The Nameless One, by Carl Trueman

Puritan Sailor · #1 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 10:25 PM

The Nameless One - Reformation21

Great blog post on the new calvinism movement.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #2 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 10:38 PM

Except for his unwarranted attacks on Dabney and Thornwell Carl Trueman is just spot on with just about everything he says and writes.

Thanks for this Rev. Patrick.

-----Added 9/3/2009 at 10:38:03 EST-----

To me this was the "key" paragraph:

Quote:

The supply side economics of the YRR movement is also worrying here, as it can easily foster such idolatry by building up a leader's importance out of all proportion to his talent. Let's face it: no preacher is so good that his every sermon deserves to be printed or his every thought published; but some contemporary leaders are heading fast in that direction, and this can only fuel their cultic significance for those needing someone to follow. Come on, chaps, everyone preaches a disastrous clunker once in a while; and many actually preach them with remarkable and impressive regularity. The world therefore does not need to read every word you ever utter from a pulpit; and not every electrical impulse which sparks between the synapses in your grey matter needs to be written down, turned into yet another expository commentary, and sold for 15% net royalties at the local Christian bookshop.

**Marrow Man** · #3 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 10:46 PM

Unwarranted attacks on me as well. I'll have you know I've never personally preached a stinker of a sermon. They've all been solid gold.

Actually, one of the truly humbling things the Lord does is when you've preached a sermon but it's be "less than stellar" (so you think), and a member of your congregation later tells you that the Lord used that sermon in a truly great way in his/her life. Then you know that you are but the mouthpiece and it is the Spirit who moves and teaches and applies His wonderful word.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #4 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 10:52 PM

As a former mainliner this quip gave me a good belly laugh:

Quote:

Look, if I wanted a pretentious and incomprehensibly abstract theology with an impeccable record of emptying churches, I'd convert to Barthianism, wouldn't I?

**Marrow Man** · #5 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 10:52 PM

lynnie · #6 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 11:34 PM

That was really really excellent.

I look at one quasi Reformed denomination where many young guys shaved off their head to look like the bald guy at the top, and I just cringe.

I disagree with one part though....the routine of the ordinary, the boring, the plodding, is actually the norm for church life

I don't think God intended us for hype and the big conference mentality, but I don't think boring and plodding is normal either. I find living for the Lord to be interesting and eventful and fulfilling...maybe a great book or a rich time in the Word, or feeling led to pray for somebody and finding out why later, or ministering to somebody who is challenging. Maybe a great sermon at church, or a good pulpit prayer or a good conversation with someone.

Kind of like marriage....yeah, after 30 years mine is ordinary routine a lot, but never boring or plodding; I really love the guy and he loves me and it is satisfying rich companionship. Life with God and the church should be like that to some extent. When church gets boring and plodding there is something wrong, and we need to pray for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The answer isn't all the hype, but it isn't OK to be plodding along boring, without joy and rejoicing either.

Pergamum · #7 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 11:50 PM

Talk about cults of personality. If it wears a powdered wig, it gets better reading from some of yall here on the PB.....some of you all that would bash Piper, Macarthur, and those others clumped into "The New Calvinism." Maybe Piper ought to wear a powdered wig.

Also, it is ironic to complain of more sermons being printed, while some of you have the complete Metro Tabernacle Pulpit bending down your poor bookshelves at home and have collected virtually every sermon in existence for Manton, Owen, Spurgeon, etc. And what's wrong with conferences? These hardly seem to be the dangers of our age.

Cult of personalities? Trueman admits, when he mentions that Luther, Calvin, et al, were key figures in the reformation. During times of change, key figures always arise.

I can't imagine that conferences, and lots of printed sermons can be a bad thing.

Not sure of the validity of the points he brings out. His article seemed just a waste of time. He either needs to make his article into a critique of the New Calvinism for reasons other than its popularity, or he needs to make his piece into a reminder that it is the dull, routine labor of nameless servants that advances the Gospel. He tries to do both and I am left wondering what his one main point is...is it (1) that New Calvinism is bad (and why? Because it is popular and has dynamic leaders), or, (2) is it mainly an encouragement for us unknown servants to keep pushing on, whether we gain popularity or not?

Yes, the nameless ones always push forward the work of the church. That doesn't make Calvin, Luther and those other Reformation-era celebrities bad even though it was the bible-smugglers and poor Paris priests turning protestant that helped spread the flame of the reformation for the most part. Neither should it make us look for reasons to despise Piper, Mohler, or the other New Calvinists for helping Calvinism hit the mainstream.

-----Added 9/3/2009 at 11:50:13 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Unwarranted attacks on me as well. I'll have you know I've never personally preached a stinker of a sermon. They've all been solid gold.

Actually, one of the truly humbling things the Lord does is when you've preached a sermon but it's be "less than stellar" (so you think), and a member of your congregation later tells you that the Lord used that sermon in a truly great way in his/her life. Then you know that you are but the mouthpiece and it is the Spirit who moves and teaches and applies His wonderful word.

I give the Lord plenty of opportunities to get all the glory then!

lynnie · #8 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 12:01 AM

I must be so out of it.....is Piper considered in this group? I love Piper, and I don't think he is greedy for money or adoration...quite the opposite. And he isn't new, he's been this way for a long time. Jonathan Edwards diet lite, I call him.

