Never too late to say sorry

“Lutherans” to Anabaptists: Sorry
Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 10:37 AM
Anthony Sacramone
So, after 450-plus years, some Lutherans*, presumably trapped in an airport somewhere, bumped from their flights to see the La Brea Tar Pits, or unable to compete in their respective bowling leagues due to wrist-lock, have decided to kill time by issuing a formal apology to the descendants of the 16th-century Anabaptists, namely, Wanda and Earl Kolodny of Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Some perspective. To begin with, one must understand that, in nailing his theses to the Wittenberg church door, Martin Luther bore a hole large enough to let loose a bevy of self-proclaimed prophets, apostles, revolutionaries, screwballs, and unitarians. Some were calling for the violent overthrow of the existing order. Some were calling for the near-total withdrawal from the existing order. And some just wanted to prance around naked and sing an early version of the theme to Caddyshack.

Among this dappled crew were those who believed the church to be so corrupt that only the re-baptizing of professing adults could make a clean spiritual start of things. Infant baptism was mere thralldom to an ecclesiastical leviathan that had made common cause with corrupt civil government, pious hypocrites, and whoever invented the atomic wedgie.


Luther, never known to mince words, felt something to be amiss with these folks: “Who seeth not here in the Anabaptists, men not possessed with devils, but even devils themselves possessed with worse devils?” Luther being Luther, he encouraged their being tossed into rivers and beaten with sticks—oh, you know how he gets.

Among the radicals, however, was one relatively benign sort, a guy named Menno Simons, from whom modern-day Anabaptists take their name: the Simonizers. Harmless, pacificisististical, and really bad drivers, the Simonizers can be found buffing a Hyundai near you.

And here we are, in 2010, making amends. So, Mr. and Mrs. Kolodny, as a poor Lutheran layman, allow me to offer my deepest apologies for the 1500s and the rather intemperate recommendations of Dr. Luther.

I promise: it will never happen again.

* It should be noted that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is not in league with the Lutheran World Federation, which issued the apology, but is in league with the Justice League of America. Which is to say, as far as I know, the LCMS does not apologize, but may still feel really bad about it all. Rumor has it that the new president of the LCMS has asked Congorilla to mediate a brunch in the not-too-distant future.

Trying out the iPad

This is the first post I make from my iPad, and having the keyboard to write helps a lot. I like it because it just stands anywhere in the house, and I don't have to wait for it to start up.

So far so good. I hope I can enjoy it even more, but lately, my wife has taken over it since it's a bit more convenient than her own computer. The same happened to my first iPod, first iPod touch, but not the iPhone, I managed to keep it. The trials of married life!!!!!

WRIGHT AND CALVIN: NOT SO FAR APART

Gerald Hiestand

As noted in my previous post, I think a lot of the confusion regarding Wright arises from a failure to fully embrace the fact that he is using the term dikaioo (and its cognates) differently. This difference in semantics gives the appearance, I believe, of more distance between Wright and his critics than is warranted. So when trying to compare and contrast Wright and the Reformed paradigm I wonder if it wouldn’t be more productive to drop these terms altogether, and instead utilize neutral terms that gets to the substance of what each theologian means.

When it comes to substance (not semantics), there are four basic questions that every evangelical soteriological system generally addresses. I’m better on Calvin than Wright, but here’s how I think they both would answer these questions.

1) What is the ultimate ground of our initial acceptance before God?
For Wright, the ultimate ground of our initial acceptance before God is the atoning work of Christ—his death and resurrection. Wright’s covenantal focus gives his view of the atonement a unique twist, but basically he affirms penal substitution. Christ died in our place—the divine curse for sin is poured out on Christ and thus the way is cleared for all to participate in the blessings of the covenant (or something like that). He doesn’t affirm double imputation as understood by later Reformed theologians, but he does maintain that through Christ’s atoning work the believer has a righteous status before God.

For Calvin, the ground of our initial acceptance is the cross-work of Christ and the imputation of a righteous status based upon this cross-work. (I”m not convinced Calvin affirms the imputation of Christ’s legal obedience as understood by later Reformed theologians.) From what I can tell, Wright and Calvin are pretty much in-line regarding the ground of acceptance—the cross work of Christ, and maybe even the imputation (perhaps not Wright’s word of choice) of a righteous status.

2) What is the proper human response for appropriating this initial acceptance—i.e., what must a person do to “get in,” as it were?
Here’s where I think Wright gets a bit murky. From what I’ve been able to piece together, Wright doesn’t seem to think that any human response at all is required for “getting in.” For Wright the royal proclamation of Christ’s death, resurrection and Lordship (what Wright means by “gospel”) is itself the means by which a person “gets in.” This royal proclamation contains within itself the power to “save” those who hear it. He writes, “The message about Jesus and his cross and resurrection…is announced to them; through this means God works by his Spirit upon their hearts; as a result, they come to believe the message; they join the Christian community through baptism, and begin to share in its common life…” (What Saint Paul Really Said, 116). And again, “The [announcement of Christ’s death, resurrection and Lordship] carries its own power to save people, and to dethrone the idols to which they have been bound….[this announcement] itself creates the Church (Saint Paul, 151).”

But for me, the question still remains as to what human response is required in Wright’s view, if any, to move a person from outside to inside. One might be tempted to think Wright views “faith”—specifically faith in the royal proclamation—as the necessary human response for appropriating the blessings of the covenant, but not so. Wright is pretty clear that faith is not a means of “getting in.” He writes, “Faith…is never and in no way a qualification, provided from the human side, either for getting into the God’s family or for staying there once in” (Saint Paul, 160). For Wright, faith is not a means of “getting in” but rather is evidence that one is already in. So is there any response needed from the human side that is necessary for getting into God’s family? I haven’t yet found it in Wright. Wright’s articulation here seems radically monergistic—as though the royal proclamation is a magic dust that gets sprinkled over people and “poof!”—they are part of the people of God. There is an irony here, because Wright is often accused by Reformed theologians of opening the door to semi-Pelagianism. But given the above, I just can’t see it. If anything, I don’t think Wright gives enough attention to the human response. If anyone has a better understanding of Wright and can provide more clarity here, I would appreciate it.

