The modern self and the sexual revolution

"A conversation with Dr. Carl Trueman on the modern self and the sexual revolution"

An excerpt from the interview to whet your appetite:

[Charles] Taylor is one of those enviably polymathic people. He’s been a politician. He’s a political philosopher. He’s a straight down the line philosopher. He’s a scholar of the German philosopher Hegel. He’s a historian. I found him particularly useful on two fronts. One, Taylor correctly identifies Romanticism as the key move in Western society where inner feelings become constitutive of who we are. He sees that as leading to the formation of a particular notion of the self which he calls the expressive individual. Essentially, what he means by that is that the self comes to be thought of as that which we feel inside, and the self manifests itself when it’s able to behave outwardly in accordance with those inner desires. That’s where we get the language of authenticity. Today in society, we often use the language of authenticity when we’re talking about people. A good example is Bruce, now Caitlyn, Jenner in his interview with Diane Sawyer when he was talking about transitioning. He made the point that ‘finally I’m going to be able to be who I always have been.’ Essentially saying, ‘finally, I can be authentic. Finally, I’m not going to be living a lie anymore.’ Now, you don’t have to be a transgender person to identify with the notion that ‘I want to be outwardly that which I feel to be inwardly.’

Second is Taylor’s notion of what he calls the social imaginary. I found this extremely helpful. The social imaginary points to the fact that most of us don’t relate to the world around us in terms of first principles. Life is not a syllogism. I don’t get up from my chair and think, ‘Okay, where do I need to exit the room from? Oh, there’s a door over there. I’ll go through the door.’ I get up and instinctively leave through the door. The social imaginary gets to the idea that that’s how we think about an awful lot of things. It’s how we think about morality. We tend to pick up the intuitions of the world around us, internalize them, and make them our own. We don’t alway think in terms of first principles when we think about morality. A good example might be provided by the gay marriage issue. Most people have not come to find gay marriage acceptable by reading heavy tomes of sexual ethics or sociology. Most people have gay friends or have seen attractive images of gay couples and things like the sitcom “Will and Grace.” It’s not that they’ve been convinced by argument. It’s that their intuitions have been shaped by broader cultural patterns. I found that very helpful in approaching this notion of the modern self. It’s not that we get up one morning and decide ‘Let’s be expressive individuals.’ The very air we breathe shapes, tilts, and bends our intuitions towards that result.

The final enemy

"The Final Enemy" (Carl Trueman)

You can't split a rotten log

Warfield once said you can't split a rotten log. Speaking of which:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/rebel-ranks-martin-luther-brad-gregory/

Picking and choosing our piety

I'm going to comment on two critics of the church calendar, beginning with Carl Truman:

http://www.reformation21.org/articles/ash-wednesday.php

What perplexes me is the need for people from these other groups to observe Ash Wednesday and Lent. My commitment to Christian liberty means that I certainly would not regard it as sinful in itself for them to do so; but that same commitment also means that I object most strongly to anybody trying to argue that it should be a normative practice for Christians, to impose it on their congregations, or to claim that it confers benefits unavailable elsewhere. 

I agree with him that there's nothing normative about the church calendar. 

I also fear that it speaks of a certain carnality: The desire to do something which simply looks cool and which has a certain ostentatious spirituality about it. As an act of piety, it costs nothing yet implies a deep seriousness. In fact, far from revealing deep seriousness, in an evangelical context it simply exposes the superficiality, eclectic consumerism and underlying identity confusion of the movement.

In many cases, I'm sure that's true. 

The imposition of ashes is intended as a means of reminding us that we are dust and forms part of a liturgical moment when sins are 'shriven' or forgiven. In fact, a well-constructed worship service should do that anyway. Precisely the same thing can be conveyed by the reading of God's Word.

That's reductionistic. For instance, many miracles of Christ are enacted parables. In John's Gospel, for instance, miracles function as concrete illustrations of something Jesus said. A way to convey the same message twice in two different media: both by saying and by showing. 

Or take a cinematic adaptation of a novel. Trueman's objection is like saying the movie is superfluous: just read the novel. But because novels and movies are different media, even if both have the same plot, dialogue, characters, and setting, each has a distinctive benefit, if done executed

There's more to communication than propositions. There's nonverbal communication. The Mosaic cultus was a tableau of object lessons. 

An appropriately rich Reformed sacramentalism also renders Ash Wednesday irrelevant. Infant baptism emphasizes better than anything else outside of the preached Word the priority of God's grace and the helplessness of sinful humanity in the face of God.   

Which overlooks the fact that infants are oblivious to the theological significance of their baptism.  