I thought it was the guys in their 30s like Josh Harris, with all the kids in their 20s flocking to them, that are the New Calvinists. No? If he's bashing Piper then I'll agree with you Pergy.

dr_parsley · #9 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Talk about cults of personality. If it wears a powdered wig, it gets better reading from some of yall here on the PB.....some of you all that would bash Piper, Macarthur, and those others clumped into "The New Calvinism." Maybe Piper ought to wear a powdered wig.

I'm recently seeing all this from recently coming in from isolation; I don't know who any of these people are except Piper, who I only heard of within the past 6 months! (My pastor has said I need to get more balance by reading from more authors who lived after the 17th century and maybe he was right

) But coming onto the PB I have been struck with how some "celebrities" can do no wrong and an apparent lack of discernment in individual writings once a celebrity has been categorised as "right on", and they are read wearing "agreement-spectacles".

**PuritanCovenanter** · #10 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 01:56 AM

I would read Trueman before Piper or John Mac. It matters not what wig they wear or their popularity to me. I am not a big Piper fan nor am I a MacArthur Fan. I am a Baptist and would still prefer Trueman. He is a better Scholar. I do not follow the modern trends nor am I just satisfied with the most recent books. It has nothing to do with personality. It has everything to do with being correct and biblical.

What ever happened to the Gospel of the Kingdom, the RPW, Covenant Theology, and the Confessions. They are not the norm of the New Calvinism which really isn't Calvinism.

Pergamum · #11 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 02:15 AM

On most critiques of the New Calvinism, the true "Nameless One" is Mark Driscoll and all critics paint the whole movement by his most extreme antics. Like the over-the-top Peter Masters screed about worldy calvinists, they seem to take the worst of Driscoll, caricaturize it, and then paint the whole movement in the same light.

Driscoll is the convenient punching bag of those that want to run down this great resurgence of sovereign grace we see in our land. I myself am glad to see God being glorified; print every Piper sermon you want, it is not too much.

AThornquist · #12 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 02:27 AM

. . . "Whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice."

Pergamum · #13 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I would read Trueman before Piper or John Mac. It matters not what wig they wear or their popularity to me. I am not a big Piper fan nor am I a MacArthur Fan. I am a Baptist and would still prefer Trueman. He is a better Scholar. I do not follow the modern trends nor am I just satisfied with the most recent books. It has nothing to do with personality. It has everything to do with being correct and biblical.

What ever happened to the Gospel of the Kingdom, the RPW, Covenant Theology, and the Confessions. They are not the norm of the New Calvinism which really isn't Calvinism.

So, are you saying that one must hold to the RPW, Covenants and be Confessional to be a Calvinist?

Surely you over-speak. Maybe, you are referring to that copy-righted moniker "Reformed" I believe,

but the term "Calvinist" I think merely refers to adherance to the Five Points. So, Piper IS a Calvinist, is he not?

Rich Koster · #14 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 08:46 AM

I think he needs to stop pouring sour milk into his corn flakes

.

**PuritanCovenanter** · #15 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 08:48 AM

True Calvinism is more than the 5 points in my understanding. It also has to do with the person and work of Christ. Who is Christ and what did he accomplish is neglected when someone looks at the picture and denies the Covenant of Works and Christ's fulfillment of it. I refer to the RPW because we are redeemed for something. Reconciliation does expect us to be set up in a right relationship and how God expects us to approach and worship him. Confessional has to do with how this works together in a whole setting. I think one must look at everything as a whole instead of just bits and pieces that makes them appear to be a certain way.

For instance, there is a new church in town that carries the label Reformed Baptist in its name and it is not a Reformed Baptist Church. It adheres to New Covenant Theology. They may be Sovereign Grace oriented but they are not seeing the whole picture as Calvin would.

Maybe I have been reading too much lately. And maybe my definitions are getting a bit too narrow while expanding in understanding at the same time. I can say this though, like you Pergy, I don't live in an Ivory tower. My faith and understanding have walking power and my theology has caused me to persevere and know Him. It is living. It isn't just knowledge for knowledge's sake. And when one looks at the Institutes they will see that is exactly what Calvin was about.

When one looks at the 5 points it has to do with who God is, the atonement, and walking with God. It is more than just 5 simple statements.

**PuritanCovenanter** · #16 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Koster

I think he needs to stop pouring sour milk into his corn flakes

.

Sour Milk? Where is the Mr. Yuk smiley?

Rich Koster · #17 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Koster

I think he needs to stop pouring sour milk into his corn flakes

.

Sour Milk? Where is the Mr. Yuk smiley?

I save him for Osteen

SolaScriptura · #18 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Talk about cults of personality. If it wears a powdered wig, it gets better reading from some of yall here on the PB.....some of you all that would bash Piper, Macarthur, and those others clumped into "The New Calvinism." Maybe Piper ought to wear a powdered wig.

Also, it is ironic to complain of more sermons being printed, while some of you have the complete Metro Tabernacle Pulpit bending down your poor bookshelves at home and have collected virtually every sermon in existence for Manton, Owen, Spurgeon, etc. And what's wrong with conferences? These hardly seem to be the dangers of our age.

Cult of personalities? Trueman admits, when he mentions that Luther, Calvin, et al, were key figures in the reformation. During times of change, key figures always arise.

I can't imagine that conferences, and lots of printed sermons can be a bad thing.