For his part, Calvin is pretty clear that faith is the necessary human response for securing the blessings of salvation—i.e., “getting in.” We find mercy and God’s help, “if, indeed, with firm faith we embrace this mercy and rest in it with steadfast hope” (Institutes 3.2.1). So this seems like a pretty major difference between the Calvin and Wright, but one that, if anything, makes Wright more of a monergist than Calvin!

3) What is the ultimate ground of our final acceptance before God at the judgment?
From what I can gather, both Calvin and Wright would argue that the basis of our ultimate acceptance at the judgment is the same as the basis of our initial acceptance at our conversion – the redemptive cross-work of Christ. Wright would agree with Calvin, who writes in reference to the final judgment, “Therefore if one seeks the first cause that opens for the saints the door to God’s Kingdom, and hence gives them a permanent standing-ground in it, at once we answer: Because the Lord by his own mercy has adopted them once for all, and keeps them continually” (Institutes, 3.17.6). In other words, the basis for the believer’s acceptance before God at the judgment is the same as the basis for the believer’s acceptance at conversion . It’s not as though for Wright (or Calvin), one is saved initially by Christ’s redemptive work, but then must “make good” on this in order to stand at the judgment. This will become clearer below.

4) What is the necessary human response for appropriating this final acceptance at the judgment? (i.e., How do works relate to the judgment?)
Here is where Wright is most misunderstood, and thus the target of much misguided criticism. Wright certainly believes that a life of good works is the necessary fruit of all who are true members of God’s family, just as faith is a necessary fruit of all who are true members of God’s family. But Wright wouldn’t suggest that works somehow “earn” or “secure” one’s possession of eternal life at the final judgment. Just as faith is not a means of “getting in,” in an initial sense, so too works are not a means of “getting in” an ultimate sense. Both faith and works are the fruit of being in, not the cause. Pointing out that Wright affirms a final justification on the basis of works misses the point. For Wright, the final judgment is not about getting in, but about declaring who is in fact already in. The judgment is a public vindication of God’s previously private judgment. It is in this sense that Wright is comfortable talking about Spirit-wrought works “vindicating” the believer at the judgment. For Wright, the reason good works are are a source of vindication is because such works show that one is already “in Christ.” If I read Wright correctly, we are “in” at the final judgment because the royal proclamation has had its way with us; the inevitable result of this royal proclamation in us is a life of both faith and good works (a very Reformed idea!). At the judgment, God publicly declares who is in fact already in, based on the evidential good works wrought by the effect of the “royal proclamation.” So the final judgment for Wright is not about works “getting us in” but about God declaring who is already in. (The big deal that was made at ETS this year about Wright modifying his language from “on the basis of” to “according to” only underscores the point that Wright has not been understood. If you feel better about Wright because he is now using the phrase “according to” then you didn’t really understand him in the first place. From Wright’s perspective, and how he understands what is happening at the judgment, there really isn’t much difference.)

Interestingly, Calvin has more of a merit theology than Wright. Calvin is willing (all be it hesitantly) to talk about eternal life as a “reward” given to good works, but only in as much as one’s works have been justified and cleansed through the blood of Christ. “It is no absurdity that man is so justified by faith that not only is he himself righteous but his works are also accounted righteous above their worth” (Institutes 3.17.9, see all of 3.18). For Calvin, works are a “secondary” cause of being received positively at the judgment.

Ultimately, I don’t think Wright and Calvin are really all that different at this point. For both Wright and Calvin, works don’t “earn” or “acquire” eternal life in themselves, but rather are the necessary fruit of all who are true members of God’s family—the membership badges, as Wright calls them. For both Wright and Calvin, works function more in an evidential, rather than instrumental, role. If anything, Calvin’s discussion of judgment and works could be construed in slightly more Augustinian/synergistic terms, since Calvin views the judgment as more about “getting in” and Wright views it more about “declaring who is already in.”

Conclusion
So there you have it. If I’m reading Wright correctly, I don’t think substantively that he is all that different than Calvin when it comes to his basic soteriological framework. Semantically yes, but substantively no. The major place where Wright parts company with later Reformed theologians is (as noted above) his denial that faith is a means of “getting in” and of double imputation. Perhaps it bears noting that I don’t tend to follow Wright in all of these matters. I’m not sure he’ s using the terms “justification” and “righteousness” in the best ways, and I’m certainly in favor of the way Calvin (and Augustine) talk about faith as a means of appropriating salvation. But I am fairly confident that Wright isn’t a semi-pelagian who thinks that somehow we earn salvation through good works.

What N.T. Wright Really Said

Something that I found from the least expected place:

Did N. T. Wright adjust or change his view of justification at the 2010 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society? The claim is now making its way around the internet that Wright indeed has reformed himself (to one degree or another) on this issue, and this claim is occasionally accompanied by the insinuation that he is being less than forthcoming about the degree to which he has changed. (Here I do not have in mind A. B. Caneday’s comments highlighted earlier on this blog. The careful reader will note that Caneday’s suggestion is that Wright has failed to communicate his position effectively in the past, not that Wright has changed his position and is seeking to cover it up. The difficulty that many have had in understanding Wright points to some validity within Caneday’s concerns.)

In my judgment, however, the claim that Wright has changed his view on justification is misguided and results from the misreading of Wright that has been rampant in the Reformed world for quite some time. I will explore this issue through asking and answering four questions.

1. What did Wright say at ETS to incite such controversy?

The issue under debate is Wright’s understanding of how the believer’s Spirit-inspired good works relate to what Wright calls “final justification.” In his lecture at ETS and the following discussion, Wright stated that he understands final justification to be “in accordance with” works, and not “on the basis of” works. In fact, he said that he does not remember ever using “basis” language to describe this relationship, and would be happy to adjust future editions of books if others would point out to him where he has made such statements.

