“But why are Lutherans chopped liver? Why, in fact, has Lutheran become in some Reformed circles almost as objectionable as the other l-word – ‘liberal’?”
http://oldlife.org/2009/12/01/why-not-lutheran-baptist/comment-page-1/
Since Hart doesn’t quote any representative sampling of spokesmen to corroborate his McCarthyite question, it merits no response
Speaking for myself, I like Lutherans just fine. I could even name some of them. However, any complimentary words coming from the likes of me would probably be the kiss of death, so to avoid doing irreparable damage to their reputation, I’ll keep mum.
“One could actually argue that confessional Lutherans share as much in common with confessional Reformed as particular Baptists, and our history is even longer (though it obviously has some rough spots).”
It’s a revealing window into Hart’s theological prism that he thinks those who profess the Westminster Confession have as much or more in common with those who profess the Formula of Concord than those who profess the London Baptist Confession of Faith.
That said, I’m not sure that Hart’s ecumenical sentiments are so readily reciprocated. For example, this is what a Lutheran pastor said just today over at Paul McCain’s blog:
“The Christ that Calvinism presents is a different Christ than Scripture presents. This ultimately presents another ‘gospel’, which is to say, no gospel at all. If the divine nature does not communicate to the human nature, there is no atonement. Thus in trying to keep Christ’s divine and human natures apart, Calvin not only is on shakey Sacramental ground, but the heart of the Gospel is cut out from under the Cross. Despite the fact that Dr. Riddlebarger is on the White Horse Inn, we should not ignore the fact that sitting at that table are two hugely different views of who Christ is.”
http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/11/25/lutheranism-and-calvinism-what-and-that-v-how-and-why/comment-page-1/#comment-9562
Continuing with Hart:
“Could it be the objections to Lutherans run along ethnic lines…”
Interesting to see Hart play the race card. Is he vying to be the Al Sharpton of Old Side Presbyterians?
“Or is it a problem of liturgy and the triumph of John Owen and Banner of Truth among American Presbyterians as opposed to the liturgical traditions of the Reformed churches on the continent? If the latter, then as is so often the case, the turning point in American Presbyterian history is 1741 and the anointing of George Whitefield as the Boy George of vital Calvinism.”
Yes, I can see how John Owen and George Whitefield are toxic in large doses.
As for Banner of Truth, let’s see. They reprint the works of Old Princetonians like Archibald Alexander, J. A. Alexander, A. A. Hodge, Chas Hodge, and Benjamin Warfield, as well as John Knox, John Murray, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, William Cunningham, J. G. Machen, O. Palmer Robertson, and Samuel Rutherford–to name a few. Oh, and they even have some guy by the name of Calvin in their catalogue.
So, yes, I can understand why Hart would avoid adulterating the purity of his Reformed identity by exposure to these contaminants.
To be honest I have difficulty figuring out Hart and R. Scott Clark, and also Horton (though he doesn't come down to the unwashed levels to discourse, so I suppose he is less exposed, though he *seems* the same as the other two). They actually *act* like they are carrying on a very clumsy fifth column operation. Perhaps as Manchurians, hence the clumsiness. Many of their positions and criticisms are cartoonish. Clark doesn't think Puritans existed, for instance. Or, Jonathan Edwards is not Reformed. Hart mocks things secular liberal academics mock. Clark is starting to be called a deist, or practical deist, by his own side. Sometimes their understands of Reformed basics is astonishingly lacking. (Hart didn't understand the Reformed teaching on secondary causes, in one exchange on his blog where he unwittingly accused the Reformed teaching to be like Islam.)
ReplyDeleteOne doesn't want to write off anyone who has any basic understanding of and valuation for Federal Theology (as Clark and company obviously do), but, come on, guys, regeneration is real, the Holy Spirit exists; put the intellectual vanity down (leave that to the secular academy); leave the titles and respecting of persons to the world. Whatever you fear, stop fearing it. Fear God only. Put the sacramentalism down. Pick up the Word of God. Be taught by the Spirit. And stop appropriating everything to your little corner of the room. Calvin was a bare-foot mystic compared to you guys.
Um, hello. Last I checked German was not a race -- or at least when it was German-Americans needed to lessen their Germanness to show their Americanness. It is not playing the race card to notice that Lutheranism has been marginal to American Protestantism -- both liberal and conservative sectors -- because in part the United States fought two wars against Germany (among others). Sounds like politics to me. But folks who love revivals often have difficulties with formal structures.
ReplyDeleteD G SAID:
ReplyDelete"Um, hello. Last I checked German was not a race."
Are you really that naive? Racism is not about what people are, but about what they are perceived to be.
If you allege that Lutherans are "chopped liver" in some Reformed circles because they're German, then that would be a standard example of racial discrimination.
"-- or at least when it was German-Americans needed to lessen their Germanness to show their Americanness. It is not playing the race card to notice that Lutheranism has been marginal to American Protestantism -- both liberal and conservative sectors"
Has it never occurred to you that they are self-marginalized? To my knowledge, Lutheran confessionalism restricts the degree to which Lutherans can collaborate with non-Lutherans. As I recall, John Warwick Montgomery was once criticized in this regard. Likewise, Gene Veith once did a post on the "invisibility" of Lutherans in America, which he attributed to their self-imposed insularity.
"-- because in part the United States fought two wars against Germany (among others). Sounds like politics to me."
The generation that came of age during WWII is dying like flies. Surely you don't seriously think that's the first association which comes to mind when Reformed Americans think of Lutheran Americans.
"But folks who love revivals often have difficulties with formal structures."
NT Christians had difficulties with the formal structures of the Jewish establishment. Which side would you be on? The NT church or the Sanhedrin?
OT prophets also had difficulties with the corrupt political and religious establishment of the day. Which side would you be on?
This thread contained some pretty strong anti-Calvinist sentiments from Lutherans that surprised me.
ReplyDeleteEven the normally level-headed LP Cruz got into the act.
A few links relevant to Machen and his book, “Christianity and Liberalism”:
ReplyDeletehttp://agrammatos.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/machen-and-paul-a-fictional-dialogue/
http://www.calvinism.us/machen2.htm
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/review101.htm