The Institute (協会)

What about your boy Mark D.?

I think there are lots of things, but I'm going to limit myself to 3. :)

1) Blame the culture. American culture is not receptive to hard language about truth. Reformed people are typically ardent about truth, which doesn't play well to the modern mindset. Regardless of how poorly Reformed types engage culture, the culture itself (like all unredeemed culture) is hostile to hard truth, and that hard truth is in ample supply in Reformed theology. Joel Osteen, especially, is open about his desire to "fix" Scripture so it does something other than humble and convict.

2) Blame the confessionalists. Some (and I do mean *some*) Reformed people confuse knowledge with competence. They idolize theologians and academics, packing their heads full of knowledge (which puffs up) as if it were sheer logic that could change hearts (apologetics or repetition of the Gospel). This mistake is symmetric to the mistake made by many Arminians or semi-Pelagians, where the key is to change the will by psychological pressure (alter calls, etc.). Other people in this tradition get so enamored with the tradition (specifically Westminster Confession-types) that they seek to convert to the tradition, not just to the Church. If they were doing things with a right purpose, they would see the Gospel as the way in, and the doctrines of grace as a subsequent issue.

3) Unfair. I think your (Anthony's) criticism is overbroad, misdirected, and unfair. I have the privilege of knowing lots of culturally-engaged, delightfully well-rounded, knowledgeable, sensitive, fruitful Christians who all understand themselves to be confessionally Reformed (many 5-pointers!). Francis Schaeffer, lest we forget, was confessionally Presbyterian. Al Mohler currently has a pretty wide media footprint (regular on Larry King, sometimes with John MacArthur), as did the late D. James Kennedy. They aren't exactly stunning examples of slickness and "cool," but they are faithful ministers, and all reformed.

Addendum: The "sheer logic" point in paragraph 2) of my previous post refers to presuppositional apologetics. The key to making presuppositional apologetics work is speaking so you touch the heart of the person who hears.

Zach, great point.

TuscOn, great stuff on points 1 and 2. To your third point: ok, so you have some personal friends who fit the image. Great. That's not my question. Who TODAY is the culture actually listening. Someone who's actually alive and the culture is at least listening too enough to even attack at points.

Who is actually addressing the issues the issues in 2007 that "the culture" is being challenged to actually think about?

The guys you mention are doing awesome stuff but are often limited to "churchy" issues when the media requests them. Rob's talking about sex.

Who's alive today and actually talking to non-Christians directly who is also confessionally reformed?

Thanks again for numbers 1 and 2!!!!!

Well, to be fair, you did ask "Can confessionally Reformed people actually reach America's culture or are will they forever be confined to primarily attacking non-Reformed Christians in hopes of making them "Reformed."" I won't name names, but there are lots of them.

Tackling the more precise question you pose, Mohler actually does a wide variety of things apart from just churchy stuff on Larry King (though you're right, his exposure beyond Larry King is largely churchy).

I would suggest that it has more to do with point 1) above, though, where the American media is only interested in hearing from nutjob Christians on the subject of sex. The networks aren't exactly beating down the doors to talk to Joel Osteen or Pat Robertson about sex. They'll ask Osteen about money or Robertson about assassinating Hugo Chavez, but they don't want people making interesting, persuasive arguments about antiquated things like "monogamy" or "chastity."

Here's another factor, since this is turning into a rambling post and it can't get much more diffuse even if I try. Media personality. TV presence is a huge deal. Some people just cannot look good on TV, regardless of how they try. They look smug, crazy, asleep, bored, you name it. It is very difficult to look good on TV, and I know that there are Christians who refuse visual media opportunities because they are (rightly) concerned that they represent Christ well. Because they come across as arrogant or proud on TV (but don't in person), they think it's better to not be on TV at all. The people who look good on TV are the ones who a) get specially trained; b) look good naturally; or c) are robotic automatons.

tuscOn, again, good stuff bro. Thanks for helping me figure this one out. I'm truly puzzled.

Anthony,

If Peggy Noonan counts, then don't Marvin Olasky and Michael Gerson (trained at Westminster Christian Academy in St. Louis)?

Lauren Winner wrote a very good book on sex that got a lot of publicity, and one of her important theological mentors and pastors has been Greg Thompson, RUF minister at UVa and now pastor at Trinity PCA in Charlottesville.

You seem to be equating "reaching the culture" with achieving a high level of exposure in the national media. There are lots of Reformed pastors and writers who are addressing the important issues of the day. Our local PCA church has a Sunday evening series on current cultural issues addressed from a biblical-theological perspective. Some of these Reformed people are your seminary colleagues. They are reaching local cultures.