Minutes later, Tom Schreiner pointed out one place in Wright’s work where he had spoken of final justification “on the basis of the whole life lived,” and bloggers have drawn attention to a number of other instances of similar language in his books and articles. In response to one such post (written by Denny Burk), Wright claimed (in a blog comment!) that he has not “retracted anything that I meant in my many, many earlier statements on this subject.” He said that after receiving Tom Schreiner’s paper (in which he was critiqued for using the word “basis” in his descriptions of the role of works in final justification) he did not have access to his works to check whether or not he had used the language of “basis.” After recognizing the examples produced by Burk, Wright then wrote, “I have always made it clear, as I did yesterday, that I did not mean or intend the kind of thing that clearly some theologians think that word ‘must’ mean.” Wright thus agreed that he had used the word “basis” to describe the relationship between works and final justification, but suggested that the context of these statements clarifies that he has never meant by this word what many of his critics have taken him to mean.

2. What have Wright’s critics taken him to mean?

One of the most prominent critics of Wright’s views on justification is John Piper, who devoted an entire book to the topic (The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright). Chapter 8 of this book discusses Wright’s view of the relationship between works and the final judgment. In this chapter, Piper first admits that he finds Wright’s view “ambiguous” (p. 117), but after extended analysis, he concludes that Wright’s denial of the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ “results in a vacuum that our own Spirit-enabled, but imperfect, obedience seems to fill as part of the foundation or ground or basis alongside the atoning death of Jesus” (p. 128, emphasis original). Piper hastens to add, “I say ‘seems to,’ since I would be happy for Wright to clarify for his reading public that this, in fact, is not what he believes” (pp. 128-129, emphasis original). Nevertheless, Piper’s tenuous portrayal of Wright’s position has become common among Wright critics in the blogosphere and elsewhere, particularly among folks who self-identify as Reformed. These critics suggest that the Spirit-inspired obedience of the believer stands as the believer’s righteousness in Wright’s understanding of final justification in the same way that Christ’s lifetime of perfect obedience stands as the believer’s righteousness in the traditional Reformed view. Thus, they understand Wright to be teaching a sort of Augustinian works-righteousness.

3. What has Wright really meant?

Are the critics right? The keys to adjudicating this question are Wright’s understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language in Paul and his understanding of the trial to which justification stands as a verdict.

In his ETS lecture, Wright indicated once more what he has stated many times: in his view, when Paul applies the word “righteousness” to a human being, it means “covenant membership.” (This is slightly different than when the word is applied to God, in which case it often, but not exclusively, means “covenant faithfulness” according to Wright.) This definition of “righteousness” should immediately cause us to question the reading that suggests that Wright understands the believer’s Spirit inspired works to be the believer’s “righteousness” in final justification. If “righteousness” is covenant membership, then righteousness does not and cannot consist in good works themselves, either the believer’s Spirit-inspired works or Christ’s works on the believer’s behalf.

This becomes even clearer when one considers Wright’s understanding of the trial to which justification stands as a verdict. According to Wright, the question under consideration in the divine courtroom is not whether or not one measures up to God’s moral standards, but rather whether or not one is truly a member of God’s covenant people. Thus, the trial is meant to determine which people are truly covenant members, and to be justified is to be declared a covenant member.

According to Wright, present justification occurs immediately after conversion. In Wright’s understanding of conversion, God sends the Spirit to produce faith in one who hears the proclamation of the gospel (Wright thinks that Paul refers to this event with the word “call”). Thus, faith is the first evidence that one has become a member of God’s covenant people. Present justification follows immediately. Present justification is “by faith” because faith in Christ is irrefutable evidence that God has indeed made one a member of his covenant people through the work of his Spirit. Thus, in Wright’s view, when Paul speaks of present justification by faith, he means God’s declaration that one has been brought into the family of his covenant people. The evidence that God cites to demonstrate that one has already been brought into covenant membership is the presence of faith.

Wright’s understanding of the function of Spirit-inspired works in final justification is identical to his understanding of the function of faith in present justification. Just as Spirit-produced faith is the initial sign that God has made one a member of his covenant people, so in final justification, Spirit-produced good works serve as the sign that one was truly a member of God’s covenant people from the point of one’s conversion on. When Wright has said that good works are the “basis” of the believer’s final justification, he has meant that Spirit-inspired works serve as the evidence that one truly is a covenant member. They are the “basis” for final justification the same way that a paternity test may serve as the “basis” for the verdict in a paternity lawsuit. A paternity test does not make one a father; it demonstrates that one was a child’s father all along. So also, Spirit-inspired works do not make one a covenant member in Wright’s view; they demonstrate that one has been a covenant member all along. The assertion that Wright understands Spirit-inspired works to be the believer’s “righteousness” in final justification misconstrues both his understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language and his understanding of the question under consideration in the divine courtroom.

[Two parenthetical comments:

(1) In his writings, Wright has sometimes muddled this issue by his responses to critics. Wright has two arguments for why his position does not promote any kind of works-righteousness, as his critics claim. The first is his understanding of the trial and “righteousness” language as detailed above, and the second is his assertion that the works considered in final justification are Spirit-inspired. This second argument does not satisfy many of Wright’s critics, and sometimes that is the primary response Wright makes to such charges. When Wright focuses on this argument rather than the first, his critics often become confused and don’t realize how the broader framework of his understanding of the trial and “righteousness” language make the works-righteousness interpretation of his writings impossible.

(2) A second point where confusion has arisen is through the claim that Wright understands justification to be primarily “ecclesiological” rather than “soteriological.” Although Wright once expressed this contrast himself (What Saint Paul Really Said, 119), he has more recently decried this depiction of Paul’s meaning as a false dichotomy, suggesting that here we have a “both/and” (Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, 132-133). Nevertheless, careful attention needs to be paid to how he describes the relationship between justification and soteriology. He relates justification to soteriology in two distinct ways: (1) he insists that declaring one a covenant member is to declare that one is indeed saved because the blessings of covenant membership include forgiveness of sins, etc. (Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 121-122); (2) he wants to broaden our understanding of the term “soteriology” to include deliverance from the plight of Genesis 11, in which humanity was fractured into different nations, in addition to deliverance from the plight of Genesis 3, in which humanity fell subject to death through sin (Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, 133-136). In Wright’s view, justification directly “saves” humanity from this plight by creating one cross-national covenant people of God, and is thus a directly “soteriological” act because it directly reverses the plight of Genesis 11. Thus, when Wright claims that his view of justification is both ecclesiological and soteriological, he does not mean that his view of justification is soteriological in the precise sense that some of his critics mean.]

