I had an uncomfortable feeling after reading Mark Galli’s article “Saint Nasty” in the June 17 issue. While I cannot disagree that former saints were not always the type of people we would want for neighbors, I feel several red flags need to go up for any aspiring saint who wishes to follow their example.
Most of us have met self-appointed saints who, by their abrasive approach, have driven people away from Christianity–I actually heard one such Elijah brag that his message was so strong that few could accept it.
So I propose two caveats: First, be sure you are a saint before you begin using the methods mentioned. Second, take time to talk with and listen to the Lord, for if love does not back up our approach to soul-winning, we’re not on the road to sainthood.
– Eugene Lincoln
Hagerstown, Md.
* I appreciate Galli’s point that sometimes “saints” must lack patience because of a passion for God’s righteousness. However, his examples betray a corresponding lack of humility in many of these same “saints.” While I agree that we Christians cannot always be “nice,” I believe we must always be humble. Before we get tough with others, we must be tough on ourselves. Paul spoke of “speaking the truth” but doing it “in love.” Many Christians have a tendency to speak out against a variety of issues without the humble spirit that should characterize a true saint. We have taken Rush Limbaugh as our model rather than Jesus or the apostle Paul.
– Drick Boyd
Broomall, Pa.
ACE’S CAMBRIDGE DECLARATION
Timothy George’s editorial (“Promoting Renewal, Not Tribalism,” June 17), which reports on the founding of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE), is in need of some correction.
First, he argues that the theological boundaries of the Cambridge Declaration, which ACE issued, are too narrow because, he suggests, this was mainly the work of Presbyterians. In actual fact, ACE was attempting to recapture the kind of Augustinian piety that was at the heart of all three traditions of the magisterial Reformation: the Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican (representatives of which are on the ACE Council).
Second, the boundaries themselves are those prescribed by the five solas that summed up the heart of Reformation theology. The purpose of ACE is to recapture and reassert this theology in our contemporary context where it faces new challenges. The fact that George finds these beliefs too narrow is evidence of how far the evangelical world has drifted, for these solas were once the common property of most evangelicals and not simply of one of its “tribes.”
Third, he chides ACE for its stance on justification because it has not followed Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) into ecumenical dialogue with Catholics. The declaration, however, was dealing with matters of doctrinal belief, not of dialogue. It said that those “who claim that evangelicals and Roman Catholics are one in Jesus Christ even where the biblical doctrine of justification is not believed” are mistaken. What ECT did, and George endorsed, was to agree to an unacceptable view of justification that omitted the fact that it is by grace alone through faith alone, and the evangelicals who signed onto ECT agreed that Catholics would not be evangelized. Refusing to take this path is not a vice, as George thinks, but a virtue that places ACE in the company of the great theologians of the Reformation.
Finally, at the time of the April meeting ACE was in its infancy. Its founding members are not its council, and the alliance itself is presently being formed. The evangelical world must find a way out of its present muddled thinking and recover what has made Christianity deep and powerful in the past. In this new quest, ACE welcomes all those who wish to identify with its goals regardless of their denomination.
– David F. Wells, Vice Chairman
Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
South Hamilton, Mass.
Dr. George replies:
My friend David Wells is a fine scholar and an outstanding leader of the evangelical cause. I hold him in high esteem and share his enthusiasm for the theology of the Reformers. His letter, however, reveals a serious misreading of my editorial.
1. The problem with the Cambridge Declaration is not its strong affirmation of Reformation theology, which I applaud, but rather its simplistic dismissal of certain ideas and movements, which merit a more balanced, biblical critique. This is one reason why a number of those present at the ace summit chose not to sign the document.
2. I am not a signatory of ECT, which in any event was a personal manifesto, not an official statement of any confessional body. But I believe, as I think Dr. Wells does, that just as God predestinates by grace alone Arminians who have a faulty understanding of the doctrine of election, so too he justifies by faith alone Roman Catholics, among others, whose understanding of justification is different from mine and (the mature) Martin Luther’s. To think that Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, to go no further, are all consigned to perdition because they do not properly define justification in precise Reformation terminology is to deny both the grace of God and the sovereignty of God. It is, in short, to turn justification by faith alone into justification by doctrinal erudition alone, which is another form of justification by works. This point does not reduce, but rather reinforces, the crucial importance of the article “by which the church either stands or falls.”
3. No less a hearty champion of Reformed theology than Charles Haddon Spurgeon spoke with tender affection and appreciation of the Wesleys and evangelical Methodists in his day. He saw them as valuable allies precisely in the recovery of what had “made Christianity deep and powerful in the past.” Just so, the postwar evangelical coalition in this country–as represented, for example, by the early supporters of NAE and CT–included Wesleyans as well as Calvinists, Pentecostals alongside Presbyterians. Heirs of the Reformation all, they appealed to a common authority, the Holy Scriptures, and they consciously shared a single source of unity, the living Lord Jesus Christ himself. If Dr. Wells believes that this is no longer the case, I hope he is wrong. Now, as then, we will advance the cause of Christ only as we are able, in the words of John Calvin, to join “a diligence for truth with a care for mutual fellowship.”
– Timothy George, Dean
Beeson Divinity School
Birmingham, Ala.
Timothy George’s interesting and thoughtful comments were made about a document that, I suspect, few people have actually read yet. Has it been published somewhere?
Also, I was surprised by the announcement that the authors’ names will be kept secret; what are the signers afraid of? The unwillingness of the authors and signers to make themselves known could water down the effectiveness of the statement.
– Rev. Richard T. Zuelch
Long Beach, Calif.