We need to ask why and how some individuals get national media attention. This is often due to being (1) perceived as power brokers for the religious right's political movement (Robertson, Falwell, Dobson), or (2) unconventional, new, different, "hip" or "cool" in the sense of being substantially different from traditionally Christian beliefs and practices. Joel Osteen and Rick Warren and Bill Hybels pastor the largest churches in America, and they have often attracted large numbers of people for reasons that are not very good (numbers count for the media, who can only think in terms of politics or spectacle). Faithful pastors who offer solidly orthodox beliefs on various issues are not going to get noticed unless they find a gimmick to get someone to notice them. And a lot of faithful pastors and theologians are not interested in being gimmicky.

That's not to take away from the things that Warren and Bell and others are doing well. They are good communicators. But I'm skeptical that appearing on national television does much to "reach the culture." (Almost) all politics (and mission) is local. We need those new missional monastic orders that Alasdair MacIntyre called for at the end of _After Virtue_. That's what would be much more effective at reaching the culture than a TV series conducted by Reformed theologians and pastors.

I feel you on this Anthony, but do agree with tusc0n that it's a bit unfair. Many of the Paste Magazine guys are Reformed and have achieved tremendous success, becoming THE magazine for adults who want to find out about thoughtful music (and for a while there had a weekly segment on CNN Headline News). Derek Webb has two songs on Grey's Anatomy this season, one of the most highly rated shows on TV (a tastemaking show in music that has more impact these days than most radio formats). Those are two examples (both music-related, because that's what I know), but I think it's only the beginning. I will be very surprised if the young/restless/Reformed folks, particularly those coming out of ministries like RUF, don't make a significant impact over the next two decades.

"Faithful pastors who offer solidly orthodox beliefs on various issues are not going to get noticed unless they find a gimmick to get someone to notice them. And a lot of faithful pastors and theologians are not interested in being gimmicky."

MF, could it be that many "faithful" leaders aren't actually addressing the questions and issues of today and are, perhaps, too busy still fighting the unresolved battles of yesterday?

Maybe "gimmick" is really a call for relevance (not in the Christ vs. Culture motif either).

Maybe the "gimmick" is being blatantly direct about the issues before us here and now. I would say that some politics is local but some politics are global. "All politics" is local does not end slavery.

Lots to think about!

Matthew, great list!!! I'm not so much wondering about Christians who are in "secular" space but confessionally reformed people that the culture is listening to because they are bringing a blatant Godly perspective on the issues of today.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by "reaching" the "culture"? The size of the audience does not seem to make a lick of difference when it comes to being light and salt. Who cares if a "reformed" person every "reaches" the culture? Rob Bell and Joel Osteen both have large audiences, but does that mean that they are by definition truly reaching anyone? There are not "reformed" people, there are people touting reformed theology who are insular pricks, but that has all to do with their character and nothing to do with reformed theology. Love your freakin neighbor and cultivate the talents God gave you and forget about being on CNN and selling an extra 1,000 books.

The issue is: What "message" are these "communicators" reaching the culture with?

*Update* Rob Bell Agrees With New Age Guru Marianne Williamson

"MF, could it be that many "faithful" leaders aren't actually addressing the questions and issues of today and are, perhaps, too busy still fighting the unresolved battles of yesterday?"

If they are doing this, then they aren't really faithful, and they're not the people I was referring to.

"Maybe "gimmick" is really a call for relevance (not in the Christ vs. Culture motif either). Maybe the "gimmick" is being blatantly direct about the issues before us here and now.

In some cases, yes. But does Joel Osteen really fit this description? Pat Robertson?

"I would say that some politics is local but some politics are global. "All politics" is local does not end slavery."

Indeed. I agree. I was just trying to avoid reducing the concept of cultural influence to influence at the national level.

"The size of the audience does not seem to make a lick of difference when it comes to being light and salt. Who cares if a "reformed" person every "reaches" the culture?"

Ahh, yeah, I wish that were actually true. This isn't even true in Christian world.

Who's more likely be well known the pastor of a big church (2,000 people) or the pastor a church of 30 people? If Billy Graham's crusades only drew crowds of 2 people, do you really think you'd know about them?

If Jim Dobson had a local audience of 2 people on a local AM radio station in Colorado do you honestly think he'd have the influence he does.

In the real world numbers matter. A lot.

"Forget about being on CNN and selling an extra 1,000 books."

What?

How about this, "hey Paul forget about going to Aeropogus (Acts 17)." Why isn't being on CNN loving your neighbor?

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."(Acts 1:8)

Forget about being on CNN? Really?

