This blog has moved

Reformed; Reforming has moved to our church web site: www.discoveredeemer.com

Pro-Life in America

child at 24 weeks

Recently a Gallup poll reported that the majority of Americans call themselves “pro-life” for the first time since Roe v Wade decision. Predictably, Gallup has been widely criticized for lack of nuance in its poll. After all, many Americans may identify themselves as personally pro-life, but support full legal access for others who choose to abort their children. Even President Obama voiced his desire to reduce abortions in the United States.

It may be that the majority of Americans still desire abortion to be “safe, legal and rare.” But it is not at all clear that the majority of Americans support publicly subsidizing of abortion or the radical pro-choice agenda pushed by the current administration.

• Do you believe that tax payers should supply one third of Planned Parenthood’s $1 billion dollar budget?
• Do you believe that the federal government should invalidate all state restrictions on abortion, including parental notification laws, informed consent laws, and bans on partial birth abortion?
• Do you believe we should repeal the conscience clause and require all doctors and health care professionals to perform abortions, even if doing so violates their conscience and their understanding of the Hippocratic oath?

Our federal government has long subsidized Planned Parenthood, the nations leading provider of elective abortions, and we expect to see the level of public funding increase dramatically. President Obama also promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will remove all state restrictions. Perhaps most shocking is that Health and Human Services is working to repeal the conscience clause that protects medical professionals from being compelled to perform abortions.

Our President stated his opinion that mothers should be free to navigate these ethical waters and have the right to a safe and legal abortion. But what about the freedom and conscience of the healthcare professional? How can we claim to uphold the first amendment with a law that so clearly violates the religious convictions of so many? Forcing doctors to perform abortions against their conscience is not morally different from China’s policy of forced abortions for second pregnancies. China compels the conscience of the mother, while Obama is attempting to compel the conscience of the doctor or nurse.

Of course the pro-life movement has been severely set back by the schizophrenic loon who murdered Dr. George Tiller, one the few late term abortion providers in the country. Being pro-life means that we uphold the command “thou shall not murder.” The Bible categorically rejects all vigilantism (Deut 32:35; Rom 12:19) and places the sword of justice in the hands of government alone (Rom 13:1-7). Even when our leaders get it horribly wrong, Christians are called to suffer unjustly and to entrust ourselves to God’s future judgment (1 Peter 2:13-25).

As a Christian church we will not back down from the claim that elective abortions take human life, and we will not hesitate to identify it as sin. We also insist that sin must be taken to the cross of Jesus Christ, and that his blood is sufficient to atone for all sin, even murder. We are all in the same boat; we are all sinners. God alone is holy, but his grace is free and forgiveness is available for those who repent and believe.

Redeemer Church, Santa Maria, CA

God in the brain

A few years ago Dr. Dean Hamer made a splash with the publication The God Gene, in which he argued that he pinpointed a gene responsible for theism. The study, however, was very poorly done as his indicators of theistic belief had more in common with Eastern mysticism than theism. According to my answers to the survey questions Dr. Hamer would predict that I am a very skeptical agnostic when in fact I have dedicated my life to my religious belief.

Carl Zimmer, writing for Scientific American, ridiculed Dr. Hamer’s new book. In 1993 Scientific American published Dr. Hamer’s peer reviewed study "The Gay Gene," which study was enthusiastically received by much of the scientific community before it was discredited a few years later. Zimmer was not impressed with Hamer’s exotic theories motivated by a quest for self-understanding.

Dr. Hamer, however, was trying to answer an important and troubling question. Certainly not everybody professes belief in God, but religion is a universal phenomenon that has existed in every culture since the beginning of human history until now. Plutarch observed, “If you go round the world, you will find cities without walls, or literature, or kings, or houses or money, without gymnasia or theaters. But no one ever saw a city without temples or gods, one which does not have recourse to prayers, oaths or oracles.” Cicero likewise wrote, “There is no people so wild and savage to have not believed in a god… It is necessary to believe that there are gods, because we have an implanted or an innate knowledge of them.”

Freud argued that religion is neurosis but he could not explain its universal impulse. Feuerbach argued that belief in God is wish-fulfillment, but he could not account for why we should have a desire for which there is no corresponding fulfillment. Karl Marx, like many before him, declared that religion was the opiate of the masses devised by the ruling class to keep the working class in line. While it is true that many rulers have used and perverted religion to this end, John Calvin pointed out the flaw in this explanation: “they never could have succeeded in this, had the minds of men not been previously imbued with that uniform belief in God, from which, as from its seed, the religious propensity springs.”[1] Even atheists often feel “the truth that they are desirous not to know” and they are troubled with the prospect of this truth.

