The service marking the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qnds
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
Is the RPCNA fundamentalist?
In my previous post, I suggested that with the recent Synod vote to withdraw from the NAE that perhaps the RPCNA should be re-classified. In Martin Marty and Scott Appleby's Accounting for Fundamentalisms, there is an interesting chapter, "Sources of Christian Fundamentalism," by Robert Wuthnow and Matthew Lawson. This chapter can be read online at
http://books.google.com/books?id=dyzbdjDJ9OUC&lpg=PA18&ots=qMogIo_81G&dq=Sources%20of%20Christian%20fundamentalism%20in%20the%20united%20states&pg=PA18
http://books.google.com/books?id=dyzbdjDJ9OUC&lpg=PA18&ots=qMogIo_81G&dq=Sources%20of%20Christian%20fundamentalism%20in%20the%20united%20states&pg=PA18
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The closing of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America mind
It was with great sadness that I learned today that the the delegates to the RPCNA Synod (held in June) voted to withdraw from the National Association of Evangelicals. According to an online article:
"there had been a growing concern by members of Synod regarding the increasing willingness of NAE officials to engage or associate with liberal Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Muslims. The Synod was also concerned that these associations have tended to obscure the gospel and blur the distinctions between believers and unbelievers. Along with these concerns were the long-held tensions within the RPCNA of an official association with an organization that has become predominantly Arminian and Pentecostal." (Source: http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=349:reformed-presbyterian-synod-withdraws-from-nae&catid=40:normal-article)
So has the RPCNA finally become 'fundamentalist'? From an article about the characteristics of religious fundamentalism:
"[F]undamentalists make a strict distinction between themselves as true believers and other believers. Based on their absolutist convictions they take an exclusive and intolerant stance against others (de Knijff 1994, Beck 1996). "Fundamentalists are convinced that their differences from others make them superior not only because they have something better, but because theirs is the only truth, the only right way to live" (Ammerman 1988, 7; Velema 1997, 52, 53). Being saved themselves, they automatically outrank anyone who is unsaved (Ammerman 1988, 197). Absolutist convictions lead to feelings of epistemological superiority.' This is also evident in their stance with regard to other persons. However, these feelings do not necessarily lead to feelings of ethical superiority, though there are fundamentalists for whom this is the case. "
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3783/is_200104/ai_n8945567/pg_2/?tag=content;col1
Has no one in the RPCNA read Miroslav Volf's Exclusion & Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation? The online article reported that there was only one delegate who spoke in support of staying in the NAE. I wish I knew who that was so I could write him a note of thanks. I assume that in light of this move that members of the RPCNA who are active in pro-life groups will withdraw from those groups that have Catholics in them.
"there had been a growing concern by members of Synod regarding the increasing willingness of NAE officials to engage or associate with liberal Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Muslims. The Synod was also concerned that these associations have tended to obscure the gospel and blur the distinctions between believers and unbelievers. Along with these concerns were the long-held tensions within the RPCNA of an official association with an organization that has become predominantly Arminian and Pentecostal." (Source: http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=349:reformed-presbyterian-synod-withdraws-from-nae&catid=40:normal-article)
So has the RPCNA finally become 'fundamentalist'? From an article about the characteristics of religious fundamentalism:
"[F]undamentalists make a strict distinction between themselves as true believers and other believers. Based on their absolutist convictions they take an exclusive and intolerant stance against others (de Knijff 1994, Beck 1996). "Fundamentalists are convinced that their differences from others make them superior not only because they have something better, but because theirs is the only truth, the only right way to live" (Ammerman 1988, 7; Velema 1997, 52, 53). Being saved themselves, they automatically outrank anyone who is unsaved (Ammerman 1988, 197). Absolutist convictions lead to feelings of epistemological superiority.' This is also evident in their stance with regard to other persons. However, these feelings do not necessarily lead to feelings of ethical superiority, though there are fundamentalists for whom this is the case. "
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3783/is_200104/ai_n8945567/pg_2/?tag=content;col1
Has no one in the RPCNA read Miroslav Volf's Exclusion & Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation? The online article reported that there was only one delegate who spoke in support of staying in the NAE. I wish I knew who that was so I could write him a note of thanks. I assume that in light of this move that members of the RPCNA who are active in pro-life groups will withdraw from those groups that have Catholics in them.