4. What is the meaning and significance of Wright’s assertion at ETS that final justification is “in accordance with” and not “on the basis of” works?

We return now to our original question: has Wright changed his view by denying that final justification is “on the basis of” works? In short, the answer is no. Nothing that he said indicated that he has changed his understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language in Paul’s writings. Nothing that he said indicated that he has changed his understanding of the trial to which justification stands as a verdict. On the contrary, he reasserted his position on both of these points.

What then did the denial of “basis” as an appropriate way to talk about the relationship between final justification and Spirit-inspired works mean? The most responsible reading of this statement is that Wright is denying the interpretation of his writings that insists that he equates the believer’s righteousness in final justification with Spirit-inspired works. I think that everyone in the room who has read his works carefully was probably stunned to hear him say that he did not remember using the language of “basis” in this way, but I think that his lapse in memory on this point demonstrates that the language of “basis” is so inessential to what Wright has always meant that he can dismiss it without realizing how frequently he has used it in the past. Basically, Wright’s shift in language simply means that he is using new wording to express what he has always been saying, but in a way that is less apt to be misunderstood than his previous statements. He still holds that Spirit-inspired works serve as the evidence that one is truly a member of God’s covenant people in final justification, and this corresponds to his understanding of the function of faith in present justification. He has not changed his view at all, but he has finally offered the clarification for which Piper hoped by denying that he understands works to be the “basis” of final justification in the way that Piper understands Christ’s righteousness to be the “basis” of final justification. One might wish that he had made this clarification clearer in his book-length reply to Piper (Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision), but we may all be grateful that he is now speaking in a way that perhaps fewer people will misunderstand. Also, perhaps the debate can now shift from this red-herring to the real points of disagreement: Wright’s understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language and his construal of the question under consideration in the divine courtroom. On these points, Wright should be engaged and evaluated with an open mind, an open heart, and, not least, an open Bible. The discussion at ETS was a fine example of such engagement, and we should all be thankful to the panelists for modeling a charitable dialogue on this issue focused on the exegetical details from which the differences arise. May God give us wisdom as we continue to consider His Word together.

So there is no NeoReformed/New Calvinist movement

Scot McKnight


David Kinnaman, at Barna, has a new study on the so-called New Calvinists or NeoReformed movement, a term I may well have invented to describe what I perceive to be the rise of Calvinists. David says Nope, not happening. This is no movement. Not even among Southern Baptists? Nope. David told me the numbers are 30% now and they were 30% ten years ago.

What say you? Also this: Why have we seen major media cover New Calvinism if there is no such a thing? Many of us are thinking there is a movement: Is this just an increase in the presence of their voice? Are these folks getting more media attention with little change in numbers? I do know this: a high percentage of the top church web sites are connected to this New Calvinism (if there is such a thing).

Clergy Identity
For the past decade the Barna Group has been tracking the percentage of Protestant pastors who identify their church as “Calvinist or Reformed.” Currently, about three out of every 10 Protestant leaders say this phrase accurately describes their church (31%). This proportion is statistically unchanged from a decade ago (32%). In fact, an examination of a series of studies among active clergy during the past decade indicates that the proportion that embraces the Reformed label has remained flat over the last 10 years.

Pastors who embrace the term “Wesleyan or Arminian” currently account for 32% of the Protestant church landscape – the same as those who claim to be Reformed. The proportion of Wesleyan/Arminian pastors is down slightly from 37% in 2000. There has been less consistency related to this label during the past decade, with the tracking figures ranging from a low of 26% to a high of 37%.

The director of the study, David Kinnaman, clarified that respondents were not given definitions of these terms. As dictated by standard practice in survey research, identification with these terms was left up to each pastor’s interpretation.

Who is Reformed?
The Barna study explored some characteristics of the pastors aligned with the “Calvinist or Reformed” label as compared to the profile of pastors who identified themselves as “Wesleyan or Arminian.” In terms of the age of pastors, among the youngest generation of pastors (ages 27 to 45), 29% described themselves as Reformed, while 34% identified as Wesleyan. Pastors associated with the Boomer generation (ages 46 to 64) were evenly split between the two theological camps: 34% Reformed, 33% Arminian. Pastors who were 65 or older were the least likely to use either term: 26% and 27%, respectively.

Regionally, Reformed churches were most common in the Northeast, while least common in the Midwest. Wesleyan/Arminian congregations were equally likely to appear in each of the four regions.

Denominational background made a significant difference, but the dividing lines were not always straightforward: 47% of mainline churches were described by their pastor as Wesleyan/Arminian, while 29% of mainline congregations adopted the Reformed categorization. (Mainline churches include American Baptist Churches, Evangelical Lutheran Churches in America, the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, and United Church of Christ.) In contrast, non-mainline churches were more likely to self-describe as Reformed (35%), although 30% of the non-mainline pastors identified as Wesleyan/Arminian.

The study found that 31% of pastors who lead churches within traditionally charismatic or Pentecostal denominations were described as Reformed, while 27% identified as Wesleyan/Arminian. This is somewhat surprising given that these denominations – including Assembly of God, Vineyard, Foursquare, and Church of God-Cleveland – are generally viewed as stemming from Wesleyan or Holiness traditions.

Despite the common public view of Reformed churches being doctrinally conservative, a greater proportion of these leaders described themselves as “theologically liberal” than was true among Wesleyan/Arminian leaders (17% versus 13%).

Completion of seminary was statistically equivalent whether Arminian/Wesleyan (65%) or Reformed/Calvinist (62%).