If there is a God who has implanted in mankind an innate knowledge of the Divine then it follows that this is a God to whom we are morally accountable to. In the Bible, the Apostle Paul writes these sobering words, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles” (Romans 1:18-23).

The prospect of a personal God to whom we are morally accountable to is a frightening thing. Atheism is quite understandable from a psychological point of view: who wants an all Seeing Eye scrutinizing our every action and thought? But there is a way that we can come near to God without fear. He has provided a way for us to approach him as a father instead of a judge. Only through Jesus Christ, who gave himself for sinners, can we serve God without fear (Luke 1:74). Jesus came to take our place as God’s obedient Son. He obeyed the law in every respect so that he might substitute our disobedience with his obedience. On the cross he was judged as a sinner and absorbed the wrath of God against sin. Through his resurrection he was vindicated and conquered death. Through faith in Jesus our sins are covered and his righteousness is imputed to us. We are able to stand on the Day of Judgment forgiven and clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Although we are guilty, we will stand acquitted (Romans 5:12-21; 2 Corinthians 5:12). It is therefore through Jesus Christ alone that we can enter into a right relationship with our Heavenly Father.

[1] Inst., 1.3.2.

Redeemer Church, Santa Maria CA

Is the Bible a Wax Nose?

“Why should I take the Bible seriously?” some ask, “Christians cannot even agree amongst themselves as to what it teaches!” Indeed, today there is a great variety of Christian sects, each with seminary trained teachers and PhDs in the fields of Biblical scholarship. How can the average Joe expect to arrive at the “correct” understanding when so-called scholars cannot agree how to interpret the Bible? Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that the Bible is really a “wax nose?”

Some will suggest that the Christian church was united in its understanding of the Faith until the Protestant Reformation, when the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin abandoned the authority of the church and placed the responsibility of interpretation in the hands of every individual. It is no wonder, therefore, that ten individuals might have ten distinct interpretations of any given passage. “Obviously” they say, “this led to the multiplications of Christian sects, which causes many to loose their faith and embrace skepticism. The thing to be done is for the factious Protestants to return to Mother Rome.”

Cardinal Sadoleto relied on this argument when he tried to lure the city of Geneva back to the Catholic faith through a letter he addressed to them in March 1539. He appealed to the multiplying Anabaptist sects teaching novelties and disrupting the peace. “For already, since these men began, how many sects have torn the Church? Sects not agreeing with them, and yet disagreeing with each other – a manifest indication of falsehood.”

John Calvin, then 30-years of age, replied that the sects were Rome’s stepchildren, rather than those of the Protestant Reformers. All sects, he argued, believe that the Holy Spirit leads their guys, and not the other guys, into the correct interpretation. Calvin wrote,

“We are assailed by two sects, which seem to differ most widely from each other. For what similitude is there in appearance between the Pope and the Anabaptists? And yet, that you may see that… the principle weapon with which they both assail us is the same. For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit, the tendency certainly is to sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room for their own falsehoods. …For, as if those who seek the way of God were standing where two ways meet and destitute of any certain sign, you are forced to introduce them as hesitating whether it be more expedient to follow the authority of the Church, or to listen to those whom you call the inventors of new dogmas.”

Calvin pointed out that the issue of Biblical interpretation is not as difficult as it first seems. There are two fundamentally different approaches. There is the “Bible and” approach, and the “Bible only” approach. There are many Christian sects today. They differ widely from each other, but they all agree that the “Bible and…” guides their interpretation. “We know the Catholic faith is correct,” the priest says, “because the Holy Spirit guides our church into all truth.” This is essentially the same argument I heard growing up in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. “We know we are correct because the Holy Spirit guides our church into all truth.” When the Mormons came knocking on my door they appealed to the multiplication of sects resulting in religious confusion. They then said “we know we are correct because the Holy Spirit guides our Church into all truth.” I told them that this is the same line all the other sects are feeding me. I also pointed out that their dogma had not prevented them from dividing into sects among themselves.

The “Bible only” approach means that “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men” (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6). We believe that Biblical interpretation follows the ordinary rules for interpreting other literary or historical texts. We have no private pipeline to ultimate reality and we do not look for secret or private messages from God on the pages of Holy Scripture.