Why would we not want to have a voice in the media forms that influence the entire culture?

Ken Silva, wow! You have an entire blog dedicated to attacking other Christians. Wow. So what are you for? Sad.

MF, good point. Should we want to do all: local, national, and international. Very good point!

The Reformed church hasn't been reaching the culture for years. I am reformed all the way (5 points, infant baptism, plurality church government, etc.) but I had to leave the Pres. Church because they seemed to be great at debating theology inside of the basement of the church but wouldn't do a damn thing in the neighborhood. While they are sipping wine, smoking cigars, and debating eschatology ( all good things) my people are dying of black on black violence, educational slavery, and the penal system. In my experience the only culture that the reformed church has ever reached is middle class white people who love book clubs and volleyball. It saddens me that the reformed church has been historically white only. They will never reach the broader culture until they start seeing this and stop labeling themselves as the spiritually elite. Just my thoughts. Thanks Anthony for your honest in this post!

Holla!

Hey, nice comments about Rob I suppose. Maybe some people are more concerned about being right than anything else. BTW - Long time no talk, the weather is cold up here in GR lately. We should get in touch soon....

I don't think we should denigrate the importance of being right or understanding theology correctly. Right doctrine is an absolutely critical part of the the individual Christian's (and the church's) faithfulness. Without qualifying that statement in any way....

There is a point when your excellent and good desire to be right morphs into a desire to dominate others with your theology. (I should know, I have done this.) And if you let this happen, you are violating the second-greatest commandment - love your neighbor as yourself. The result of right doctrine should never be to turn inward on your community or yourself, but rather to give yourself in LOVE because of what Jesus has done. The sovereignty of God is incredibly powerful - why would you engage in daring acts of love unless you knew that God was in control of all things?

Some people act like right doctrine is, in itself, an object of admiration. They spend all their time admiring how right it is, how beautifully crafted, how faithful to Scripture. It's like admiring a fire ax in the if-fire-break-glass box. "How beautiful the ax is! Its blade is so sharp! Its handle so strong! What a wonderful metal it is made of. The previous guardians of the ax must have taken good care of it." But if you do that while people are going to hell as they die in the burning house right behind you, then you have crossed the line into a sin of omission - failure to love your neighbor as yourself. It's sin.

Anthony,

Good discussion, though I'm a bit puzzled by the "circle the wagons" mentality. Sure we could spend all day moaning about "how we really are making in roads" and "why the culture doesn't like us" but the fact is, you are correct. No one in the confessionally reformed camp is able to do what Bell and others like him are doing (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know "he's not reforemd" and "what kind of message is he really communicating?" Save it. I've heard all that before, but it doesn't answer the question. If we have the best message for the culture, why can't we do a better job of engaging the culture with that message?)
I suspect it's in part because many in the reformed camp get attacked if they do. That is to say, if a reformed pastor says, writes or starts something that receives a large amount of media attention, many in the reformed circle attack him for selling out. I've seen it happen on a small scale and it frustrates the hell out of me. More than anything though, it saddens me that we can't stop bickering and attacking others long enough to get some of these great truths out to our culture.

For more on this topic, check out Richard Mouw's book, Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport

Oh, you mean more people like this guy. ;)

1.) Is it really surprising that guys in love with and willing to break fellowship over a 350 year old document are NOT "speaking to the culture"? Please tell me you are not actually surprised by this.

2.) But where, exactly, is that biblical mandate to "speak to the culture"? We seem to swallow it is a presupposition (thank you R. Niebuhr) but the Scriptural support is fairly slim. There's Acts 17 and 1 Cor 9 which could be read that way but didn't Paul also say the gospel would be foolishness and a cause for offense to the "culture"? If guys are confessionally reformed (or not) but are not hip enough to get on CNN or wear Crew pomade in their hair BUT people are coming to faith in Christ, is this not sufficient?

This has been implied in the responses: I think that for the most part it is Reformed Christians in the "creative class" that are reaching culture. The "leaders" who are effective at reaching culture are responsible for equipping these "grassroot elites" (to steal Tim Keller's phrase). If I am generous to our tradition, I would like to think the reason that there are not reformed leaders on CNN is that we are purposefully leading from the bottom up--like leaven.

Exactly Matthew! Exactly!

Coach,

With all do respect, I think the mandate to speak to the culture comes straight from the life of Jesus. If He wasn't speaking to the culture, then I do know what He was doing.

"Ken Silva, wow! You have an entire blog dedicated to attacking other Christians."

Well now, that might be just a little bit of an overstatement. :-)

"Wow. So what are you for? Sad." I'm 4 Jesus; ain't sad at all y'all.

