The Nameless One, by Carl Trueman

[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.

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

From the inside of the fishbowl

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

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2009/4183_Greatness_Humility_Servanthood/

 

[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]

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-----

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...

 

[py3ak]

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.

In response to the charge of misreading his substance how do you plead?

 

[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-----

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...

They are not young, but Piper is often clumped into the New Calvinism movement, so I guess he is not young but is still new?!? Ha.

 

[timmopussycat]

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-----

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...

Perhaps because they are big enough to see the need for a sense of proportion in themselves and (equally if not more important, in their followers as well). Trouble is that sometimes the followers or the "great men" don't really believe in the necessity.

And BTW I read Truman's post as focusing far more on the dangers facing followers in "the movement" rather than an attack on the men who are the well known leaders.

 

[Pergamum]

Note all of the subjective language in this Trueman article. He uses words such as cult like and oracular in reference to the YRR folks. How would you feel as Piper (reckoned to be part of this movement) to read this about yourself.

Piper does not seem to have selfish motives and he is not seeking to glorify himself. Piper and the others I am sure would deny that it is "all about them" but it is for the promotion of the glory of God.

If you agree with Trueman you will read him and not notice this as much because he is, as it were, preaching to the choir. Piper's article is much fairer, more balanced and is without the subjectivity of Trueman's article.

 

[timmopussycat]

Note all of the subjective language in this Trueman article. He uses words such as cult like and oracular in reference to the YRR folks. How would you feel as Piper (reckoned to be part of this movement) to read this about yourself.

Piper does not seem to have selfish motives and he is not seeking to glorify himself. Piper and the others I am sure would deny that it is "all about them" but it is for the promotion of the glory of God.

If you agree with Trueman you will read him and not notice this as much because he is, as it were, preaching to the choir. Piper's article is much fairer, more balanced and is without the subjectivity of Trueman's article.

Sure there is subjective language ilike "cult like" and "oracular" in the article, but Truman is not hanging those words on Piper et al but on tendencies in how their followers (the movement) treat certain key figures. And Truman is utterly correct to fear many of the dangers he cites. I know those dangers well, being a survivor of a church that started well then went cultic. Modern media does give rise to greater dangers for the central figures as well as greatly increased potential or real influence. "Cults of personality" are not always fostered by the leader but they can and do arise around a leader and they can and sometimes do degenerate into cults. To spread God's truth is a noble cause, but there are tendencies in "supply side" marketing of Christian truth that need to be watched. He's also right that many churches are small, not growing and for the moment are persevering and hanging on, an existance far removed from mega church excitements.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

It is also worth checking out Dr. Trueman's article concerning "the cult of Professor Worship".

The Day They Tried to Recruit Me - Reformation21

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It is also worth checking out Dr. Trueman's article concerning "the cult of Professor Worship".

The Day They Tried to Recruit Me - Reformation21

Get a rope.

The facts are now clear as day:

1. There is a danger that a theological professor can develop a cult following.
2. Carl Trueman is known to many as a Professor of Theology.

Conclusion: Carl Trueman is a cult leader.

 

[lynnie]

That entire link is based on guys with egos drawing off men to themselves. Yeah, they exist. Trueman was afraid of falling into that trap...fine, he has a keen conscience of his limitations and temptations. Good for him.

What about men with a great burden for the church- not an ego- like Paul, who became a father to the church and said to imitate him as he imitated Christ. That wasn't a cult, it was making disciples.

It boils down to motives-ego versus service. If you see a big name getting contemptuous and promoting himself and sucking money out of poor people to live extravagantly, run the other way. A guy like Piper...I'd say treat him as a beloved father to the church. He is a servant. Sometimes you can't tell, but you see the overall fruit in the disciples. Everybody I know that was/is heavily influenced by Piper is godly. I've met people I find hard to respect who were influenced by other certain big names.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

[bible]1 Cor 3:1-7[/bible]

We certainly would never assume that either Paul or Apollos were at fault for the manner in which people were "aligning" themselves.

However Mr. Trueman might have improved his remarks, it is quite clear that rebuking the immature for forming around cults of personality, when the personalities are not seeking such acclaim, is not foreign to the Scriptures themselves. Moses even rebuked Joshua asking if he was really jealous for Moses when men began prophesying in the camp.

It was not a sign of immaturity or lack of humility for Paul to be very precise in calling out a group of people for acting as if they were still of the world and it was not a malediction on either he or Apollos that he did.