There are not many Christian groups that accept the “Bible only” approach – the formal principle of the Protestant Reformation. Those who hold to the “Bible only” are mainly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches. Some Reformed Baptists and a small number of other Baptist groups also strive to discover the meaning from the Biblical text, rather than reading meaning into it. Among these groups there is broad agreement. There are still some differences, but they are few when compared to the astonishing variety among the sects. In every academic discipline there is variety among experts. But we do not despair of all historical knowledge because historians have different interpretations on the finer points. It is the same in the field of Biblical scholarship.

The “Bible only” view is the Bible’s own teaching. Jesus promised his Apostles that he would send his Spirit to them and said of the Spirit, “He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (Jn 14:26). The Spirit cannot bring to remembrance Jesus’ words to those to whom Jesus never spoke! It is only to apostles that Jesus promised to lead into all truth and to give divine recall. Witnessing the totality of Christ’s ministry was the prerequisite for apostleship. The criteria for the replacement apostle were that he accompanied Jesus from the time he was baptized by John until the resurrection, having witnessed that also (Acts 1:22-24).[1]

The Apostle Paul also refers to himself as the last Apostle, “as to one untimely born” (1 Cor 15:8). For this reason in the Apostle John’s Book of the Revelation he sees the New Jerusalem coming out of heaven. It had twelve gates, which represent the 12 tribes of Israel and twelve foundation stones, which represent “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14). There is no reason to believe that the Church is ruled by a group of Apostles in every generation, or that their foundational ministry continues in every age.

Neither does the prophetic ministry continue in the Church, but it passed away with the Apostles. Ephesians 2:20 states that the Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” When Paul compares himself to a “skilled master builder” who lays the foundation he teaches that this was done once and for all. “For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid” (1 Cor. 3:11). Jesus the cornerstone has ascended to the father. The Apostles and prophets, our foundation layers, related to us the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We do believe in an apostolic succession, but it is not a succession of persons, but of doctrine. Our job is to hold fast the teaching that we received directly from them (2 Thess. 2:15).

If we follow this method, we discover that the Bible is not like a “wax nose” that is open to any interpretation. We will discover that although “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7).

Redeemer Church Santa Maria

[1] Regarding the Apostle Paul’s qualifications see Acts 9:15-16; 22:15; 26:17-18; 1 Co 15:8; Gal 1:12; 16-18).

Was Jesus an Egyptian god?

I was watching Bill Maher interview while promoting his documentary Religulous. At one point he stated that what sealed his rejection of the Christian religion was his realization that it all happened before. The Christian story consisted merely of pieces-parts from various pagan myths. Bill claimed that the son of God, born of a virgin, born in a stable on December 25th, announced by a star in the east, visited by three wise men, baptized at age 30, delivering the sermon on the mount, having 12 disciples, walking on water, being crucified between two thieves and rising on the third day, were all derived from pagan myths. He then launched into his familiar bit about how rational, scientific people don’t believe in “drinking the blood of a 2,000 year-old space god.”

I was shocked. I am no expert on mythology, but I am pretty familiar with the 1st century and the ancient near east, and the contours of ancient religious belief. The suggestion that Christianity is substantially like ancient mythological religion is a highly improbable thesis. Of course I am aware that there are plenty of myths about dying and rising gods. But this dying and rising always signified the change of the seasons – the conquering of winter by spring. This parallel is utterly unremarkable. Although these myths spoke of the cycle of nature, the ability to overcome death answers our deepest longings and fears. The uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrection is not that Christians were the first ever to conceive of a resurrection. Its uniqueness lies in the fact that it actually happened! Some also have suggested Christian dependence upon the mystery religions that were popular at that time, although this theory has been thoroughly exploded. The New Testament is utterly distinct in character and world-view from these mystery religions and from pagan mythology in general.

But Bill was suggesting that there are very specific parallels in mythology to the life of Christ – to the extent that it would be easy to convict the Gospel writers of plagiarism. I wondered, however, why I had never come across the particular parallels in the scholarly literature I have read. I soon discovered the reason. These parallels do not exist.

Nevertheless, the Internet is filled with these claims. There are perhaps hundreds of “cyber scholars” repeating these claims: cutting and pasting their evidence. The “evidence” is always the bald assertion, never accompanied by primary source documentation. Most of this seems to trace back to Acharya S’s book, The Christ Conspiracy, and to a handful of other Christ-mythers. Jesus is most frequently compared with the Egyptian god Horus, the son of the gods Isis and Osiris, who bestowed divinity upon the Pharaohs as incarnations of his life.