Not sure of the validity of the points he brings out. His article seemed just a waste of time. He either needs to make his article into a critique of the New Calvinism for reasons other than its popularity, or he needs to make his piece into a reminder that it is the dull, routine labor of nameless servants that advances the Gospel. He tries to do both and I am left wondering what his one main point is...is it (1) that New Calvinism is bad (and why? Because it is popular and has dynamic leaders), or, (2) is it mainly an encouragement for us unknown servants to keep pushing on, whether we gain popularity or not?

Yes, the nameless ones always push forward the work of the church. That doesn't make Calvin, Luther and those other Reformation-era celebrities bad even though it was the bible-smugglers and poor Paris priests turning protestant that helped spread the flame of the reformation for the most part. Neither should it make us look for reasons to despise Piper, Mohler, or the other New Calvinists for helping Calvinism hit the mainstream.

As always, Trueman demonstrates that he is an excellent writer in form and style... But in terms of his content, I agree with your assessment.

**Marrow Man** · #19 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Talk about cults of personality. If it wears a powdered wig, it gets better reading from some of yall here on the PB.....some of you all that would bash Piper, Macarthur, and those others clumped into "The New Calvinism." Maybe Piper ought to wear a powdered wig.

I'll have you know I'm the only one passing out powdered wigs on this forum. If Piper wants to don one, he's got to come to me!

CharlieJ · #20 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Talk about cults of personality. If it wears a powdered wig, it gets better reading from some of yall here on the PB.....some of you all that would bash Piper, Macarthur, and those others clumped into "The New Calvinism." Maybe Piper ought to wear a powdered wig.

Also, it is ironic to complain of more sermons being printed, while some of you have the complete Metro Tabernacle Pulpit bending down your poor bookshelves at home and have collected virtually every sermon in existence for Manton, Owen, Spurgeon, etc. And what's wrong with conferences? These hardly seem to be the dangers of our age.

Cult of personalities? Trueman admits, when he mentions that Luther, Calvin, et al, were key figures in the reformation. During times of change, key figures always arise.

Could this not lead us to the alternate conclusion that Trueman is correct, and that his criticism ought to be applied more evenly across our traditions? I for one think it is ridiculous for a non-specialist to read everything a prolific theologian ever wrote, especially when that means ignoring whole traditions in theology. Breadth and eclectic selectivity are virtues.

lynnie · #21 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 10:52 AM

One other thought is that becoming Reformed is often a very slow process. You have a debate about predestination in college and finally have to admit election. You know every verse about falling away and getting your name blotted out of the Lamb's book of life, but do more reading and finally end up P. Limited atonement takes a while, maybe a long while, but eventually you embrace it. And of course you started out pre trib rapture, I mean, its almost canon, but you get exposed to Covenant theology and finally turn from dispensationalism. Switching credo to paedo is usually the slowest change of all. Then there is the service, and how it is done, and altar calls and testimony times and how conversion is understood. Then there was/is a huge emphasis on fighting Satan and battling the devil, and you process that through with the help of CCEF type books and rethink where the main problem is, like your sinful idolatrous heart.

I think that we should be happy for every step in the right direction. Just the solas, just election, it is all good. Every little bit of truth being taught is something to be glad about. Just grasping sovereignty is a major breakthough. We should all be praying a lot for people in process. All of us are in process, we all are learning and rethinking.

louis_jp · #22 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 11:07 AM

I thought the article was very good, and very much needed. I wish we would see more of these types of critiques.

I also think there is a huge difference between "heroes" like Luther and Calvin who contributed tremendous substance to the Christian faith and church, often at great personal cost to themselves, and many of the aggressively marketed, popular preachers of today.

Luther and Calvin led the church out of its "Babylonian captivity", restored the gospel, and changed the course of Christian and world history. Many after them also fought defining battles for the faith. People have their sermons on their shelves, because they have lasting value that has only increased with time.

On the other hand, there is certainly value in the ministries of today's super apostles, but it is also a legitimate question as to whether their popularity is proportional to their actual contributions, and whether there might not also be some unhealthy effects from focusing excessively on personalities like this.

timmopussycat · #23 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Talk about cults of personality. If it wears a powdered wig, it gets better reading from some of yall here on the PB.....some of you all that would bash Piper, Macarthur, and those others clumped into "The New Calvinism." Maybe Piper ought to wear a powdered wig.

I'm recently seeing all this from recently coming in from isolation; I don't know who any of these people are except Piper, who I only heard of within the past 6 months! (My pastor has said I need to get more balance by reading from more authors who lived after the 17th century and maybe he was right

) But coming onto the PB I have been struck with how some "celebrities" can do no wrong and an apparent lack of discernment in individual writings once a celebrity has been categorised as "right on", and they are read wearing "agreement-spectacles".

Christians, of whatever stripe, all face the common tendency to read their theological heros (of whatever era or theological party) with less than needed care. As I see it an argument can be made for taking greater care when reading a theological hero than when reading a known heretic, were that possible.

mvdm · #24 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 03:40 PM

Trueman's warning on the "cult of personality" is very timely. In this age of instant communication/publication/dissemination, it is a real tempatation for ministers and laypersons. We have to admit that here on the Puritan Board, we fall into it this on occasion.

This can be seen on 2 fronts.

For ministers, with the instant "stardom" it can promise, does undue attention to blogging, publishing, or writing, conferencing, etc. take away from the pastoral work to which he's called--the quiet, behind the scenes pastoral work? Does the minister guard against even appearing to be engaged in shameless self-promotion? Is he motivated to build this "cult of personality"?

