthly Pow'rs - also good.

I say good and not excellent because while Wells diagnoses the problem fairly well, he is not only short on what might be done to "fix" things, but he fails to mention the congenital deformities of fundagelicalism that may have contributed to its current illness.

The former, I can live with. There may be no cure for the disease. The latter seems to embody a sidestepping of the real issues, and, as they are historical, their being overlooked seems almost on purpose. This seems especially the case when an HT scholar of Well's stature fails to mention anything in fundamentalism's or evangelicalism's birth that portended our current situation.

No one seems to fully appreciate the scope of the problem in both movements. The evangelical Wells is only slightly less broad in his analysis than some nameless fundamentalist who writes only on blogs.

PermalinkPermalink 10/13/08 @ 13:36

Reply to comment 5591 by exlibris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

Yeah, I dunno.

There are lots of questions I wish interviewers would to put to Wells, but they won’t ask and he probably couldn’t answer near a live microphone. He’s one of those guys you wish you could have a private chat with.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there is only one answer and no one is prepared to hear it. We have oodles of people who want coats but a) no one who wants to grow the grass, and b) before anyone scrapes up the cash to go buy the seed, someone else will detect a business opportunity and come along with a shiny new gimmick or some egotistical academic will come out with a flattering schtick.

If we are not prepared to plant the grass, we don’t deserve a culture and wouldn’t know what to do with one anyway. If people won’t pursue the good, true and beautiful for their own sake, they would vandalize any culture they stumbled across.

Saying that is not a way to sell books.
PermalinkPermalink 10/13/08 @ 16:23

Reply to comment 5592 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Comment from: Uncultured One [Visitor] Email
Dissidens,

"... only slightly less broad in his analysis than some nameless fundamentalist who writes only on blogs."

Exlibris

Wonderful satire. At least with pseudonymns we avoid this nameless existence.
PermalinkPermalink 10/14/08 @ 11:03

Reply to comment 5595 by Uncultured One

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Comment from: exlibris [Visitor] Email
Uncultured,

I'll admit of not being able to decipher if you're being snarky or empathetic in your comments. So, here is a non-volatile rejoinder:

The comment to which you draw attention was more than satire, it was frustration, because all sorts of nameless fundamentalists write on blogs for their own sundry reasons - even uncultured ones.

Those touting and admitting the "fundamentalist" label tend toward only a slightly less narrow vision than Wells.

With pseudonyms, those of us who must work in the fundamentalist ghetto, are able to state concerns and critique without getting blamed for being the reason why young fundamentalists' seem strangely absent from seasonal fundamentalist pep rallies or fundamentalist institutions.

Dissidens,

You must be more of an agrarian than I remember with all these agricultural metaphors for what really needs to be done.

Usually, before planting, unwanted vegetation is plowed under. I'm almost certain that planting will not happen until the brier patch is razed and plowed under. It may still take years of unfruitfulness before we see the likes of this, and I am in no hurry to give aid to its demise. Souls are caught in the balance. So, we tend crops that yield less and less in terms of quality and quantity.
PermalinkPermalink 10/14/08 @ 18:49

Reply to comment 5596 by exlibris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

Well, I do admire the thinking of the Agrarians, but I can’t claim to be one. There is a theory that I could perhaps grow a potato, but the theory has never been tested.

I really don’t see evangelicalism surviving. I’ll be thrilled if a few kids can survive the fundamentalists’ worship conferences and seminars. Perhaps enough can be preserved to permit subsistence worship in the future.
PermalinkPermalink 10/14/08 @ 19:33

Reply to comment 5597 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Comment from: regulative [Visitor] Email
I haven't read all four of Wells' books in his series, but I will read them through soon, Lord-willing. Wells writes and talks likes he gets it. He identifies the attitude and the spirit of modernity and secularism that have affected evangelicalism, but so far he lacks in specifics. He writes something like this:

"Religion would decline in a country to the extent that it became modernized."

I agree. But how has it become modernized exactly? What are the specifics in bad modernization to Wells? I know he doesn't like modernity. I know he doesn't like the results. But what is it?

He seems afraid to say. Evangelical politics are as strong or stronger than the fundamentalist ones. Those who interview him treat him very respectfully and celebrate the genius of his observations and writings, but they, in my opinion, are involved in and furthering exactly what he writes against. I believe he knows they are too, but he refuses to come out and say it and then explain how. By lacking in specifics in pointing out what is causing the problem and by continuing the close relations with those involved, as if they're not the ones he's targeting, he has become part of the problem.