To debunk the particular examples of the Jesus/Horus connection all you need to do is to wade through the Egyptian book of the Dead or look up books or Encyclopedia articles on Egyptian Mythology and Horus. You can link here to an article that debunks these claims with the same brevity with which they are made. In the end you will discover that the closest we come to a substantial parallel between Horus and Jesus is that one of the three birth dates given for Horus corresponds to December 25. This date also appears in other myths as well. Unfortunately for the Christ-mythers this is not a date given in the Bible and there is no evidence Jesus was born anywhere near Dec 25. The reason the Church picked that day to celebrate the nativity was precisely so that Christians might commandeer the pagan celebration of the winter solstice and appropriate it for new use.

The Horus = Jesus thesis has as much credibility as 2012 doomsday predictions that supposedly draw from the Mayan calendar and coded messages of the Tao Te Ching. And yet Bill Maher, smugly claiming the side of logic and enlightenment, relies on these pseudo-scholars and pajama-bloggers in an effort to debunk Christianity!

As our nation becomes increasingly secular, the popular case against Christ has become increasingly sensational and absurd. We saw this clearly illustrated a few years back with Dan Brown’s runaway bestseller, The De Vinci Code. Certainly an intelligent person can find reasons to disbelieve the Gospel accounts, if they desire to find such reasons. But perhaps the case against Christ is too subtle for those with less than a professional interest in the subject. Perhaps more people can see through the enlightenment presuppositions on which the case against Christ is built (if you preclude God and the miraculous a priori, then you are in fact concealing the conclusion in the premise, thus begging the question). Or perhaps as we become more religiously ignorant as a culture, we become more easily swayed by lazy and fantastical arguments.

It is easy also for an intelligent person to discover cogent reasons to believe. The books of the Bible fit very comfortably within the context of their contemporary culture, and hold up well under rigorous scholarship. Internally, they are remarkably consistent, with parallel narrative accounts containing just enough dissonance to disprove collusion. These are large topics which if you are interested in exploring in depth, I would recommend, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, by Kenneth Kitchen and Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, by Richard Bauckam. Both are top-tier scholars and offer extensive interaction with the primary sources and current scholarship.

C.S. Lewis, the Renaissance English scholar, once bought into popular atheistic theories regarding the mythological origins of Christianity, without giving it much serious thought. In Surprised by Joy he writes of the event that caused him to look a second time at Christianity. He writes, “Early in 1926 the hardest boiled of all the atheists I ever knew sat in my room on the other side of the fire and remarked that the evidence for the historicity of the Gospels was really surprisingly good. ‘Rum thing,’ he went on. ‘All that stuff of Frazer’s about the Dying God. Rum thing. It almost looks as if it had really happened once.’ To understand the shattering impact of it, you would need to know the man (who has certainly never since shown any interest in Christianity). If he, the cynic of cynics, the toughest of the toughs, were not – as I would still have put it – ‘safe,’ where could I turn? Was there then so escape?” Subsequently, writes Lewis, “God closed in on me.”

If God is closing in on you, why not let him close in all the way? We all ought to acknowledge that the ultimate problems of our existence, such as death and the self-centeredness that gives death its sting, finds its only remedy in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Redeemer Church, Santa Maria

The Biggest Idea Impacting Your World Right Now

The March 23, 2009 special edition of TIME Magazine listed the 10 biggest ideas today. According TIME, the third biggest idea impacting your world right now is a resurgence of Calvinism. That “Calvinism” (Reformed Theology) was anywhere near their radar is amazing. Even more amazing is the other nine “ideas” are really only cultural and economic trends: jobs (rather than homes) are the new asset, or, increased public works under the new President.

Calvinism is the only idea on TIME’s list that is a comprehensive system for understanding the world and everything in it.

Calvinism is not a strange new cult. It is so named after John Calvin (1509-1564), who, next to Martin Luther, was the preeminent Protestant Reformer. When Calvin took up his carrier as a Reformer, the Reformed theology was mostly formed. His fame is not for spinning wild new ideas, but for being in his day the most articulate defender of the Protestant Reformation.

The Reformers stood on the authority of the Bible alone, the Word of God. They were also careful students of Church history, but they understood that antiquity, piety and church authority are not sufficient authorities on which to base church doctrine. Ultimately everything must answer to the Word of God.