Research Observations
Kinnaman, who serves as Barna Group president, concluded, “there is no discernible evidence from this research that there is a Reformed shift among U.S. congregation leaders over the last decade. Whatever momentum surrounds Reformed churches and the related leaders, events and associations has not gone much outside traditional boundaries or affected the allegiances of most today’s church leaders. It is important to note that the influence of Reformed churches might also be measured through other metrics that are currently unavailable, such as the theological certainty of self-described adherents, their level of acceptance toward those who are not Calvinist, and the new methods Reformed leaders are using to market their views to their peers and to the public.

“Nevertheless, the research shows that many pastors do not necessarily conform to traditional doctrinal perspectives when it comes to how they think about or operate in their ministries. In other words, most of the nation’s 300,000 Protestant churches are in a state of theological flux, apparently open to identities and trends that do not necessarily fall within expected denominational or doctrinal boundaries. Given this profile, we expect that new theological, relational, as well as methodological networks that emerge will redefine the Protestant landscape over the next decade.”

When a Parent leaves God, the whole family follows.

I try not to download the Compass program from my national ABC. But sometimes, I tunes downloads it anyway. But this time, I was appalled at what I saw. Compass is a Catholic run program, but the programs are always either attacking christianity, or denigrating it. The last show, was no exception. It showed the life of an australian religious (I can't call him a christian, since he rejected the basis of Christianity as mentioned in the program) figure, Ted Noffs.

Noffs seem to have been a Bishop Spong of his time. He started saying that organised, hierarchical religion was something that must die, and as mentioned before, rejected cardinal doctrines such as original sin, and the deity of Jesus. And if you have the time and willingness to waist your download, you will see that he stopped baptizing in the name of Jesus, but started doing it in his own formula, "in the name of all faiths", (min. 22:10). He faced the opposition of the Methodist church in Australia, and was rightly called for a trial of heresy.

He was truly a person who cared for other human beings. He cared for those who were left behind by society, and he saw that as the crux of religion, helping others. He came with a new term, "the Family of Humanity", in which he said that he himself was

"I am Protestant but I am also a Catholic. I am a Muslim but I am also a Jew. I am a Hindu but I am also a Buddhist. Because first and foremost, I am a human being and no one in the world is a stranger to me.”

He wanted to be all things to all people, yet, losing his own identity as a christian.

Noffs set up The Wayside Chapel, that served as his base to serve his community, and cater for drug addicts, poor people, and those who were being ignored by society. Indeed, he put his faith in humanity, and he showed it. In that, he was truly consistent and admirable.

My issue with him is that he took God out of picture, and had more faith in humanity than in God. As can be heard in the Compass program, he rejected the divinity of Christ, which he saw as a later construct of the church. This rage against the bride of Christ clearly puts him against not only historic Christianity, but against the God of Jesus Christ. By baptising somebody in the name of all faiths, that would be not only a huge disregard for what Christianity stands for, but any observant Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc. What this shows, far from being a pietistic person, Noffs wanted to impose his view of religion upon those religions, and actually, as one of his grandsons calls him,

Ted Noffs wasn’t human. He was some kind of divine spirit, a deity.

This shows how far Noffs wanted to become a god himself through his new doctrine of "the Family of Humanity".

His family have follow on the work started by Noffs, his social work, but no more with a religious overtone. His son, is agnostic, and his son's sons, one atheist, the other, gay. Noffs progeny totally rejected the God who the senior started serving, and at the end abandoned because he couldn't fit in his worldview.

From a Christian view, this is sad story, one that shows how somebody who gives God the shoulder, is not the only one who pays the spiritual price, but also his progeny may pay it, because there was no faithfulness to God in their father/grandfather in the first place. He taught them that God was not necessary in their lives, that humanity had it i them to better themselves. A total contrary message of that of Jesus Christ, who came to earth because that philosophy is not true.

Lastly, as with Bishop Spong, Noffs saw that organised religion was on the way of the dinosaur, and that Australians would ultimately reject all sorts of hierarchal religion. If he would see the Australian church landscape, he would be turning in his grave. Noffs, as Spong, and many others, are subjected to think that in order for the church to survive, it must die. I am sorry, but Jesus died for the church, and trying to kill of the church, in anyway, is the most clear rejection of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross on behalf of sinful humans. That, Noff rejected, so he rejected Jesus's entire mission.

They should do well in reading a bit more of Scripture, specially the following:

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Luis A. Jovel

“Revelation and Christian Hope: Political Implications of the Revelation to John”

Revelation and Christian Hope: Political Implications of the Revelation to John from Duke Divinity School on Vimeo.

N. T. Wright and Justification by Roger E. Olson

Roger Olson has provided an interesting review of N.T. Wright's book, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's vision.

It is a very telling commentary, and how even Wright's position goes against even an Arminian understanding of Justification, and that Wesley also denied the imputation of Christ's active obedience.

Just something to ponder about.

Who are the NeoReformed? 2

By Scot McKnight.


We are looking at the rise of the NeoReformed; we began Monday and this is part two.

The NeoReformed movement of which I speak is an attempt to capture evangelicalism, redefine it by some clearly-defined doctrines that are Reformed, and kick the rest of us — and there are lots more “of us” than the NeoReformed – off the village green. When we are in need of profound degrees of cooperation (as we see in someone like J.I. Packer), we are finding a
division of the evangelical village green. No, in fact, they are not dividing the village green; they are constructing a Reformed fence around it. (Well, maybe not. The impact of what I see going on with the NeoReformed will result in a division of evangelicalism.)

Are you sensing a division? one coming? Do you think there’s room in the tent for us all? What are the themes in theology that seem most divisive?

Furthermore, the NeoReformed have come to equate the meaning of “gospel” with Calvin’s “Reformed theology.” And those who aren’t Reformed are somehow or in some ways denying the gospel itself. When gospel is equated with double predestination, often said in harsh terms, we are seeing a good example of the spirit of a NeoReformed approach. This leads, inevitably, to seeing what they call the “doctrines of grace” as defining both “gospel” and “evangelical.”