It's that time of year again: the ancient tradition of Lent, kick-started by Ash Wednesday. It is also the time of year when us confessional types brace ourselves for the annual onslaught of a more recent tradition: that of evangelical pundits, with no affiliation to such branches of the church, writing articles extolling Lent's virtues to their own eclectic constituency. 

When Presbyterians and Baptists and free church evangelicals start attending Ash Wednesday services and observing Lent, one can only conclude that they have either been poorly instructed in the theology or the history of their own traditions, or that they have no theology and history. Or maybe they are simply exhibiting the attitude of the world around: They consume the bits and pieces which catch their attention in any tradition they find appealing, while eschewing the broader structure, demands and discipline which belonging to an historically rooted confessional community requires. 

American evangelicals are past masters at appropriating anything that catches their fancy in church history and claiming it as their own, from the ancient Fathers as the first emergents to the Old School men of Old Princeton as the precursors of the Young, Restless, and Reformed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer as modern American Evangelical. Yet if your own tradition lacks the historical, liturgical and theological depth for which you are looking, it may be time to join a church which can provide the same. 

Of course, that's part and parcel of Trueman's "Confessional Calvinist" schtick. What he fails to appreciate is that tradition is, itself, eclectic. Traditional theological packages are in some measure historical accidents. Take a Presbyterian package that includes Calvinism, covenant theology, infant baptism, amil/postmil eschatology, and presbyterian polity. Compare that to a Baptist package that includes Arminianism (plus eternal security), dispensationalism, credo baptism, premil eschatology, and congregational polity. But these are packages containing disparate elements. The elements comprising each package are logically independent of each other. You could disassemble each package, and recombine some elements from each into a third package. And the third package would be no more or less eclectic than the "traditional" packages. 

It isn't a choice between "picking and choosing" your piety or not picking and choosing your piety, but who does the picking and choosing. Trueman simply delegates the picking and choosing to his adopted theological ancestors. 

Now let's turn to Nick Batzig:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2017/02/redemptive-history-union-with.php

As Roland Barnes notes: 

"The Liturgical Calendar can be spiritually stunting insofar as it asks believers to suspend their living in the light of the finished work of Christ as they march along from incarnation to resurrection and ascension throughout the calendar. The Reformed observance of the weekly sabbath and the regular practice of expository, Christocentric preaching emphasizes that we are now living in the full realization of the finished work of Christ. Each Lord's Day we celebrate the fact that 'He is Risen!' We live each Lord's Day in the light of the triumph of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus."2

To prove this point, I'll share a story. A number of years ago, I was rebuked by a strict proponent of the Liturgical Calendar for preaching a passage of Scripture on the birth narrative on the first Sunday of Advent. His response to hearing that I had done so was, "Not yet!"

That's a good example in which tradition becomes a straightjacket. 

Alongside this phenomenon lies the ever present willingness of many professedly Protestant churches to embrace, either in part or whole, the liturgical calendar for the structuring of their worship services. One can see the apparent appeal. After all, many have suggested that the Liturgical Calendar offers a recognition of the organic unity of Scripture centered on the redemptive-historical nature of Christ's saving work and participated in through the corporate worship of God's people. But is this actually the case? Does the Liturgical Calendar enhance or undermine the redemptive historical nature of Christ's saving work? 

Not surprisingly, many Anglicans--at one and the same time–acknowledge the lack of biblical support for a liturgical calendar while insisting upon a pragmatic adaptation of it. For instance, N.T. Wright suggests:

"There is nothing ultimately obligatory for a Christian about the keeping of holy days or seasons. Paul warns the Galatians against adopting the Jewish liturgical calendar (Gal. 4:10)...However, many churches have found that by following the liturgical year in the traditional way they have a solid framework within which to live the Gospels, the Scripture and the Christian life. The Bible offers itself to us as a great story, a sprawling and complex narrative, inviting us to come in and make it our own. The Gospels, the very heart of Scripture, likewise tell a story not merely to give us information about Jesus but in order to provide a narrative that we can inhabit, a story we must make our own. This is one way we can become the people God calls us to be."1

While adherents of the liturgical calendar frequently insist that it aids our experience of the redemptive historical nature of Christ's work, the opposite actually proves to be the case. When we subject ourselves to a temporal recapitulation of Jesus' life and labors--from incarnation to baptism to wilderness testing to death to resurrection to ascension and to Pentecost--we end up undermining the full, rich implications of the once-for-all nature of that saving work. We run the risk of bifurcating the work of Christ. 

Sorry, but I think that's silly. It's like saying you only need to read the Gospels once. After all, the earthly life of Christ is a thing of the past. That's over and done with. Never look back! Even more retrograde is reading the OT! 