For the layperson: do we get so wrapped into the hot blogs, or follow such and such particular man, to the extent we think everything they do "rocks", or get unreasonably defensive when our "star" is criticized? Or are we willing to examine our "fav" man's writing in the light of scripture and our confessions?

This is a growing problem.

***Semper Fidelis*** · #25 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 04:10 PM

We've noted the same problem here repeatedly. We see, in the aggregate, men who proclaim themselves Reformed but lack any grounding in a Confession. "Calvinism", to many, is an eclectic grouping of preferences with a general leaning toward the Sovereignty of God.

Just the last couple of days I've been excoriated by a self-appointed apologist for Calvinism. Couldn't play by the rules here and now I'm confined to outer darkness by the fellow. I could re-produce dozens of such e-mails through the Contact Form.

The Pastor of our overseeing Church is a long-suffering patient man who has a 30+ year ministry. He recounted a recent Presbytery meeting with a young Pastor who confidently asserted "I believe the Bible teaches this..." and exclaimed how he was going to change the Church. Doug patiently reminded him that it's not about "me" but about "us". We, the Church, ought to be working toward to unity of the faith. That idea (taught clearly in Ephesians 6) is lost on some who treat theology as a me and the Bible and my favorite group of expositors.

I agree with the sentiment that life under the Cross is lived out in very ordinary ways. It is a "day on, stay on" battle and labor for the Lord. It is unglamorous and I believe that ministers often take an undue "beating" because they don't have the flash bang effect that some are constantly craving.

SolaScriptura · #26 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 07:28 PM

I'd like to remind everyone that guys like John Piper, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll... on and on I could go...

These guys ministered week in and week out for years before they ever caught the public eye.

So please don't act like these guys are just glory-seeking charlatans.

But I do agree with Trueman's assessment that these guys, and their "success," represent an exception to the rule.

Archlute · #27 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 07:51 PM

You make a very good point, Ben.

**py3ak** · #28 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Talk about cults of personality. If it wears a powdered wig, it gets better reading from some of yall here on the PB.....some of you all that would bash Piper, Macarthur, and those others clumped into "The New Calvinism." Maybe Piper ought to wear a powdered wig.

Also, it is ironic to complain of more sermons being printed, while some of you have the complete Metro Tabernacle Pulpit bending down your poor bookshelves at home and have collected virtually every sermon in existence for Manton, Owen, Spurgeon, etc. And what's wrong with conferences? These hardly seem to be the dangers of our age.

Cult of personalities? Trueman admits, when he mentions that Luther, Calvin, et al, were key figures in the reformation. During times of change, key figures always arise.

I can't imagine that conferences, and lots of printed sermons can be a bad thing.

I thought we dealt with the powdered wig thing the other day? Look, John Goodwin and Tobias Crisp presumably had powdered wigs in their closet, but we are (mostly) not well acquainted with either one of them. I doubt there was a lot to choose from in the way Arminius dressed over against Junius, but a lot of us can't bear to read the weasely one. So when we are reading people from the past, the tendency is to read the cream of the crop. In the tumult of the contemporary it's not always clear who is going to rise to the top of the refiner's crucible and get skimmed off as dross, and who is going to remain.

Trueman's point about sermons was that not everything that everybody says is worthy to be preserved and published and sold. That seems like it should be a pretty uncontroversial remark.

You raise the cult of personalities, and then talk about key figures. But look again at what Trueman actually said:

Quote:

Yet the hype surrounding today's leaders of the YRR movement far outstrips anything these earlier heroes enjoyed in their lifetime; indeed, Luther never became rich, despite his great stature, and never headed up a ministry named after himself, or posted a fee-schedule for speaking engagements on his website.

Yes, undoubtedly there were some breathless Lutherans; but that doesn't mean that Luther encouraged or profited from those groupies. There being key persons, persons of vast influence, is not the same thing as there being a cult of personality. And the key persons need to try to restrain such an attitude if it should arise.

Trueman spells out why conferences can be a bad thing. He is looking at the negative impact that excitement can have when the stimulus for it disappears.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Not sure of the validity of the points he brings out. His article seemed just a waste of time. He either needs to make his article into a critique of the New Calvinism for reasons other than its popularity, or he needs to make his piece into a reminder that it is the dull, routine labor of nameless servants that advances the Gospel. He tries to do both and I am left wondering what his one main point is...is it (1) that New Calvinism is bad (and why? Because it is popular and has dynamic leaders), or, (2) is it mainly an encouragement for us unknown servants to keep pushing on, whether we gain popularity or not?

I'm wondering why you're wondering what his main point is when he stated it flat out?

Quote:

Ultimately, only the long term will show if the YRR movement has genuinely orthodox backbone and stamina, whether it is inextricably and inseparably linked to uniquely talented leaders, and whether `Calvinism is cool' is just one more sales pitch in the religious section of the cultural department store.* If the movement is more marketing than reality, then ten to fifteen years should allow us to tell.* If it is still orthodox by that point, we can be reasonably sure it is genuine.*** Indeed, when torn jeans, or nose rings, or ministers talking about their sex lives from the pulpit become passé or so commonplace that they cease to be distinctive, we will see if it is timeless truth or marketable trendiness which has really driven the movement; and, even it proves to have been the latter, we should not panic.* We will still be left with the boring, mundane and nameless people and culturally irrelevant and marginal churches - the nameless ones -- upon whose anonymous contributions, past and present, most of us actually depend.