The groups they’ve chosen to exclude witness to the new kind of Reformed. The sweeping impacts of the Finney revivals and Wesleyan gospel preaching and the charismatics are simply not, in the view of the NeoReformed, evangelicals. Anabaptists aren’t even on the map. A number of historians have clearly demonstrated that evangelicalism in the USA cannot be properly understood without reference to the powerful revivals of the Wesleyans; one thinks of David Hempton or Donald Dayton. Their careful studies on the rise of American evangelicalism are often ignored. The approach of Mark Noll and David Bebbington, which is broader based than just a list of Reformed theological ideas, is also rejected as inaccurate.

Oddly enough, a group not formerly connected with evangelicalism, the Southern Baptists, have (from the Reagan years on) become increasingly associated with evangelicalism. And many of them are now advocating very strong forms of Calvinism — something previously not at all characteristic of the SBC. I could be wrong here, but my own reading of Southern Baptist stuff over the years shows a dramatic rise of Calvinism and a desire to be called evangelicals. I’m open to hear how the SBC see this trend.

And here’s another issue: the NeoReformed are deeply concerned with complementarianism and see it as a test case of fidelity. Fine, argue your points, but complementarianism is hardly the center of orthodoxy. You wouldn’t know that by the way they write or talk. Some see it as the litmus test of evangelical orthodoxy these days. This grieves me. Don’t we have more significant battles to wage?

And they also have chosen to make one of their targets today the New Perspective on Paul, and for some odd reason they’ve landed squarely on the door step of Tom Wright. They see him as the problem. The Problem. When Tom Wright is our problem, it is we who have the problem. I blurbed Tom Wright’s book recently with some strong words, and one blogger posted my blurb — a blogger who had not read Tom Wright’s book — and it drew within one day about 75 comments, and I’m pretty sure only one commenter on the entire thread had read both Piper’s book and Wright’s book. The rest were pretty sure I was wrong. Those who were all riled up about the blurb are the NeoReformed — ironically, they were wondering who I had
in mind when I used “NeoReformed” in the blurb. I thought that was obvious.

If I had to sum it up I’d put it this way: the NeoReformed are those who are obsessed with God’s holiness and grace and have not learned that grace makes people gracious. These folks are America’s newest religious zealots and they are wounding, perhaps for a generation or two, evangelicalism.

My brothers and sisters, because God in his mercy has made room for all of us at the cross, there’s room enough for all of us on the village green. Grace would make it so. We might not be able to agree on theology or in some of the finer points of our confessions, but the village green — evangelicalism — is covered by a big tent, and there’s room for all of us who call ourselves evangelicals.

What are options? I keep asking myself. Welcome one another in a common mission or send those we don’t agree with to another location?

Make your decision. Our decision, friends, will shape the future of American evangelicalism. I pray to God we will find a way to focus on the mission of God.

Who are the NeoReformed? 1

By Scot McKnight

I have been using the term “NeoReformed” now for a year or two and a few of my friends have asked me what I mean and why I don’t just calls such folks “Reformed”. This post will sketch who they are and why I call them “Neo” Reformed. I begin with a confession: I’m not a Calvinist; I’m an anabaptist. But, I have never had any problems with the variety of theologies at work in the big tent of evangelicalism. Calvinists are not only among us, they have important elements to bring to the table. I’ve sat on the essence of this post for months, but I think it is time for us to make it public. I do so with a certain degree of sadness, but feel compelled to call us to a unity that is presently threatened.

The evangelical tent is big enough to welcome to the table Calvinists and Arminians, anabaptists and charismatics, and I love it when Catholics and the Orthodox join us. This is not a personal battle for me with Calvinists; it’s a particular kind of divisive Calvinist that I have in view.

Formerly the disagreements with Calvinists or the ones they had with others didn’t stop us from gathering inside the big tent. But in the last decade something happened, and I call it the rise of the NeoReformed. Here we go but first a question or two:

Are you seeing a rise of reformed folks? Do you see some militancy — whatever their strengths? What are your thoughts? Why do you think some youth are attracted to this new form of Reformed theology?

One of my favorite Reformed theologians is Michael Horton. We don’t agree on theology but I like this guy and I like to read his stuff. Michael recently wrote a piece that uses a different image than the big tent image above. He says evangelicalism is like the village green of early American communities. It was where folks, all folks, gathered to chat and share commonalities. He says evangelicalism is the village green but evangelicalism is not the church. Churches have confessions, and his confession is Reformed. He says we need to worship in our churches and that the village green is not enough; it is where we join with Christians most like us. The key point I make here is the distinction between being evangelical and being Reformed. Michael Horton, I am assuming, thinks the best form of evangelicalism is Reformed; and he probably thinks Arminians and Anabaptists are wrong at some important points. Fine. (I think the same of Reformed, and I think they are sometimes wrong at central points.) But Michael Horton knows that a local church (or denomination) is not the village green. I agree with him 100%.

But … and here’s our problem…

The NeoReformed, for a variety of reasons, some of them good, don’t recognize that evangelicalism as a village green. Instead, they want to build a gate at the gate-less village green and require Reformed confessions and credentials to enter onto the village green. Put differently, they think the only legitimate and the only faithful evangelicals are Reformed. Really Reformed. In other words, they are “confessing” evangelicals. The only true evangelical is a Reformed evangelical. They are more than happy to call into question the legitimacy and fidelity of any evangelical who doesn’t believe in classic Reformed doctrines, like double predestination. The palpable observation here is that many of us think the NeoReformed are as attached to Tradition (read Westminster etc) as they are to sola scriptura.

In effect, the NeoReformed are a new form of Fundamentalism, so one might describe them accurately as the NeoFundamentalists. Which means they seem to need a trend or an opponent upon whom they can vent their frustrations (see Rene Girard). This results in two clear traits: the exaltation of some peripheral doctrine to central status and the demonization of a person. The goal in such cases seems to be to win at all costs.