If anything, I think it would be a good idea to expand the church calendar. Suppose we had a rotating, three-year church calendar based on the plots of Matthew, Luke, and John. Each week would track and highlight a significant incident in the life of Christ, in roughly chronological order. It's good for Christians to make the plot of each Gospel a part of their mental furniture. To have a mental outline of what Jesus said and did in each Gospel. By the same token, it might be good to include some highpoints of OT history. 

In doing so, we can also illegitimately make the Gospel something that we do rather than something done by Christ for us and received by faith alone. 

Maybe some high-church Christians are guilty of that, but I don't see that observing a church calendar in itself fosters that mentality. Rather, it's basically a pedagogical device to internalize the story of the Gospels. 

Social teaching

I am not a Roman Catholic and not a huge fan of much Roman Catholic theology. But I had long thought that, when it came to social teaching and hard-headed moral thinking, the Roman Catholic Church was light years ahead of most Protestants in both sophistication and precision. 

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2017/02/soap-and-oprah

It's hard to know what to make of Trueman's terse statement.

i) Many "social justice" positions taken by the current Magisterium are interchangeable with the platform of the Democrat Party. Perhaps Trueman's position is affected by the fact that he's English. In general, conservative Americans are quite hostile to the welfare state, but perhaps that's something which differentiates them from Trueman. I'm not suggesting that the English automatically support the welfare state. Maggie Thatcher was a notable critic, but she was controversial for that very reason. Indeed, she may be more popular among American conservatives than many Britons. Peter Hitchens disdains her, although Roger Scruton admires her. 

ii) I wonder how conversant Trueman is regarding evangelical ethicists. Perhaps this reflects Trueman's disdain for evangelicalism–in contrast to "confessional Calvinism". There are sophisticated expositions of personal and social ethics, viz. John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics; John and Paul Feinberg, Ethics for A Brave New World; John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life; John Frame, Medical Ethics: Principles, Persons, and Problems.

iii) It's true that Catholic ethicists can argue with great precision and sophistication, but to what end? Their job is not to ascertain right and wrong, but to defend whatever the Magisterium deems to be right and wrong. They begin with the diktats of Rome, then cast about for supporting arguments to retroactively rationalize a foregone conclusion. And it can take tremendous ingenuity to defend Catholic moral theology. Consider the hairsplitting distinctions that are required to attack artificial contraception while defending natural family planning. Or to attack divorce while defending annulment, or to attack lying while defending mental reservations. Perhaps, though, Trueman is using "social teaching" in a narrow sense, rather than Catholic moral theology in general. Even so, Catholic social teaching reflects misplaced precision and sophistication. Not sophisticated analysis to arrive at the truth, but sophisticated special pleading to justify whatever Rome says. Not precision to be conceptually accurate, but precision to draw ad hoc distinctions.  

Carl Trueman Plays the Sanctimonious Fool

I’m sorry if this sounds uncharitable, I really am. However, it’s so sad to me when a seminary professor at a leading Reformed seminary – and one who’s a celebrity to boot – gets things wrong like this. He says in a recent First Things blog article:

I am not a Roman Catholic and not a huge fan of much Roman Catholic theology. But I had long thought that, when it came to social teaching and hard-headed moral thinking, the Roman Catholic Church was light years ahead of most Protestants in both sophistication and precision. That no longer seems to be the case.

I wonder if he has really been following along, or if he just picked the thing up in a vacuum and responded sanctimoniously. The problem is, Trueman in this very article demonstrates that he hasn’t got a good grasp on what Roman Catholicism really teaches in this case, about marriage, nor has he identified what they’re talking about when they talk about “adultery”. In most cases, “Roman Catholic moral thinking” is far more sanctimony than it is “sophisticated” or “precise”.

Earlier in the article, he writes:

Last week I stumbled across the document issued recently by the Roman Catholic bishops of Malta. It is an attempt to establish “criteria” for “applying” the now-infamous Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia…

Paragraph 9 of the Maltese bishops’ document is one for the ages: We are told of “complex situations” that might make it “humanly impossible” to avoid illicit sex. I wonder what those situations might be?

“Illicit sex” in this case, in the real world (not a conservative Roman Catholic view) is simply sex between a legally married couple. Traditional, conservative Roman Catholics view these documents as discussing the fate of a Roman Catholic couple, married according to Rome’s “sacramental marriage”, who hasn’t gone through their Annulment process, who gets divorced and civilly re-married.