What he's driving at is that here is a popular movement, that gets a lot of things right. There are some dangers in that movement, which he identifies and explains (and it's always good to have someone saying, "There could be a downside to this"). But his point is that time will enable us to tell whether what they get right is of the essence of the movement, or whether it is accidental (in the sense of non-essential). If all this excitement and movement should turn out not to be genuine, though, we can still be encouraged: it's not the end of the world, because those who do the bulk of the work, though their profile is so low as to be unnoticeable, will still carry on just the same as always.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Yes, the nameless ones always push forward the work of the church. That doesn't make Calvin, Luther and those other Reformation-era celebrities bad even though it was the bible-smugglers and poor Paris priests turning protestant that helped spread the flame of the reformation for the most part. Neither should it make us look for reasons to despise Piper, Mohler, or the other New Calvinists for helping Calvinism hit the mainstream.

Why do you assume that people are looking for reasons to despise anyone? I think that is problematic on multiple levels. It isn't very charitable towards the cautious, for one thing, because it assumes that they are looking: in other words, that before finding any reason they are determined to dislike, and so hunt out a rationalization for it. It's possible to see problems without doing any looking beyond what Paul requires of us all in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. It's also possible to see problems without despising (as Paul didn't despise those whom he felt compelled to baptize in Acts 19, though there was obviously a problem with their theology before he came along to straighten them out).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

On most critiques of the New Calvinism, the true "Nameless One" is Mark Driscoll and all critics paint the whole movement by his most extreme antics. Like the over-the-top Peter Masters screed about worldy calvinists, they seem to take the worst of Driscoll, caricaturize it, and then paint the whole movement in the same light.

Driscoll is the convenient punching bag of those that want to run down this great resurgence of sovereign grace we see in our land. I myself am glad to see God being glorified; print every Piper sermon you want, it is not too much.

I'm not sure how Driscoll is supposed to be nameless in Dr. Trueman's article, given his explicit mention by name! Look again at the qualifications Trueman made:

Quote:

If leader-as-celebrity-and-oracular-source-of-all-knowledge is one potential problem in the YRR culture, then another concern is the apparent non-exportability of the models of church on offer.* Everyone knows the amazing works that have been done through the ministries of men like Tim Keller in Manhattan and Mark Driscoll in Seattle; but the track record of exporting the Redeemer or Mars Hill models elsewhere is patchy at best, raising the obvious question of whether these phenomena are the result less of their general validity and more of the singular talents of the remarkable individuals.* To be clear, this is in no way to suggest that these churches are not faithful; but it is to ask whether they are not more unique and unrepeatable than is often acknowledged.* If the secret lies in the gifts of the individual leader, then time spent trying to replicate the models elsewhere with less talented or differently gifted leaders is doomed to failure and a waste of time.

(Emphasis added.)*

To me it seems like you have an image in your mind about TR people, and when anyone hints that the YRR have something to learn; or that Paul's warning about party spirit is applicable in our own days; or that someone dead got something right and we've since largely forgotten that, you assume that they are Cult of Powdered-Wig, Crumbled-Into-Dust Stick-in-the-Mud Worshippers who can't ever be happy over a sinner who repents without first having memorized the Larger Catechism. But while there are undoubtedly some people who ought to be buried in the British Museum and kept from making any observations on the state of society or the church, it is just as uncharitable to assume that everyone is like that as it is to assume that Piper or whomever are trying to corrupt the church for the money.

I don't mean to be harsh, but caricatures work more than one way, and if anything you were a little harder on Dr. Trueman than he was on the YRR.

**Marrow Man** · #29 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 08:42 PM

Great. Somebody starts a Cult of the Powdered Wig and I'm not even pegged for membership...

Pergamum · #30 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Talk about cults of personality. If it wears a powdered wig, it gets better reading from some of yall here on the PB.....some of you all that would bash Piper, Macarthur, and those others clumped into "The New Calvinism." Maybe Piper ought to wear a powdered wig.

Also, it is ironic to complain of more sermons being printed, while some of you have the complete Metro Tabernacle Pulpit bending down your poor bookshelves at home and have collected virtually every sermon in existence for Manton, Owen, Spurgeon, etc. And what's wrong with conferences? These hardly seem to be the dangers of our age.

Cult of personalities? Trueman admits, when he mentions that Luther, Calvin, et al, were key figures in the reformation. During times of change, key figures always arise.

I can't imagine that conferences, and lots of printed sermons can be a bad thing.

I thought we dealt with the powdered wig thing the other day? Look, John Goodwin and Tobias Crisp presumably had powdered wigs in their closet, but we are (mostly) not well acquainted with either one of them. I doubt there was a lot to choose from in the way Arminius dressed over against Junius, but a lot of us can't bear to read the weasely one. So when we are reading people from the past, the tendency is to read the cream of the crop. In the tumult of the contemporary it's not always clear who is going to rise to the top of the refiner's crucible and get skimmed off as dross, and who is going to remain.

Trueman's point about sermons was that not everything that everybody says is worthy to be preserved and published and sold. That seems like it should be a pretty uncontroversial remark.

You raise the cult of personalities, and then talk about key figures. But look again at what Trueman actually said:

Quote:

Yet the hype surrounding today's leaders of the YRR movement far outstrips anything these earlier heroes enjoyed in their lifetime; indeed, Luther never became rich, despite his great stature, and never headed up a ministry named after himself, or posted a fee-schedule for speaking engagements on his website.