Every pious person knew that the Christian church in the 16th century needed reforming. But Luther and Calvin insisted that at its heart this reformation must be doctrinal rather than ethical. The corrupt practices, they argued, are merely symptoms of corrupt doctrine.

But what makes Calvinism such a powerful idea for our time? I think that Christian churches in America are closer to the church of the medieval ages than at any point since the Reformation. We are living now in an age where American Evangelicals have forgotten, for the most part, what it means to be Evangelical. The promise of success and influence has seduced us. We have become so fixated on being “relevant” that we have become irrelevant. Our salt has lost is savor.
The Reformers did not focus on misty or abstract points of theology. They focused on this one question: how is a sinner justified before a holy God.

The medieval church believed that the merits of Christ are deposited in the church and dispensed piecemeal through its ordinances. The sinner must to his best and let the church take care of the rest. The “grace” they receive from the church makes the sinner more gracious. One is finally justified before God only when they become fully just – without sin. But what is it to try ones level best? And what person can claim to be without sin. Therefore the Church acknowledged that most Christians would pay for their sins in the fires of purgatory.

John Calvin wrote to Cardinal Sadoleto and expressed to him the Reformed doctrine of how the sinner is justified before God. “First, we bid a man begin by examining himself, and this not in a superficial and perfunctory manner, but to city his conscience before the tribunal of God, and when sufficiently convinced of his iniquity, to reflect on the strictness of the sentence pronounced upon all sinners. Thus confounded and amazed at his misery, he is prostrated and humbled before God; and, casting away all self-confidence, groans as if given up to final perdition. Then we show that the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete. As all mankind are, in the sight of God, lost sinners, we hold that Christ is their only righteousness, since, by His obedience, He has wiped off our transgressions; by His sacrifice, appeased the divine anger; by His blood, washed away our sins; by His cross, borne our curse; and by His death, made satisfaction for us. We maintain that in this way man is reconciled in Christ to God the Father, by no merit of his own, by no value of works, but by gratuitous mercy. When we embrace Christ by faith, and come, as it were, into communion with Him, this we term, after the manner of Scripture, the righteousness of faith.”

The “righteousness of faith” is not whereby we are ourselves righteous, but whereby we receive the righteousness of Jesus Christ credited to our account, as if we have never sinned nor been a sinner, and as if we have perfectly kept God’s law as Christ himself. Reformed churches therefore understand the importance of dividing Law from Gospel. We declare the law in all its sternness and the Gospel in all its sweetness and maintain, “We are justified by faith apart from works of Law” (Rom 3:28). This is good news to those who are hurting and broken, and whose consciences are loaded with guilt. The relevance of this message does not decrease with age.

The Reformation stood on the authority of Scripture alone, and maintained that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone, unto the glory of God alone. Some of the historic Reformed denominations unfortunately regard their heritage as a museum artifact, while other independent churches are discovering the vitality of Reformation teaching for the first time. There are a number of denominations, however, that remain faithful to Calvin’s articulation of Biblical teaching. One such denomination is the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), which has churches all over the United States.

I am proud to serve at Redeemer Church (OPC) in Santa Maria. We are a Reformed church, but we are also ecumenical. We are not narrow or exclusive. We are a place where you are free to learn and grow. You do not need to be a hardheaded Calvinist to worship with us, and to be a member you need only to be Christian. Our commitment to you is that the Word of God will always be faithfully taught, and the Gospel of free grace will be ever present in our teaching. If you are in the area I encourage you to stop by and discover the difference at Redeemer.

Reformed and Restless?

Colin Hansen, a journalist from Christianity Today, has written a book describing the latest movement sweeping the evangelical landscape. Contrary to what many might expect, it is not the Emergent (and Emerging) church movement(s). His book is entitled Young, Restless and Reformed (YRR). Reformed theology – also known as Calvinism[1] – is apparently attracting young adults by the thousands.

What is attracting young evangelicals to this older understanding of the Christian faith? I believe I can answer this question, as I was “Young [and] Restless” myself and my own experience is reflected in Hansen’s book.

Long gone are the days when most Protestant churches diligently instructed the youth through a specific set of questions and answers. When the youth become young adults they realize that they do not have a good grasp of what and why they believe. In the early to mid nineties, while I was still in high school, I realized how little I really understood the Bible and I began studying it in earnest. I soon noticed that the Bible taught very clearly things touching on salvation in Christ that received little or no emphasis in the teaching I received. Later I discovered that Calvinists often refer to these teachings in shorthand as “The doctrines of grace.”