So if you're really interested, beyond simply sniping, you can find out more about the scope of various labors I am involved in Christ, beyond my more controversial work at Apprising Ministries, here:

Jesus I Know; and Rick Warren I Know, but Who is Ken Silva?

Wow, where do I begin? Is being splashed on CNN the same as reaching the culture? Are book sales indicative of impacting the culture? I just saw Paula White (you know, the disgraced and soon-to-be divorced health & wealth televangelist) on Larry King. Boy she's really impacting the culture too.

Seriously, culture is changed over time as God's Word is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. You can't package that for mass consumption in the marketplace. That's what's so tragic about Grand Rapids and the whole (almost the whole) Dutch Reformed tradition. For a while they had it all - great colleges, great seminaries, lots of healthy churches, the faith being passed on from generation to generation, and a huge cultural impact that is still being felt today. Liberalism has and is taking its toll, but so is pop-culture and modern evangelicalism. That reformed folk would trade their Reformation heritage for Nooma is beyond me.

I'm not a Rob Bell fan and from what I've seen and read he's not doing much to win me over. His Nooma series has a video clip called "Bullhorn Man" that is a mixture of caricature, poor Biblical understanding, and poor theology. To counter that I'd recommend the YouTube video entitled "Bullwhip Man" that puts a different spin (and more biblical view) on engaging the culture.

Anthony,

In response. Of course Rob Bell should go on CNN and bring as much exposure to his book and message. I am not positing that it does not "matter." The issue I have is to use that as a standard by which we then measure "reformed christians", or any other person for that matter, with when it comes to "reaching culture." How is that a legitimate, biblical standard?

I took Paula White out on a date, and she paid for everything!

A Mortons steak tastes so much better when its free. So do 2 bottles of delish red to washer down.

Darden, Ummmm - Jesus was crucified, not put on CNN. Aren't we just using the phrase "speaking to the culture" to mean "hip"?

I'm with you Anthony about overly and habitually critical Reformed folk. I'm glad for people like Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll however who are contextualizing Reformed theology to American culture. I think there is that constant tension between relevance and accomodation. Let's live in that tension and cling to God and Scripture to guide us.

Slight correction. See the YouTube video entitled "Bullwhip Guy" for a different perspective on engaging the culture.

Some Reformed people may sit around talkin' theology all day, hiding from the 'real world'.
But I know and know of lots of confessionally Reformed people who work in crisis pregnancy centers, with the urban poor, run medical missions trips, teach immigrants English & the Gospel, want to teach in 'secular' institutions as missionaries, and more.
Can we do better? Heck, yeah. But over-generalizations do a disservice to those who are engaging their little corner of the world because they believe it belongs to Jesus.

How about Stanley Hauerwas? So he's not confessionally reformed, but he's in the public eye, not afraid to say anything, and, well, I owe my career to sitting in on one of his classes in 2003. I read Hauerwas, then Yoder, then Bonhoeffer, then Hayek, then Rothbard, then Rand, then Piper. Has anyone else connected these minds?

Nathanael Snow

Coach,

Please... No need to be condescending. And who said anything about hip? That was your term not mine.

Tell me, why is it that any time someone trys to engage the culture in a way that draws media attention, we (in the reformed camp) accuse them of trying to be hip OR trying to win the approval of men? It's easy to sit around and make such accusations about others while ignoring the deficiencies in our own ministries.

Tell me, was Francis Schaeffer trying to be hip? After all, he moved to Europe and sported a goatee and knickers. Is that hip?

Yes you are correct, Jesus did die on the cross, but it turns out he also hung out with prostitues, durnkards and others so much so that he was accused of being one himself. Is that cultural engagement or just being hip?

Ultimately,I'll be the first to admit, I'm not a big Rob Bell fan. In fact, I think he's a little too theologically "out there" from what I can tell. But I believe that's exactally the reason we must do a better job of cultural engagement, so that others can see the gospel actully offers more then what Bell or Osteen are selling.

Does that make me someone who is just trying to be "hip" or someone who believes that our reformed understanding of the gospel really is the greatest truth we can give the world?

I don't thing cultural engagement means tying to be hip, I think it means trying to be Christ like. But that may just be a point on which we must agree to disagree.

Darden,
Pls. forgive me brother, there was no condescension intended. With respect to the original post, I am simply confused as to why we often judge "cultural engagement" by public praise. AB noted several high profile names and validations (CNN & 750,000 vids sold) and asked, "where are the Reformed guys?" Unless my logic is flawed, by the very example given, AB is in fact equating "speaking to the culture" with popularity.