Yes, undoubtedly there were some breathless Lutherans; but that doesn't mean that Luther encouraged or profited from those groupies. There being key persons, persons of vast influence, is not the same thing as there being a cult of personality. And the key persons need to try to restrain such an attitude if it should arise.

Trueman spells out why conferences can be a bad thing. He is looking at the negative impact that excitement can have when the stimulus for it disappears.

I'm wondering why you're wondering what his main point is when he stated it flat out?

What he's driving at is that here is a popular movement, that gets a lot of things right. There are some dangers in that movement, which he identifies and explains (and it's always good to have someone saying, "There could be a downside to this"). But his point is that time will enable us to tell whether what they get right is of the essence of the movement, or whether it is accidental (in the sense of non-essential). If all this excitement and movement should turn out not to be genuine, though, we can still be encouraged: it's not the end of the world, because those who do the bulk of the work, though their profile is so low as to be unnoticeable, will still carry on just the same as always.

Why do you assume that people are looking for reasons to despise anyone? I think that is problematic on multiple levels. It isn't very charitable towards the cautious, for one thing, because it assumes that they are looking: in other words, that before finding any reason they are determined to dislike, and so hunt out a rationalization for it. It's possible to see problems without doing any looking beyond what Paul requires of us all in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. It's also possible to see problems without despising (as Paul didn't despise those whom he felt compelled to baptize in Acts 19, though there was obviously a problem with their theology before he came along to straighten them out).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

On most critiques of the New Calvinism, the true "Nameless One" is Mark Driscoll and all critics paint the whole movement by his most extreme antics. Like the over-the-top Peter Masters screed about worldy calvinists, they seem to take the worst of Driscoll, caricaturize it, and then paint the whole movement in the same light.

Driscoll is the convenient punching bag of those that want to run down this great resurgence of sovereign grace we see in our land. I myself am glad to see God being glorified; print every Piper sermon you want, it is not too much.

I'm not sure how Driscoll is supposed to be nameless in Dr. Trueman's article, given his explicit mention by name! Look again at the qualifications Trueman made:

Quote:

If leader-as-celebrity-and-oracular-source-of-all-knowledge is one potential problem in the YRR culture, then another concern is the apparent non-exportability of the models of church on offer.* Everyone knows the amazing works that have been done through the ministries of men like Tim Keller in Manhattan and Mark Driscoll in Seattle; but the track record of exporting the Redeemer or Mars Hill models elsewhere is patchy at best, raising the obvious question of whether these phenomena are the result less of their general validity and more of the singular talents of the remarkable individuals.* To be clear, this is in no way to suggest that these churches are not faithful; but it is to ask whether they are not more unique and unrepeatable than is often acknowledged.* If the secret lies in the gifts of the individual leader, then time spent trying to replicate the models elsewhere with less talented or differently gifted leaders is doomed to failure and a waste of time.

(Emphasis added.)*

To me it seems like you have an image in your mind about TR people, and when anyone hints that the YRR have something to learn; or that Paul's warning about party spirit is applicable in our own days; or that someone dead got something right and we've since largely forgotten that, you assume that they are Cult of Powdered-Wig, Crumbled-Into-Dust Stick-in-the-Mud Worshippers who can't ever be happy over a sinner who repents without first having memorized the Larger Catechism. But while there are undoubtedly some people who ought to be buried in the British Museum and kept from making any observations on the state of society or the church, it is just as uncharitable to assume that everyone is like that as it is to assume that Piper or whomever are trying to corrupt the church for the money.

I don't mean to be harsh, but caricatures work more than one way, and if anything you were a little harder on Dr. Trueman than he was on the YRR.

I have since read a few more articles by Dr. Trueman and this Grumpy Scholar thing he does seems to be his niche.

I found myself cheering his crankiness when I agreed with him, and gritting my teeth at his opinions when they differed from mine. He does make some significant judgment calls on the YRR folks, so judgment calls back at'em are not totally inappropriate.

Trueman speaks of the YRR folks as having more popularity than they do talent. That is pretty judgmental, especially when Piper and Mohler and MacArthur are usually included in the YRR. I wonder who has more popularity AND talent, Trueman or some of the men that he caricaturizes?

About TR people: I never used the term TR in this post. Is Trueman TR?

Marrow Man: Mail me a powdered wig and I will do all my PB posting donning the wig. I'll even wear it while out shopping one day.

Archlute · #31 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 02:38 AM

Carl Trueman is the academic dean and professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in PA. He has degrees from Cambridge and the University of Aberdeen, is a council member of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and is also the general editor of the theological journal Themelios. That may not qualify as talent depending on your definition, but he is certainly well studied!

I don't know that he would consider himself "TR", since that is usually a pejorative label used by those who don't really like Reformed folk who hold convictions regarding more than the five points, but I do believe he would say that he is a confessional Presbyterian. His essays are regularly insightful, and accurate in their assessments, but I have also been accused of having grumpy old man syndrome, and so might not be able to see what it is that you are talking about.

Pergamum · #32 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Carl Trueman is the academic dean and professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in PA. He has degrees from Cambridge and the University of Aberdeen, is a council member of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and is also the general editor of the theological journal Themelios. That may not qualify as talent depending on your definition, but he is certainly well studied!

I don't know that he would consider himself "TR", since that is usually a pejorative label used by those who don't really like Reformed folk who hold convictions regarding more than the five points, but I do believe he would say that he is a confessional Presbyterian. His essays are regularly insightful, and accurate in their assessments, but I have also been accused of having grumpy old man syndrome, and so might not be able to see what it is that you are talking about.