The doctrines of grace unpack the Bible’s teaching on God’s predestination. I understood that predestination was a controversial and debated topic among Christians, but it struck me that the Bible does not treat this subject ambiguously, but clearly and explicitly (e.g., Eph 1:1-11; Rom 9:6-29). Nor did the question center solely on the sovereignty of God. Of equal concern is the effect of human sinfulness on our minds and wills. Scripture teaches that human sinfulness corrupts the will to such an extent that all are by nature haters of God that will not freely respond to an offer of salvation. “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14, see also Rom 3:9-20; 8:5-8). Now this is certainly not the place for a full-length exposition, but the conclusion is inescapable: God’s sovereign work in the heart of the sinner is necessary before any can come to faith in Christ. Faith itself is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8).

Obviously this raises all sorts of difficult questions and there are many good books that treat this topic in detail. The first two I read were Chosen by God (R.C. Sproul) and Putting Amazing Back Into Grace (Michael Horton). There I learned that my “controversial” conclusions were the same as St. Augustine, the (ecumenical) Council of Orange, and, of course, John Calvin, the Puritans, John Edwards, George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon and many others. It is also the historic position of Reformed and Presbyterian churches.

More importantly, I came to understand that these teachings result in awesome humility. I was – and still am! – deeply humbled before God, realizing that there is nothing I have done to contribute to my salvation. Yes, I trust in Jesus. Yes, I responded to the Gospel invitation; not because I am better or smarter than anyone else. It is by God’s grace alone that I believe. And it is God’s grace that protects my faith throughout my whole life.

I continued to follow the pattern of the YRR that Hansen describes. This “Reformed” revival is taking place in a post-denominational context. It never occurred to me that I should seek out a Reformed or Presbyterian Church. Why should I? Everybody knows that Presbies play fast and loose with the Bible, and even if I could find a conservative church, I assumed they would have ditched Calvinism long ago. When I moved away to college I found a small group of young Calvinists and we began meeting Sunday morning at the Harbor in Dana Point. We hired a graduate of London Theological Seminary who was a spectacular preacher. Our little fellowship exactly fit the profile of the “New Calvinism” described by Hanson. Our church was contemporary, casual, mostly baptistic, a little charismatic, totally independent, and featured vigorous and powerful teaching.

I was not raised in a legalistic church but my years in Dana Point taught me to see Christ and his grace in a totally new way. The teaching was not “do this; don’t do that” nor was it “seven steps to a better you” or “a more successful… whatever.” Everything always came back to Christ and him crucified (1 Cor 2:2). Week after week I was presented with a grand vision of God and our redemption in Christ. Grace was not just something that “gets you saved,” it was also the source of strength for the Christian life. I began to understand that Calvinism was much, much bigger than predestination.

Within five years the totally independent character of this church was its undoing and I witnessed the leadership self-destruct. Our little church family voted to dissolve. By this point I had already enrolled at Westminster Seminary California and had major doubts about independency and other characteristics of the so-called “New Calvinism.” I soon learned that I was terribly wrong to overlook the Calvinistic denominations. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is one denomination among others that remains faithful to Scripture and the Protestant Reformation.

In YRR, Colin Hansen judged the Orthodox Presbyterian Church unfavorably. He described the church as ridged, stuck-in-the-mud traditionalists. In my experience I have found this characterization to be false and slanderous. The people I have met are warm, transparent, and accepting. I have also come to appreciate that the “Old Calvinism” is not frail, but wise and mature. Today, I proudly serve Redeemer Church in Santa Maria, and I am convinced that our little Reformed denomination is exactly what so many people are longing for, but do not know exists. We are certainly not a perfect church. We are not typically known for slick, professional programs. But man we have it where it counts – and that is the faithful proclamation of God’s Word, which centers on the work of Jesus Christ. I am encouraged that calvinisticish teaching is making a comeback of sorts, but I am also hopeful that the young and restless will grow in their appreciation for the full richness of Reformed Theology.

[1] The title of “Calvinism” was always a misnomer. Next to Martin Luther, John Calvin was the preeminent Reformer, but when the city of Geneva elected John Calvin as their Pastor, the theology of the Reformation was largely in place. What today we call “Calvinism” is really only classical Protestantism (many traditional minded Lutherans prefer to be known as Evangelical Catholic).