Trinitarian designations

1. Part of the recent controversy over the (alleged) eternal submission of the Son concerns the significance of Trinitarian designations. To what extent should we draw metaphysical inferences from Trinitarian designations? Consider some typical characteristics of fathers:

i) Fathers are physical

ii) Fathers used to be babies

iii) Fathers come into being

iv) Fathers die

v) Fathers have fathers

vi) Fathers have mothers

This should serve to illustrate the hazards of unbridled extrapolations from theological metaphors. Up to a point it's proper to draw inferences from theological metaphors, but there needs to be controls on the exercise. Consider two checks:

i) Study the usage of fatherhood and sonship as theological metaphors in Scripture 

ii) Consider how God's transcendent attributes delimit the scope of the metaphor

2. Why does Scripture use "father", "son", and "spirit" to designate the persons of the Trinity? 

i) Father and son are interrelated metaphors. Familial metaphors. 

I've suggested that Scripture uses sonship to signify representation, which–in turn–involves two related concepts:

a) Resemblance

b) Agency

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-shadow-god.html

This has the added advantage that it dovetails with another theological metaphor: royal succession. 

ii) Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the first two persons of the Trinity both had fatherly characteristics. Even if that were the case, it's antecedently unlikely that Scripture would employ paternal designations for two persons of the Trinity. In a book that combats polytheism, to speak of two fathers in the Godhead would be very confusing. So even if (ex hypothesi), the first two persons of the Trinity were fatherly, we'd expect Scripture to use two different designations. 

iii) Nicene Christology tries to draw a parallel between the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit. Although that creates a nice symmetry, fatherhood and spiration are not cognate metaphors, unlike fatherhood and generation. The symmetry involves an illicit extension of the familial metaphor to something in a different domain. 

iv) Having used familial designations for the first two persons of the Trinity, we might expect Scripture to make consistent use of familial designations for all three persons of the Trinity. Presumably the reason it doesn't is because fatherhood and sonship exhaust the theologically suitable metaphors for the Godhead. Once again, in a book that combats paganism and polytheism, Scripture could hardly designate the third person of the Trinity as "wife" or "mother" or "daughter". That would evoke all the wrong associations.

So, when it comes to the third person of the Trinity, Scripture uses a metaphorical designation that belongs to a different category than the family. Why does Scripture designate the third person of the Trinity as the "Spirit"? 

Like fatherhood and sonship, this is a flexible metaphor. The designation signifies at least three things:

i) A spirit is an incorporeal person 

ii) The Spirit is the agent of inspiration 

As such, "breath" is a natural metaphor for the spoken word. Scripture as divine speech. 

iii) Breathing is a vital sign. Expiration is a synonym for death

As such, "breath" is a natural metaphor for the agent of spiritual rebirth or spiritual renewal. 

The fact that Scripture employs a theological metaphor to designate the third person of the Trinity that's categorically different from the interrelated theological metaphors employed to designate the first two persons of the Trinity should warn us to be wary about the metaphysical inferences we draw from Trinitarian designations. After all, surely this doesn't mean the third person of the Trinity is a different kind of being than the first two persons of the Trinity. 

Midcourse correction

And just to return to where I started. Let us all reflect for a moment on the dramatic significance of Grudem’s claim about eternal generation.  What he is saying is that the church catholic has for over 1600 years been affirming theologically and liturgically, as the key ecumenical summary of its faith, a document – the Nicene Creed – which in one of its core and defining assertions is superfluous or virtually meaningless or confused (or a wax nose which means whatever any Christian chooses).   

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/once-more-unto-the-breach-and-then-no-more-a-final-reply-to-dr-grude#.V2wzzShW402

Keep in mind that I don't subscribe to the eternal subordination of the Son. That said, Trueman is using exactly, and I do mean exactly–the same objection that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists use in reference to the Protestant faith, viz.

"Consider for a moment the dramatic significance of your claims. What you are saying is that for 1600 years, God allowed the Church to go astray until Luther and Calvin popped in out of the blue!" 

How can Trueman be so blind? 

Fahrenheit 381

A cold war over complementarianism recently became a hot war. I think both sides are wrong in different ways. For convenience, I'll use this post as a frame of reference:

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/fahrenheit-381#.V1w2BShW402

Frankly, as Liam points out, we need to keep our issues with the earthly politics of gender out of our reflections upon the eternal being of God…And when it comes to submission in scripture, the explicit New Testament model for such in marriage is the relationship of the incarnate, crucified Christ and the church, not that of the Father and Son in eternity. Paul’s choice of analogy would seem most significant.

I agree with that. As I've often argued, it's a mistake for some complementarians to ground their position in the Trinity. 