(Those wishing to read the Cambridge Declaration may request a copy from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 2034 East Lincoln No. 209, Anaheim, CA 92806. -Eds.)
Perhaps we’re better off admitting that our theology has a problem–namely, we have no pope! As a good evangelical, I’m not suggesting that we should appoint one, either, but my point is this: embracing sola Scriptura apart from a centralized leadership fosters division. As soon as the Protestant Reformers began interpreting Scripture apart from a centralized leadership (Roman Catholicism), they disagreed, and different movements evolved. Eventually, the movements became so diverse that the term Protestantism was emptied of its meaning. So, big surprise, the same thing is happening with the term evangelicalism!
– Pastor Bruce Konold
Eagan, Minn.
The primary author of the Cambridge Declaration is the same David Wells who also wrote “No Place for Truth,” the jeremiad about the state of affairs in the evangelical community today. It appears that Wells chose not to take to heart the criticism about the book, a criticism now succinctly restated in the editorial when it reflects on the declaration. Both the book and the declaration offer a “critique of several contemporary ideas and trends” that is “imbalanced, too broad-brushed, and at points, seemingly more exclusionary than enlightening.” The devastating evaluation that “a more judicious and more precise statement reflecting the considered wisdom of classic theological manifestos in the past would better serve the cause of theological renewal today” puts a big question mark behind the effectiveness of this initiative toward renewal. When David Wells criticizes, he seems to prefer the slashing knife to the precise surgical scalpel. ace might have been better off if they had chosen a different primary writer for their declaration.
– Sidney DeWaal
Jerusalem, Israel
THE HOLY SPIRIT TODAY
Thanks to Gordon Fee for his renunciation of the church’s domestication of the Holy Spirit [in Wendy Zoba’s “Father, Son, and . . .” June 17]. While we would disagree on how the Holy Spirit manifests himself today in the church, Fee compels me once more to bring serious consideration to the issue of the Holy Spirit and his mission in the church today.
An observation on experiential authority: [Says Zoba,] “Some expressions of the church, however, are so devoted to the idea that God speaks through Scripture only that they dismiss outright the possibility of God acting and speaking experientially.” I am one “so devoted” but with some qualification of the word only. I do believe that God, in addition to his special written revelation in Scripture, has also revealed himself in certain ways through general revelation. I also believe in the testimonium of the Holy Spirit, although authority (to be imposed upon others) is lacking in the latter. It would be interesting to hear Fee’s discussion of the practical ramifications of experiential authority.
– John A. Sproule, Th.D.
Calera, Ala.
* Brought up Pentecostal, Fee’s eloquence on matters of the Spirit in the life of the church should come as no surprise. His commitment to the highest standards of biblical scholarship should counsel the evangelical world not to blithely dismiss the contribution that Pentecostals seek to make to the theological life of God’s people.
Let this not be the last inquiry your fine magazine makes into the contribution of Pentecostal learning.
– John H. Horst
San Diego, Calif.
NO “MERE ORTHODOXY”
Roger Olson’s review of Alister McGrath’s book “A Passion for Truth” [Books, June 17] prompts this remonstrance. For me, the specific declarations of Scripture are statements to be accepted as both true and normative. Indeed, it was the preaching of this authoritative Word in the power of the Holy Spirit that God used to cause me to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation. In the subsequent years it has been the systematic truthfulness of the Scriptures as of first-order importance in disclosing the remarkable character of a sovereign God that anchored me in those episodes of doubt, disobedience, or the despair of the dark seasons of the soul. Thankfully, it was not my experience that was primary but the specific commands and promises of a faithful and unchangeable God. These enabled me to adjudge my experiences and, at least to a degree, see his hand of purpose and blessing in them.
A number of us accept “rational propositions in an orderly system” such as the Westminster Confession but repudiate the idea that this leaves us with a Christianity reduced to “mere orthodoxy.” On the contrary, the more I reflect on the specific truths about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the more I am moved to worship and praise, awe and wonder, obedience and sacrifice, renunciation and acceptance.
– Hudson T. Armerding
Quarryville, Pa.
Politics OK in the sanctuary
I read with considerable pain Edward Dobson’s editorial [“Taking Politics Out of the Sanctuary,” May 20]. He faced the same question we did in Lansing: should we go through the churches to oppose an ordinance to protect homosexual behavior? Dobson answered no, and a petition drive in Grand Rapids failed because his church wasn’t involved; we said yes and gathered the needed signatures. I believe we were obedient to God’s leading. Among the principles that led to this conclusion:
1. Christians bring unique moral insights to the political process. Politics is about maintaining order and promoting justice, about relationships and, hence, morality. Because the Bible is God’s Word, we expect a society founded on biblical principles to be a better society. Christians can make a significant contribution to any debate about a well-ordered society. We sought to translate the Bible’s moral condemnation of homosexuality into a reasoned argument about the very real effects of protecting and promoting homosexual behavior.
2. Some Christians are called to minister in the political arena–a ministry of prevention. The church has long been involved in healing and strengthening good morals, in lifting up the downtrodden and wounded. Dobson’s church ministers to the “poor, the homeless, the abused, the imprisoned, and the sick.” But political action that supports good laws can keep people from suffering and from becoming poor, homeless, abused, imprisoned, or sick. Why is it more appropriate for a church to have an aids ministry than to support laws to reduce the spread of AIDS?
– Thomas J. Hruska
Lansing, Mich.
Send letters to Eutychus, Christianity Today, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, IL 60188; fax: 708/260-0114; e-mail: ctedit@aol.com. Letters preceded by * were received online.
Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