The End of Evangelicalism?

The recent study released by the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) is alarming. Based on a 54,000-person sample, ARIS discovered that Christianity in America is declining at a breakneck speed. Cathy Lynn Grossman, from USA Today, summarizes, “The percentage of people who call themselves in some way Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation… more people are exploring spiritual frontiers – or falling off the map completely.” Those who claim no religion has now reached 15%, nearly double the percentage from 10 years ago. The nonreligious are now nearly as numerous as any single religious group in America.

The Baylor University Religion Surveys in 2006 and 2008, each based on 35,000 interviews, similarly discovered a sharp decline in traditional Christian beliefs. The religion of most Americans today is characterized as “moralistic, therapeutic deism” (Christian Smith). Studies by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public life and the Barna Group discovered much of the same.

90% percent of this decline is from Protestant Christian circles. While it is no surprise that mainline denominations continued their decline, it is noteworthy that stalwart Evangelical denominations (such as Southern Baptists) are equally declining. Sociologists are scratching their heads and speculating as to the factors causing this decline. Leading theories include increased social mobility, on-line communities, and the raised profile of atheism. All of these theories are terribly inadequate.

Many Christian leaders suggest that regardless of the cause of this decline, the solution is clear: churches must adapt by providing even more relevant teaching and worship experiences to reach the unchurched. But the problem is that churches are not only are failing to reach the lost, they are loosing the reached! And when evangelical leaders protest that the solution is more of the same, I frankly disagree.

I am persuaded that the current decline of Christian belief cannot be pinned on the culture. Rather, I believe that in the last 30 years or so evangelicals have sown the seeds of their own demise. The era of the mega-church has not done anything to stem the irreligious drift of American culture. On the contrary, the surging numbers of those who identify themselves as non-denominational, or simply as “Christian” finds its corollary in the surging numbers of those who have drifted away from their faith. While behemoth-like churches successfully siphoned off the membership of more rooted evangelical denominations, most traditional churches responded by mimicking the “therapeutic, church-growth oriented mega-churches that have defined success” (Michael Spencer). But what the church growth prognosticators could not forecast was the long-term effect that these methods have upon Christian families.

The evangelical emphasis on obtaining a personal relationship with Jesus has become for many a private relationship with Jesus. Typical of many surveyed by ARIS one self-described evangelical commented, “Christianity is moving totally under the radar… It can't be measured. It happens inside of people's souls.”

Evangelical teachers typically place little or no importance on church membership, and it is therefore no wonder when more and more professing Christians become detached to any church. Similarly, we should not be surprised if the stress on the small group as the place were “real ministry happens” leads many to neglect the corporate worship and the official proclamation of God’s Word. We should not be surprised when George Barna enthusiastically heralds the coming of the “house church” as the next great trend that will replace the over produced worship experiences of the mega-church.

The steady diet of teaching in evangelical churches is broadly therapeutic, focusing on "felt needs." We can hardly blame the average listener from inferring, even in churches that affirm traditional Christian teachings, that the Gospel message is “do more; try harder” (Michael Horton). Many have therefore become convinced that church is not the place to find the answers for the great questions in life.

In an effort to attract “unchurched Harry” Evangelicals have upped the entertainment value of the worship experience. For many Christians, music has become the central thing. The result is that the faith of many is grounded in their emotional response rather than the intellect, while the seeker knows he can find better entertainment elsewhere.

In our quest for “relevance” we have become irrelevant. Many Christian churches offer little that is unique from the culture. The end result is that Evangelical churches today have probably produced the most Biblically ignorant generation of Christians since before the Protestant Reformation.

There are, however, many bright spots across our nation. There is a resurgence of interest in the theology of the Reformation. Young people are discovering dynamic, doctrinal teaching, which is opening their eyes to a larger vision of God than they had previously dreamed. While Christian churches across the theological spectrum are declining, small Reformed denominations, such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, are steadily growing. These churches do not often make headlines, but while the back doors of many churches are wide open, these Reformed churches are faithfully teaching the next generation the great truths of God’s Word.

Redeemer Church in Santa Maria is such a church that contends “for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We believe that God’s Word is always relevant and that Jesus Christ, the savior of his people, should always be proclaimed. We are not a perfect church, but as a Reformed church we believe that we must be “always reforming according to the word of God.”

http://discoveredeemer.com