Because we live at a time when good teaching on the differences between men and women is needed more than at any previous moment in history, it is sad that the desire to maintain a biblical view of complementarity has come to be synonymous with advocating not only a very 1950s American view of masculinity but now also this submission-driven teaching on the Trinity.  

i) We might distinguish between the maximal complementarianism of John Piper (to take one example) and the minimal complementarianism of Trueman. As I've explained before, I think Piper's blueprint complementarianism is sometimes arbitrary and painfully self-conscious. 

ii) However, Trueman's minimal complementarianism, which–from what I've read–is confined to the church and the family, while avoiding and evading the implications of biblical manhood and womanhood outside the church and the family, is an exercise in intellectual cowardice. It's an artificially compartmentalized position that refuses to grapple with attacks on gender binaries and heteronormativity by feminism and transgenderism in the military, the workplace, public education, &c. 

iii) In addition, from what I've read, Trueman constantly evokes the bugbear of Kuperian transformationism as his foil, as though that's the only version of social conservativism which Christian Americans espouse. But I daresay most Christian conservatives aren't advocating anything nearly that ambitious. Their position isn't about using political activism to transform the culture. Rather, theirs is a modest retrenchment about preserving or restoring some traditional moral and political norms regarding abortion, euthanasia, parental rights, the Bill of Rights, school choice, consent of the governed, gender binaries, heteronormative values. 

Trueman has a bad habit of taking intellectual shortcuts. He caricatures the opposing view by fabricating a narrative about what it allegedly stands for. Then he directs his rhetorical firepower at this unrepresentative strawman. 

The leaders of the organizations which represent New Calvinism have weathered storm after storm, from Driscollgate onwards, by maintaining a firm grip on the mainstream New Calvinist media, by licensing just enough criticism to reassure concerned onlookers, and by stoic public silence in the face of numerous scandals and controversies…Indeed, the question which the leadership of the various groups associated with New Calvinism -- the Gospel Coalition, CBMW etc.

Here's another example of his modus operandi. He's using the complementarian controversy as a pretext to saddle up his hobbyhorse about the alleged powerbrokers at TGC, &c. It's all very paranoid. This is another one of his confabulations, as though Tim Keller, Don Carson, Joe Carter, and Justin Taylor are New York godfathers who run the city by placing a few phone calls. And it's bound up with his antipathy towards parachurch organizations, even though his day job is at a parachurch organization. 

Do you consider Nicene orthodoxy to be a non-negotiable part of your movement’s beliefs?  Now, we live in a free country and, as Protestants, we are committed to scripture alone as the norming norm.  Thus, you are free to say that Nicene orthodoxy has no place in the church today. You are also free to say that it is something of secondary importance on which Christians can differ.  You are even free to say that the Creed of Constantinople and the Chalcedonian Christology which flowed from it are erroneous and contrary to biblical teaching.  But make no mistake: in doing any of these things you place yourself and therefore your movement not simply outside of the boundaries of the consensus of the confessions of Reformation Protestantism but also outside what has historically been considered orthodox Christianity in its broadest sense.  That is your prerogative and if your conscience and your understanding of the Word of God bind you to it, then you must do it. But you need to be honest and transparent about what you are doing. Subordinationism was found wanting in the fourth century and set aside for very good reason. 

i) It's gratuitous to throw in the creeds of Constantinople and Chalcedon. To my knowledge, that hasn't been challenged by the complementarians in question.

ii) Calvin famously or infamously (depending on your viewpoint) modified traditional Nicene Christology by claiming the Father generates the person of the Son rather than the nature or deity of the Son. Cf. P. Helm, Calvin's Ideas, chap. 2. So Calvin himself didn't regard Nicene Christology as a nonnegotiable, norming norm. 

Moreover, prominent Reformed theologians like B. B. Warfield, Paul Helm, John Frame, John Murray, John Feinberg, and Robert Reymond have taken that a step further by denying the eternal generation of the Son (as well as denying the eternal procession of the Spirit). 

iii) The ancient creeds are not above scrutiny. They must be tested against divine revelation. In addition, every Christian generation must scrutinize its theological patrimony. It's not enough to say, "I believe it because my parents believe it, and their parents believe it." That would make religious identification an accident of birth, be it Calvinists, Lutherans, Arminians, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, &c. 

iv) However, the oddest, most ironic thing about Trueman's reaction is how oblivious he is to the ramifications of his preferred alternative. He presents Nicene Christology as the antithesis of subordination, yet it's arguable that Nicene Christology entails a radical version of eternal ontological subordination. Here's a classic statement of eternal generation–a la Thomism:

The role of a father is “to beget,” just as the meaning of sonship is “to be begotten.” The Father, therefore, is unbegotten, but is origin and progenitor of the Son, who himself does not beget, for there is no “Son” in the Godhead other than himself. That is to say, the whole reality of the Father is to beget, to generate, to give all that he has, namely, his whole divine nature, to the Son. And the whole reality of the Son is to be begotten, to be generated, to receive all that he has, namely, his whole divine nature, from the Father...The life of the Father is an eternal giving of himself whole and entire to the Son. The life of the Son is an eternal receiving of the Father whole and entire.