I am planning on asking him a bunch of questions via email at least when I'm done reading all four books, or even before.
PermalinkPermalink 10/14/08 @ 20:57

Reply to comment 5598 by regulative

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

Well, I don’t know; I can’t be too hard on Wells. He does tell evangelicals what their problem is, and he does it in simple enough language that even those TV addicts could understand it if they wanted to. “Doctrine Shrinks” and “Church Vanishes”. It’s not all that could be said, surely, but it’s enough for them to be getting on with!

You can show some people a printout of the Westminster Confession and then show them a printout of the NAE 7-point Statement of Faith. The implications of that are lost on them. If evangelicals cannot understand the whittling away of truth and the evaporation of their church, they aren’t competent to crack a book on modernity.

Maybe what we need is a Scratch-n-Sniff Reference for evangelicals. My First Big Book of Modernism, illustrated by Arthur Rackham.

I agree that what constitutes modernity is worth a serious inquiry, but you gotta remember he’s talking to CT readers. These people can’t think; they were alive when these things were discussed in the culture they profess to understand. It went right over their heads. Weaver, Ellul, Eliot, Lukacs, Santayana, Kirk, Muggeridge, Lewis, Barfield, Solzhenitsyn, Pickett, Chambers, Regnery, Arendt…. It’s hard to imagine what angle they could have been approaching these ideas from without running across a qualified thinker. It was modernists they said they were reaching out to!

You’re right that he is being interviewed by co-conspirators. That’s why I say what I do about asking the right questions.

The short answer? I think it is like telling fundamentalists they shouldn’t be producing The Importance of Being Earnest. And when you’re done talking with them you can go over and start talking to a wall.
PermalinkPermalink 10/15/08 @ 08:55

Reply to comment 5601 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Comment from: Regulative [Visitor] Email
I see what you're saying. They don't care if truth evaporates, let alone culture, so he starts with truth to see if that would make any difference. Greater to lesser. I think some evangelicals and fundamentalists do care about truth, but they don't see the damage that modernity causes to it. Did you listen to the Wells interview at 9 Marks? Wells didn't seem able to point out the contradictions of sound doctrine and Mark Driscoll. He hinted that something was wrong. It would have been an excellent moment to make the distinctions for all to understand.
PermalinkPermalink 10/15/08 @ 09:08

Reply to comment 5602 by Regulative

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

Oh, sure. Some fundamentalists and some evangelicals care about truth, but some is really the issue. Some atheists care about the truth. Some ancient pagans cared greatly about the truth.

Some don't lead the movement.

I'm not sure about the 9Marks/Wells interview. I think I did, but since the specifics elude me, I'll go back and relisten.
PermalinkPermalink 10/15/08 @ 09:18

Reply to comment 5603 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email
Regulative:

Haven't found a recording to listen to; are you talking about this?

http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598014%7CCIID2340072,00.html
PermalinkPermalink 10/17/08 @ 04:52

Reply to comment 5608 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Comment from: regulative [Visitor] Email
Here:

http://resources.christianity.com/details/mrki/20050515/BEFBCB09-E238-4680-978B-2FCC34FD5DBA.aspx
PermalinkPermalink 10/18/08 @ 16:03

Reply to comment 5613 by regulative

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

Thanks. I actually had not heard that until just now.

Very interesting.

Thanks for the tip.
PermalinkPermalink 10/18/08 @ 17:02

Reply to comment 5614 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Comment from: regulative [Visitor] Email
Dissidens,

You're welcome. It really may have been this one that I listened to.

http://resources.christianity.com/details/mrki/20070801/7a357214-783d-498d-a521-896bc916ecc6.aspx
PermalinkPermalink 10/18/08 @ 17:28

Reply to comment 5615 by regulative

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

Also good. Thanks.

That David Wells guy is so optimistic! I don't know if we could ever get along.

; )
PermalinkPermalink 10/18/08 @ 19:06

Reply to comment 5616 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, a>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

Please enter the characters from the image above. (case insensitive)

Remonstrans

January 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 << <   > >>
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Archives

Search

Categories

XML Feeds

What is RSS?

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 17

powered by
b2evolution