Piper, MacArthur and Mohler also have considerable qualifications and talent as well, and I find them insightful.

Also, these men are also given a label, "New Calvinism" and then this movement as a whole is criticized often, in perjorative tones.

**py3ak** · #33 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I have since read a few more articles by Dr. Trueman and this Grumpy Scholar thing he does seems to be his niche.

I found myself cheering his crankiness when I agreed with him, and gritting my teeth at his opinions when they differed from mine. He does make some significant judgment calls on the YRR folks, so judgment calls back at'em are not totally inappropriate.

Trueman speaks of the YRR folks as having more popularity than they do talent. That is pretty judgmental, especially when Piper and Mohler and MacArthur are usually included in the YRR. I wonder who has more popularity AND talent, Trueman or some of the men that he caricaturizes?

About TR people: I never used the term TR in this post. Is Trueman TR?

Trueman explains the charge of grumpiness:
Why Are There Never Enough Parking Spaces at the Prostate Clinic? - Reformation21

Of course it's fine to criticize him: but criticize his substance, not the fact that he said something.

Trueman is pretty close to TR.

In your post you admit that he is insightful, and you admit that he knows how to put things, because he gets under your skin when you think he's wrong. It's fine to be critical of your reactions to him and make sure that you don't become a mindless Truemanite. If you object to grumpiness itself, then don't be grumpy in attacking him. If you object to criticism then don't criticize. But if you object to neither, then engage him on what he got wrong.

On the point of saying they have more popularity than talent, two things, which I think show that you are still misreading him:
1. He mentioned that there are some very highly talented individuals. He is not denying the presence of talent.
2. He pointed out that demand for material from a teacher can exceed the production of high-quality material.
That is nothing but common sense: everyone has an upper limit of what they can produce at all, and everyone has an upper limit (somewhat lower) of what they can produce with high quality. If you have to produce 3 sermons, 2 conference talks, 5 blog posts, 9 articles and a chapter of a book every week, chances are that some of them are not very good. But if there is a demand for it, it gives additional pressure to send it out anyway.

***Semper Fidelis*** · #34 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 01:35 PM

I don't understand why so much acrimony is being generated by Trueman's concern.

If you read the substance of his critique, his main concern is not to state that there are gifted men who attract a particular YRR phenom but he is criticizing:
1. The attempts to clone those successes
2. The fact that a conference or big bang mentality is at the core of many YRR folk.

In other words, some of the popular preachers are, in fact, laboring day in/out and it isn't a criticism against the soundness of their ministry or the quality of their preaching that is the substantive problem at hand.

It is more of what some who listen to/follow these ministers (who aren't even in their Churches) are doing. I don't believe Carl is holding these pastors responsible for the way many are approaching the faith but simply expressing his reservations about a "movement" of young minds that treat conferences and podcasts and internet dialog as a surrogate for real Church life.

In the backend, we get a fairly steady stream of applicants who don't attend any Church but call themselves Reformed because they read Reformed books or follow the teaching of some luminaries. A DVD series by a particular pastor might even substitute for a sermon of gathered "believers" who can't find any Church in their area that is good enough for them. Again, it's not the fault of the teacher who puts out great materials but it's what certain followers of these materials do with them.

Personally, I don't think a person has any platform from which to criticize the Church if they aren't living a life within a Body of believers. The men mentioned are. They're laboring. Yet the internet abounds with self-appointed prophets and bloggers who set up shop and some even offer conferences.

One of the reasons this board requires Church membership is because this activity is an extension of believers who are already inside the Body of Christ and not pretending as if this board can substitute for the weekly gathering of the people of God to hear the Word and participate in the Sacraments. It's not a surrogate for men and women striving together for holiness in the local body - encouraging one another, doing the hard work that comes from living life inside the Body.

I have attended theological conferences and will attend them in the future. I appreciate the resources that some of the "luminaries" produce. But my life is caught up in the ordinary means of grace in the local Body that produces extraordinary results. It might not have the external "wow" factor and I'm not looking for a Conference experience every time I walk into Church every Sunday. I'm not looking for that experience when I go to another's house to pray with them or grieve over the loss of a child.

I don't believe the ministers who write good books today or participate in those Conferences are either and you don't see simply Internet theologians invited as speakers at these large events. They are men who are doing the hard work day in and day out. The critique is that some young minds are not delving beyond the Conference or the blog post or the book and actually doing the hard work of local Church. They're collecting teachers to themselves and moving from theological high to theological high.

I believe this is the substance of the critique and I believe it is valid.

**Marrow Man** · #35 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Marrow Man: Mail me a powdered wig and I will do all my PB posting donning the wig. I'll even wear it while out shopping one day.

You're a couple of days too late, friend. I would have included it in that package I just shipped on Thursday.

**DMcFadden** · #36 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 02:06 PM

Kids (just teasing guys),

After decades of ministry, I have lived through just about every fad the broad evangelical church has known since the 1970s. Believe me, looking back on that makes you more than a little suspicious of this. And, for a seasoned scholar as at home in the 16th and 17th centuries as our own, Trueman has a uniquely sound platform from which to make his observations.