Amusing quote of the day
In my googling I came across this quote from a fellow blogger:
"The intricacies of the TULIP and paeans to Absolute Predestination are so much more thrilling to the Average Protestant Guy’s soul than, say, examining the connections between the ethics of Socrates and the ethics of the New Testament." (Again notice the gender.)
If you don't know what TULIP stands for then that is a good thing. One day in my history of western thought course, the prof began to talk about Calvin and said something about how the word, "tulip," can help one remember some of the points of Calvinism. He casually asked if anyone might know what the points were. Having had to memorize the points to join the RP church as a kid, I raised my hand and rattled off, "Total depravity, Unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints." He was surprised. Funny thing. I remember having to memorize the five points of Calvinism, but our youth group never went on one mission trip to repair houses, etc. Why?
BTW,tomorrow is the 500th anniversary of the birth of Calvin. Would Calvin have wanted a party?
"The intricacies of the TULIP and paeans to Absolute Predestination are so much more thrilling to the Average Protestant Guy’s soul than, say, examining the connections between the ethics of Socrates and the ethics of the New Testament." (Again notice the gender.)
If you don't know what TULIP stands for then that is a good thing. One day in my history of western thought course, the prof began to talk about Calvin and said something about how the word, "tulip," can help one remember some of the points of Calvinism. He casually asked if anyone might know what the points were. Having had to memorize the points to join the RP church as a kid, I raised my hand and rattled off, "Total depravity, Unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints." He was surprised. Funny thing. I remember having to memorize the five points of Calvinism, but our youth group never went on one mission trip to repair houses, etc. Why?
BTW,tomorrow is the 500th anniversary of the birth of Calvin. Would Calvin have wanted a party?
The effects of googling exclusive psalmody
A funny thing happened this morning as I was googling exclusive psalmody (henceforth to be referred as "ep"). My eyes began to glaze over as I scanned one arcane, tortured argument either for or against ep after another (all written by men, by the way). I realized that I was experiencing the same Spirit/spirit-numbing weariness I had begun to feel many moons ago when I heard the umpteenth sermon on this topic. For an antidote, I dashed to my bookshelf and pulled down Anne Lamott's Traveling Mercies: Some Thoughts on Faith and looked up this quotation: "I thought such awful thoughts that I cannot even say them out loud because they would make Jesus want to drink gin straight out of the cat dish." Frankly, I think debates about exclusive psalmody and the regulative principle may have the same effect.
More important than these debates are the larger ones that loom behind these--modernity and tradition, freedom and faith and reason and interpretation of sacred texts. Epistemological certainty is not of this world; dogma can be deadening.
More important than these debates are the larger ones that loom behind these--modernity and tradition, freedom and faith and reason and interpretation of sacred texts. Epistemological certainty is not of this world; dogma can be deadening.
"Praise Him with loud cymbals"--Don't even think about it
There is a wonderful arrangement of Ps. 150 in the RPCNA's The Book of Psalms for Singing. If the congregation sings well, it can be quite beautiful. But here's the rub. The psalmist says to praise God with the trumpet, harp, lyre, timbrel and cymbals. Even dancing is mentioned. But yet no trumpet, no harp, no lyre, no timbrel and no cymbals are allowed. As a kid, I wanted to rush downstairs into the church kitchen, get the pot lids and bang them together right when the cymbals were mentioned. Didn't do it. So obviously the RPCNA's hermeneutic is not literalism. Or is it? Well, it depends. At some time I'll talk about the RP's view of women's roles in the church. Interestingly enough there the hermeneutic shifts to a more literal view. Convenient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