I close with this:

I recently wrote to a friend of mine, a Reformed theologian, and described what is the essence of this post and this is what he wrote back:

The problem, as I see it is these, whom you are calling neoreformed, are to me simply the old fundamentalists in nicer clothes with better vocabularies. They are just as mean-spirited, just as graceless, and just as exclusive. I believe that the fundamentalism of my youth was harmful to the gospel. I believe that anyone who refuses to come out of his “room” (confessional church) and into the hall of “mere Christianity”, to use Lewis’s term, is doomed to a narrow and problematic exegesis of the text. Who is going to tell us that we are wrong if we only stay in our room and speak to people who agree with us all the time?

God in America 1. A new Adam.

Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.

Chrislam???

An interesting new blend of syncretism in Nigeria between Christianity and Islam.

The White Horse Inn does it again, and again, and again

I love to hear the White Horse Inn, don't get me wrong, but sometimes their zeal becomes mere denunciations of things that they don't agree with, regardless if they understand them or not.

Take their blatant misrepresentation of the New Perspective on Paul. According to Ken Jones and Kim Riddlebarger, the New Perspective teaches that one must do good works in order to be saved. If you want to hear it, listen to this week's podcast, at minute 31:45.

I would admit that the NPP is very broad, but to teach that, I am more amazed that they seem to know more than the people who uphold and promote the NPP.

Take for example N. T. Wright. He is the best NPP proponent, and what he proposes, is not that our salvation is based on our works, rather, that we will be rewarded by the quality of life lived after knowing Christ. Our salvation is secured, but the rewards are one thing that God gives us out of his goodness. Let's see two passages that you never hear at the White Horse Inn:

Hebrews 11:6 (New International Version)

⁶And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

2 Corinthians 5:1-10 (New International Version)

¹Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. ²Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, ³because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. ⁴For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. ⁵Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

⁶Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. ⁷We live by faith, not by sight. ⁸We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. ⁹So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. ¹⁰For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Paul and the writer of Hebrews are not talking about earning salvation, but the rewards the believer receives from being faithful to the God of the Covenant.

To me, the God that the Bible shows is even greater than the one that these guys, even though well intentioned, show. This God not only saves us without any merits necessary, but gives us his Holy Spirit so that through Him we can do good works, and to top it off, he rewards us for those good works!!

How good a God is that???!!!!!!

Luis A. Jovel

Taking illustrations a bit too far!!!!

Here it's an interesting take on preaching by this pastor, who I don't doubt his sincerity, but his illustration is a bit way off the mark.

What’s love got to do with it? In order to save marriage, defenders take love out it.

I have listen many Christian apologists trying to define marriage as opposed to those who support gay marriage, or any other kind of ‘marriage’. It is good to defend marriage against the new aberrations that we see lately. But to take out such an integral part of marriage, like love, brings us to redefine marriage not in the biblical way, rather, surrendering to the customs of past times.

Let me mention some of those who use this type of argument, and based their opinions upon how some cultures view love as not essential for marriage. Among those who take such a position we can find Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute, and Gretchen Passantino from the Answers in Action website. I have listened to both in the show hosted by Tod Wilkins, Issues Etc. This is an extreme hardline Missouri Synod Lutheran program. Although the show promotes many interesting topics, you get the feeling that if you are not Lutheran, or Roman Catholic, your salvation is dubious, at best.

The cultural position taken by these authors and commentators, is that in other cultures, love was not an integral part of marriage. Even Danish D’Souza, a famous Christian apologist, when asked about marriage on Issues Etc., answered that in his culture, love was not an integral part of marriage. He then referred to his own culture, Indian, as the reason for his position.

I find the positions held by these defenders of marriage to be a confusing one. On one hand, they are trying not to succumb to the present culture against the traditional understanding of marriage. On the other hand, rather than trying to restore the view of marriage from a biblical view, they are appealing to non-western or ancient culture in order to uphold traditional marriage.

My contention with these writers is that love is an integral part of marriage. Let’s see what Scripture says about marriage:

Matthew 19: ⁴"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' ⁵and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

In this passage, Jesus goes back to Genesis as the origin of marriage. And of course, no love is mentioned here, but Paul tells us that the marriage relationship is supposed to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church, and there can be no greater love than that of Jesus to his church.

Colossians 3: ¹⁸Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

¹⁹ Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

It is curious, at least to me, that Paul again tells the husbands to love their wives, but does not tell the wife to love the husband. It would seem to me that men are more easily lead away from loving their wives due to their own sinful nature.

Ephesians 5:²²Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. ²³For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. ²⁴Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

²⁵Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ²⁶to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, ²⁷and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. ²⁸In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— ³⁰for we are members of his body. ³¹"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."³²This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. ³³However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”

After reading these two passages, I don’t think that we can count out love from marriage. It is a very integral part of the equation, and if these other cultures don’t include it in their courtship or marriage, therefore, they should come under Scripture scrutiny and found less than the biblical ideal.

The reason that I think that some apologist try to rule out love out of marriage, is that those from the opposing camp use the love argument. The argument goes something like the following: “We feel love for one another regardless of gender, therefore, we should get marry”.

My answer to that sort of argument has always been the same. I give the example that there are forbidden loves, and that love alone should not give license to marriage. If that thinking would win the day, then, paedophiles would be able to marry young children, and siblings would be able to marry one another, etc.

Love is a great thing, and I guess it is the foundation of family relationships. Taking love out of the marriage turns marriage into a contract between two people, with the main incentive to remain in that marriage taken out. A house, possessions, health, are not the things that keep those married together, it is love.

Luis A. Jovel

What is the mark of the true christian?

I had already talked about the signs of the true church, today, I would like to comment that I found an article reviewing N. T. Wright's latest book on Paul Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. The reviewer is David Wenham, and the review is found in the Evangelical Quarterly 82.3 (2010) pgs. 258-266.

Wenham, in his review, studies how N. T. Wright sees faith the "badge" of the New Covenant, while he sees Paul considering the badge of the New Covenant as Baptism. This badge, would serve to let others know who is part of the people of God. Wright takes a similar, but different view of the badges or works of the law as Dunn does. Dunn sees the works/badges of law that Paul attacks as the rituals of circumcision, dietary laws, and other thinks that sets the Jews apart from the rest of humanity. These badges, in turn, set the people apart, and communicates to others who is in the covenant, and who is out of it.