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/JohnApp.htm#IV

i) On this view, the Son is a product of the Father, like a dream is a figment of the dreamer's imagination. If the dreamer awakens, everything he dreamt about instantly ceases to be. You have a metaphysical asymmetry that goes all the way down to the very bottom of the Son's very existence. The Son's existence is purely receptive and contingent. You may say the Father necessarily originates the Son, but that doesn't change the direction of cause and effect. 

I realize proponents of Nicene Christology deny that eternal generation makes the Son an effect of the Father. But their discomfort with that language evinces discomfort with the logic of their position. Verbal protestations notwithstanding, they can't explicate generation without recourse to causal concepts. 

It makes the divine Son far more contingent than a human son. A human son does not derive his entire nature and existence from his father. And even though his father is a precipitating cause, the end-result is a human being whose existence is thereafter independent of his father. 

By contrast, eternal generation is analogous to continuous creation or theistic idealism, where God sustains the existence of the world by constantly thinking about it. If there were a momentary interruption in God's thought-process or attention span, the world would vanish like a dream. Trueman is so conditioned by the notion of Nicene "orthodoxy" that he hasn't thought through what his own position amounts to.

ii) Moreover, Trueman can't very well take refuge in Calvin's distinction, since that's idiosyncratic. That represents a theological innovation. That falls "outside what has historically been considered orthodox Christianity in its broadest sense."

Not to mention that Calvin's distinction is dubious. What evidence is there that the Father generates the person of the Son rather than the deity of the Son? What reason is there to think that's even possible? 

In a subsequent post, Trueman says:

I simply state that those who get rid of eternal generation and speak of eternal submission are outside of the bounds set by 381 -- which is the ecumenical standard of the church catholic, albeit in the West subject to the revision at Toledo…Eternal generation etc. etc. are also of critical importance, as Constantinople 381 indicates.  

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-rejoinder-to-wayne-grudem#.V1zKLChW5ok

There are some basic problems with that appeal:

i) There's more to councils like Nicea, Chalcedon, and Constantinople than their creedal statements. In addition, you have the conciliar canons. And in the case of Chalcedon, you also have the letter of Pope Leo. 

It's a potential problem when evangelicals cherry-pick church councils. When they pluck the creeds, but discard other conciliar mandates. 

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. If all you're looking for is what is true and useful, then it's fine to be selective in your appropriation of the church councils. 

If, however, the council itself is a criterion of truth, if the fact that a council said it validates the claim, then it's arbitrary to pick and choose what you will believe or enforce. Since people like Trueman seem to be mounting an argument from authority when they appeal to conciliar creeds, their selectivity is ad hoc. 

To treat assertions by "ecumenical councils" as ipso facto decisive presumes an ecclesiology that's at odds with evangelicalism. 

ii) Concerning eternal generation, I don't think it's coincidental that Trueman is a church historian. That's his standard of comparison.

By contrast, I suspect many or most contemporary NT scholars reject eternal generation. That's because the traditional prooftexts for eternal generation were the Johannine title for Jesus as the monogenes huios, taken to mean "only-begotten son". But nowadays, most NT scholars and Greek lexicographers reject that definition. As a result, the bottom has fallen out of the textual basis for eternal generation. (And the textual basis for eternal procession was even thinner.) So we have an ever-widening gap between historical theology and exegetical theology in that regard.

I'm not saying that forecloses further debate. But Trueman's invocation is very one-sided. It reflects his bias as a church historian.  

Parsing manhood and womanhood

There's been a cold war going on between Doug Wilson and the Mortification of Spin over the nature of complementarianism. Denny Burk is another participant in this debate. The flashpoint of the debate was an answer that John Piper gave to a question about policewomen. 

Todd Pruitt made the mistake of using Doug Wilson as a bad example. I generally like Pruitt. He's usually a good culture warrior. He stays informed. But he's no match for Wilson's wit and rhetorical prowess. That exchange went badly for Pruitt.

A better match-up is between Wilson and Trueman, both of whom are witty and rhetorically nimble. But that's not the level at which we need to conduct the debate. This isn't a test of literary panache. There are very serious issues at stake, which require serious analysis. Not just clever repartee. 