No problem Coach. But I still don't think the issue is being hip, popularity or what have you. Rather, I think the issue is doing things (other than infighting and condemning) that catch the public's attention and address the issues they are dealing with. Yes many in the reformed camp do this well on a small level, but why do we have such little success in the public realm?

Rob Bell is currently receiving attention because he wrote about a topic that many Christians simply refuse to talk about. In fact, as far as many non-Christians are concerned, the only time we talk about sex is when we are complaining about what non-Christians are doing. But wouldn't it be better to go out and show our culture that what God has to say about sex is still relevant and important today?

Ultimately, I don't really know what Anthony intended when he originally wrote about "speaking to the culture" but I do know Anthony and trust that he was not equating that with popularity. Maybe the example was bad, I don’t know. But for me that's not really the point.

For me, the point is always: How do I/we do better? I think the best way for us to share our reformed perspective of the gospel is to engage people where they are- in their daily questions and struggles. Once again, I agree many in our camp are doing that on a small scale, but why have we failed to step up to the plate to do so on a larger scale?

The Evangelical Outpost has a good post explaining some of the problems that may afflict reformed-types who engage in apologetics.

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004115.html

It's important to engage the culture, but I'm not sure "results" are that easily measured (i.e., by breadth of television audience, etc.).

It would be nice, however, to see more of us Reformed folks doing more about making the world a better place as agents of grace and just talking about how bad the world is and congratulating each other on our understanding of grace.

That's not a blanket statement, of course, and the same could be said for a whole host of Arminians, but at some point we gotta say, "Okay, we're all Calvinists; now let's get on with it."

Part of it has to do with the publisher - Zondervan probably helps promote its books to get its authors on television more. If a person writes a book about some obscure aspect of soteriology, not only would Zondervan not be the publisher, but even if they were, CNN would view the topic as a total snoozer.

May I ask you a question Anthony? What exactly does Rob Bell believe? I think the discussion has to revolve around his view of the Gospel. You have him as one of your church links so I am wondering do you agree with his position on the Gospel alone? Lets leave out Reformed Theology and talk bible.

Ok, let's be serious here though, what do you mean *precisely* by "engaging culture?"

Is it preaching the Word of God? 'Cause that is happening everywhere.

Is it telling people about how the Word and Gospel relates to their lives? Every Reformed pastor should be doing that every Sunday!

Is it getting on TV? Why is this even important? Is it writing a book? Lots do that! Is it interviewed because of your success? Well, what "success" are we aiming for? Numbers? 15 minutes of fame? What do you measure it by?

Would you critique Noah for not reaching "the culture" of his day? How about Micah? How did Jonah reach "the culture" of Ninevah? Proclaiming the Lord's judgement?

As others have stated before, I think you're being a bit unfair.

Anthony wrote:
"Ken Silva, wow! You have an entire blog dedicated to attacking other Christians. Wow. So what are you for? Sad."

Great question, Anthony!!

When are Christians going to talk about what they are "for" instead of what they are "against:??

Hey Mark you have to be both. We can't be for the true gospel without being against a false one. Come on brother. There is only one truth correct, we best spend our lives defending and defining that truth, getting it wrong could have eternal consequences. Don't get swaddled in this emergent stuff brother. We have to proclaim the truth of God's word.

BTW how relevant was Jesus when He was on the cross, James when he was being beheaded, Stephen when he was being stoned, Paul when he was in prison, John when he was being behead, Paul when he was beat and thrown into prison (Acts 16) or Peter when he was thrown into jail and beat, so I wonder how relevant they would be today.

Are people like Olsteen really "reaching" the culture? Are lives being transformed by the power of God through the preaching of the Biblical Gospel? Instead of preaching a message of repentance, a cotton-candy gospel (in the words of Michael Horton) is being offered for those who want 'their best life now'. I'm sure John the Baptist would be turning in his grave if he watched 5 minutes of TBN.

Culture will never be transformed by God's grace or even reached if the Gospel is watered down and molded to fit a constantly mutating culture.

The only the way Olsteen is "reaching" the culture, in my opinion, is by crying "Peace, peace when there is no peace" (Jeremiah 6:14).

And when you get right down to it, he is only giving and saying and writing what the people want to hear.

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires

I'm late coming to this particular discussion, but I wanted to chime in and second Joe H.'s comment above. In many ways I think lots of reformed types are being even more effective than the Rob Bells and Joel Osteens due to that leavening type influence. The broader culture is influenced much more through the arts than through a speaker because it begins to work it's way through the day to day lives of people. The long term effect is greater.