Wright, sees the badge that the believer has is the faith he or she has in Jesus as his Lord and Saviour. Wenham feels that Wright presses this point too much in his book, and that another possible badge would be the "receiving of the Holy Spirit, which typically went with conversion.." pg. 265.

In my previous post, about the sign of the true church, I have given many biblical basis as to why I believe that what truly shows that we are part of the people of God today is the Holy Spirit. The error within some charismatic circles is that they confuse speaking in tongues as the true sing of having the Holy Spirit. Again, they fall in the same error of those who would be quick to reject my conclusion about the receiving of the Holy Spirit as the sign of a true church, and a true christian. We can only see the fruits as the proof of such indwelling. It is interesting that by speaking in tongues, the Corinthians did not have better ethics, since they wanted to show off their gifts, rather to used them for the benefit of the congregation.

Well, an interesting point I wanted to make in regards of my position regarding the sign, not only of the true church, but of what makes a christian believer stand out from the rest of humanity.

Luis Alberto Jovel

Never Having to Say You’re Dead? The New Interest in Reincarnation

Few concepts can match reincarnation in terms of being incompatible with Christian doctrine and the Christian worldview. The biblical view of history is linear, not cyclical.

By Albert Mohler

Monday, August 30, 2010

Dr. Paul DeBell believes that he was once a caveman. Not only that, he is fairly certain that his life as a caveman ended violently. “I was going along, going along, going along, and I got eaten,” said the psychiatrist.

To his life as a caveman, Dr. DeBell adds his knowledge of previous lives as a Tibetan monk and “a conscientious German who refused to betray his Jewish neighbors in the Holocaust.” Dr. DeBell’s account is found in “Remembrances of Lives Past” by Lisa Miller of Newsweek magazine, published in the August 29, 2010 edition of The New York Times. Miller writes of the growing acceptance of the idea of reincarnation among Americans.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reported last year that a quarter of all Americans now believe in reincarnation. As Lisa Miller notes, the report found that women are more likely to believe in reincarnation than men, and registered Democrats are more likely than Republicans. In any event, the popularity of reincarnation is rising, and Dr. DeBell is but one example. A psychiatrist trained at Cornell University, Dr. DeBell is one of the voices on behalf of reincarnation, but he is not alone.

Miller, who recently wrote a book on the afterlife, recognizes that the growing acceptance of reincarnation points to a retreat of Christian beliefs. In her words: “In religious terms, the human narrative — birth, life, death and rebirth — has for millennia been relatively straightforward in the West. You were born. You lived. You died. After a judgment you went to heaven (or hell) forever and ever. Eternity was the end: no appeals allowed.”The most influential figure in Miller’s report is Dr. Brian Weiss, who has pioneered what is now called “regression therapy,” based in the remembrance of past lives. A graduate of Columbia University and the Yale Medical School, Weiss became a lightning rod for controversy within psychiatric circles after he published an account of his treatment of a woman by hypnotizing her and assisting her to remember several past lives. Dr. Weiss now holds weekend seminars that attract hundreds of participants. He also claims that such therapeutic approaches are gaining credibility within the psychiatric profession.

Reincarnation offers an escape from that linear view of history and human destiny. The Eastern conception of time common to Confucian cultures is deeply cyclical, with events and persons appearing again and again throughout time. As Lisa Miller summarizes the worldview: “You are born. You live. You die. And because nobody’s perfect, your soul is born again — not in another location or sphere, and not in any metaphorical sense, but right here on earth.” There is more to it, of course. Hinduism teaches that eventually, after however many lives, the soul reaches perfection and release. Until then, the soul takes on life after life.

One of Dr. DeBell’s patients told of finding relief from grief over her mother’s death by discovering that in previous lives she had been an Italian merchant who sold textiles along the Amalfi Coast, an herbalist in Africa, and a freed slave in New Orleans.

Readers of the report are likely to note some strange patterns. Why is it that these people seem only to recover knowledge of such noble past lives? A German who refused to betray his Jewish neighbor during the Holocaust? Where are the people who claim in past lives to have been concentration camp guards or complicit neighbors?

Put bluntly, even if you set Christian concerns about reincarnation aside momentarily, the picture looks dubious. Furthermore, the therapeutic application of reincarnation as a concept looks like just the latest fad. Do these people actually believe what they claim? Some do, of course, but Lisa Miller acknowledges that the nature of these recovered “lives” is slippery. She explains that psychiatrists “have begun to broaden their definition of ‘memory,’ leaving aside the question of whether a scene uncovered during hypnosis is ‘real’ or not.” That is a difficult question to leave aside. Most people would probably want to know if their neighbor really believes that he was a galley slave on a Viking ship in a past life.

Lisa Miller suggests that reincarnation is growing in popularity because Christianity is in retreat, especially among the young. But Stephen Prothero of Boston University asserts that increased interest in reincarnation is tied to the relative prosperity of the American people. Americans like their lives and their possessions, he argues, and they like the idea of postponing eternity. “Reincarnation means never having to say you’re dead” he offers.

In reality, few concepts can match reincarnation in terms of being incompatible with Christian doctrine and the Christian worldview. The biblical view of history is linear, not cyclical. The Bible assumes and claims a past-present-future orientation, with the end bringing the perfect judgment and justice of God. History is not a great wheel, but a chronological current.

The Bible states clearly that “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” [Hebrews 9:27]. There is no “do-over,” and no great cycle of life.

Lisa Miller has a point when she suggests that the growing acceptance of reincarnation is tied to a loss of Christian knowledge and conviction among Americans. Nevertheless, it seems very likely that this new acceptance of reincarnation is more a matter of therapeutic fads and cultural fashions than a huge theological shift. The shift we are seeing is more likely a loss of Christian conviction in the face of secularization — not a comprehensive embrace of Eastern worldviews.

Nevertheless, it is important to know that a growing number of Americans now believe in reincarnation and are accepting ideas from Eastern religions and worldviews. But, even as this development is important in missiological terms, it is still hard to take very seriously.

Even in these confused times, how many Americans really want to consult a psychiatrist who believes he was once a caveman who got gobbled up?