One of the tragedies of the slavery/segregation debate is that the right people were wrong and the wrong people were right. By that I mean many of the more orthodox spokesmen were on the wrong side of the issue while many of the less orthodox people were on the right side of the issue.

Problem is, when the most orthodox people are derelict in addressing a social issue, they allow that issue to be defined, by default, by the wrong people. By people with the wrong frame of reference. They will fill the vacuum, and they will misdefine the issue. 

Trueman, for one, suffers from intellectual impatience on this issue. He doesn't want to be bothered with it, beyond a very sketchy position on marriage and church office. But that effectively delegates to secular social engineers all the detailed answered when it comes to society at large. If conservative Christians don't make the intellectual effort, then masculinity and femininity will be defined by feminism, the manosphere, transgender movement, &c. The secular extremists, at various ends of the secular spectrum, will dominate the debate. Extremists (e.g. feminism, transgenderism) and reactionaries (e.g. manosphere). 

In fairness, Trueman is right to be critical of an approach that makes men and women painfully self-conscious about when they are doing, constantly second-guessing their actions, "Is this the manly thing to do?" It's not about making a long list of rules, of do's and don't's. 

Men and women have many overlapping physical and psychological abilities. The question is where the distinctives come into play.

But complementarians of the MOS variety can't successfully oppose the excesses of the patriarchy movement if they are too intellectually negligent to present a concrete alternative. It's incoherent to say "Don't do that!" unless you can say "Do this instead." You can't beat something with nothing. 

Now that may not be Trueman's skill set. But if so, he should recognize his own limitations rather than making his limitations the yardstick.  

However, the approach of Trueman trivializes the issue, as if Christians don't need to give serious consideration to the sociopolitical implications of gender essentialism. Let's block out some of the issues:

i) In defining manhood and womanhood, what's the frame of reference? In complementarianism, manhood and womanhood are to some degree mutually defining. Men have some distinctive masculine virtues, women have some distinctive feminine virtues, and these were meant to supplement each other. Without the moderating influence of each sex, a nature virtue, carried to an extreme, becomes a vice.

By contrast, it's my impression that feminism tries to define womanhood autonomously, without reference to men. The very concept of womanhood is independent of the other sex. 

That's a very different approach, with very different consequences. And, of course, you have vicious internecine wars within feminism regarding the true definition of womanhood.

ii) Another issue is what Robert Bork dubs "coercive equality." This involves the twin notions that women can do whatever men do (or vice versa) and, what is more, women should be doing it at the same rate as men. If not, then this must be due to sexism and discrimination. 

It's not enough to have equality of opportunity, you must have equality of outcome. And if disparity remains despite equality of opportunity, then we must even that out by any means necessary. Demoting qualified men. Promoting unqualified women. Lowering standards. Having quotas. 

iii) Apropos (ii), suppose more men have a natural aptitude, or take a natural interest, in math and science, than women. But, of course, you have exceptions on both sides of the equation. Women who are good at math and science, men who are bad at math and science.

One policy is to give people the freedom to pursue what they are good at, pursue what they find interesting or personally self-fulfilling. 

But that won't satisfy the radical egalitarians. You have feminists who can't grant the possibility that if women are "underrepresented" in certain positions or majors, that's by choice. They refuse to honor the spontaneous preferences of women.  

iv) More controversial is whether some occupations are inherently more suitable for men than women, or vice versa, due to physical differences, psychological differences, or both. 

Christians who believe in gender realism (as Christians should) will draw some lines in that regard, at least in principle. Stock examples include the coed military. 

v) Another example is official hostility towards stereotypical male behavior. From what I've read, the NEA imposes a feminist ideology on education. This results in persecuting boys for thinking and doing what comes naturally to boys. And, more subtly, this stigmatizes girls for thinking and doing what comes naturally to girls. 

vi) On a related note is the question of whether we should have coed team sports and coed contact sports. Likewise, games are typically competitive, which is a stereotypically masculine trait. Not surprisingly, educators who operate with a feminist ideology are opposed to competitive games. In its place they substitute the stereotypically feminine trait of cooperation. Conflict resolution. 