Trueman is spot on in his observations and they don't strike this grumpy old man as particularly grumpy. The often unnoticed danger of the New Calvinism is that it will run its course and fade just like the "small group" fad, the "spiritual gifts inventory" fad, the Wyn Arn/C. Peter Wagner"church growth" fad, the Hal Lindsay "Late Great Planet Earth" fad, the John Wimber "Signs and Wonders" fad, the "marriage encounter" fad, the "contemporary worship style" fad, the "Promise Keepers" fad, the "Inner Healing" fad, the "Multiple Personality Disorder" fad, the "Freedom in Christ" fad, the "theonomy" fad, the "Four Spiritual Laws" fad, the "Left Behind" fad, the "How Shall We Then Live" Francis Schaeffer fad, the John Eldredge "Wild Heart" fad, the Bill Gothard "Institute of Basic Youth Conflicts" fad, the Maranatha Music fad, etc. etc. etc.

Now, obviously all of these popular movements have some promonents today (many of them on the PB in the case of theonomy!). However, all of them had a period of great popularity like unto one of our Southern California brushfires where the new idea seemed to be taking ground everywhere all at once followed by a shift into the background as something more exciting appeared to seize the pride of place as the fad de jour. My hope is that the young and restless Calvinism presages a return to orthodoxy and confessionalism, and not just another one of our silly excitements of the moment to be forgotten tomorrow due to the seemingly micro attention span of the American public (including the evangelical public). That, by the way, gives me some hope in the midst of the emergent/emerging fad.

lynnie · #37 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 02:09 PM

Thanks for a very good post, Rich. I found it a helpful perspective.

expressing his reservations about a "movement" of young minds that treat conferences and podcasts and internet dialog as a surrogate for real Church life.

I'm not young anymore, (and my mind is going down hill too, memory wise at least

) but I've seen it even with myself and had to back off. We get a better turnout from my church at PCRT and that type of big name conference than we do at prayer meetings. Whatever happened to the father's house being a house of prayer?

I wanted to do them all for a while- Philly, Princeton, CCEF extras, alumni days at WTS, extras at my church, extras for women- and the speakers are great, no question. But I found that my priorities got messed up, and I ended up pressured and stressed and with no desire to invite anybody from church to dinner. You look at the book of Acts and they were taking meals together, praying together......but we go to conferences and go online.

I do think a lot of it is genuine hunger though. Some of the great teaching at a conference seems to fill a hunger that hanging out with people who don't read, or are into Beth Moore DVDs for example, does not fill. I want to get together and talk about the bible and theology and life with God and missions and what is going on in the world, and not everybody is interested in that at all. I remember being young and zealous and how some of the older women just wanted to teach me how to can tomatoes, and did not talk about life with the Lord at all. I wanted to learn doctrine and they wanted to help me make casseroles. Boring.

I guess we all should try hard to be the kind of people that make it worth skipping a conference to be be with us instead.

timmopussycat · #38 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 02:17 PM

Here's Piper's take on the dangers.
Comments?

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceL...y_Servanthood/

Pergamum · #39 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I have since read a few more articles by Dr. Trueman and this Grumpy Scholar thing he does seems to be his niche.

I found myself cheering his crankiness when I agreed with him, and gritting my teeth at his opinions when they differed from mine. He does make some significant judgment calls on the YRR folks, so judgment calls back at'em are not totally inappropriate.

Trueman speaks of the YRR folks as having more popularity than they do talent. That is pretty judgmental, especially when Piper and Mohler and MacArthur are usually included in the YRR. I wonder who has more popularity AND talent, Trueman or some of the men that he caricaturizes?

About TR people: I never used the term TR in this post. Is Trueman TR?

Trueman explains the charge of grumpiness:
Why Are There Never Enough Parking Spaces at the Prostate Clinic? - Reformation21

Of course it's fine to criticize him: but criticize his substance, not the fact that he said something.

Trueman is pretty close to TR.

In your post you admit that he is insightful, and you admit that he knows how to put things, because he gets under your skin when you think he's wrong. It's fine to be critical of your reactions to him and make sure that you don't become a mindless Truemanite. If you object to grumpiness itself, then don't be grumpy in attacking him. If you object to criticism then don't criticize. But if you object to neither, then engage him on what he got wrong.

On the point of saying they have more popularity than talent, two things, which I think show that you are still misreading him:
1. He mentioned that there are some very highly talented individuals. He is not denying the presence of talent.
2. He pointed out that demand for material from a teacher can exceed the production of high-quality material.
That is nothing but common sense: everyone has an upper limit of what they can produce at all, and everyone has an upper limit (somewhat lower) of what they can produce with high quality. If you have to produce 3 sermons, 2 conference talks, 5 blog posts, 9 articles and a chapter of a book every week, chances are that some of them are not very good. But if there is a demand for it, it gives additional pressure to send it out anyway.

Thank you, I have addressed his substance as well.

bookslover · #40 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Piper, MacArthur and Mohler also have considerable qualifications and talent as well, and I find them insightful.

Also, these men are also given a label, "New Calvinism" and then this movement as a whole is criticized often, in perjorative tones.

Pergy, I'm not sure that MacArthur (70 this year) or Piper (63 this year) actually qualify to be labeled as being part of the YRR movement - unless you want to stretch the definition of "young"!

-----Added 9/5/2009 at 07:24:22 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Here's Piper's take on the dangers.
Comments?

Greatness, Humility, Servanthood :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

A cynic would ask why it is that it's almost always the bigwigs, the "name" guy out front whose picture is on all the conference posters - and not the unknown, anonymous worker bees - who are always yakking about how great and necessary humility is...