Should Christians op-out of that public policy debate? Retreat into the home and the church? 

vii) It is, moreover, naive to think radical egalitarians will allow Christians to privatize their faith. The social engineers will invade the home and the church. Dictate to parents how they are allowed to raise their kids. 

viii) Although the debate tends to focus on the role of women, what should be the priorities of a man? For instance, many men are very career-minded. How should that be prioritized in relation to their duties as a husband or father? 

ix) Another issue is whether feminism results in a permissive justice system. Consider CA Chief Justice Rose Bird's refusal to uphold capital punishment. Is that an isolated case? Or take jurors. Consider the Menendez trial:

All six women jurors in the Erik Menendez trial voted to acquit him of the murder of his father (all six males voted guilty of murder). A virtually identical breakdown by sex took place in the Lyle Menendez trial for the murder of their mother. The women all had compassion for the brothers despite their confessions to the shotgun murders of their parents. 

To say that the human race needs masculine and feminine characteristics is to state the obvious. But each sex comes with prices. Men can too easily lack compassion, reduce sex to animal behavior and become violent. And women’s emotionality, when unchecked, can wreak havoc on those closest to these women and on society as a whole — when emotions and compassion dominate in making public policy. 

http://www.dennisprager.com/the-feminization-of-society-judeo-christian-values-part-xxii/

New: Dr. Carl Trueman Lectures: “The Reformation”

Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS) has just recently released a new series of iTunesU Lectures on The Reformation. The upload date on the series was 9/29/14, so this is pretty recent.

For anyone who’s interested in learning more on the Reformation at a seminary level, this is a great—and free—resource that you can take advantage of.

Tremper's temper tantrum

Tremper LongmanSeptember 7 at 1:41pm In a word, the present administration insists on a “single meaning” hermeneutic centered on the conscious intention of the human author. Otherwise, they claim, the Old and New Testaments are not really held together.
And this brings us to the pragmatic reason for Doug’s “retirement.” Here we do well to remember then dean of the faculty Carl Trueman’s public statement (even gloat) about the tactics (which I consider manipulative and cynical) of “taking over” the seminary that I posted earlier.
So pragmatically, we are hearing nothing because they are hoping to hunker down and weather the storm.
So what is the take home message from this sermon? I love the history of WTS and what it used to stand for. But I for one, say “don’t support it in any fashion.” They have the right to take the seminary any direction they want, of course. But if you disagree with the direction and even if you do if you find the tactics disgraceful like I do, then don’t give your money, don’t encourage students to go there, don’t support it in any way.
Westminster Theological Seminary is a toxic environment for the training of future pastors. But there is one thing you should do for it… PRAY. Pray that God will save the seminary.
Please feel free to share this post wit anyone, but especially with anyone on the board, faculty, or administration of the seminary. 

https://www.facebook.com/tremper.longman/posts/819313694754593

i) I have it on good authority that Carl Trueman has been on Sabbatical since January, so he wasn't party to this particular action. Now Longman will have to find another actor to play the villain in his melodrama. Maybe Christopher Walken is available. Or perhaps Mads Mikkelsen could reprise his role as Le Chiffre. That would necessitate WTS relocating to Montenegro, but we mustn't let logistics get in the way of a promising thriller. 

ii) I don't know for a fact why Green was ousted. But I think Longman et al. are acting like babes in the woods to assume it was just a matter of fine-grained hermeneutics. Green has a nearly nonexistent paper trail, so I seriously doubt it was based on his publications. 

Rather, I assume it was based on his classroom teaching. And I figure his views were sufficiently similar to those of Enns to merit the same treatment. I could be wrong about that. But it wouldn't be the first time a WTS prof. developed a reputation based on what he said in class.

iii) I wouldn't say a seminary that has Vern Poythress, Gregory Beale, and Iain Duguid is toxic. WTS is stronger in some departments than others. But that just means no one seminary has all the best scholars. 

Of course, toxicity is relative to one's species. In science fiction, aliens often find earth's atmosphere toxic. So I understand why progressives find the air of orthodoxy unbreathable. They can't survive outside their secular space suit. 

The Reformed Church: “Best Understanding of What's Happening in Our Crazy World Today”

Carl Trueman has an article that makes genuine good sense in the current environment.

We live in a time of exile. At least those of us do who hold to traditional Christian beliefs….

But of this I am convinced: Reformed Christianity is best equipped to help us in our exile. That faith was forged on the European continent in the lives and writings of such men as Huldrych Zwingli, Martin Bucer, and John Calvin. It found its finest expression in the Anglophone world in the great Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans of the seventeenth century. It possesses the intellectual rigor necessary for teaching and defending the faith in a hostile environment. It has a strong tradition of reflecting in depth upon the difference between that which is essential and that which, though good, is inessential and thus dispensable. It has a historical identity rooted in the wider theological teachings of the Church. It has deep resources for thinking clearly about the relationship of Church and state.

It’s not surprising that Reformed Christianity equips us well for exile, because it was itself forged in a time of exile, often by men who were literal exiles. Indeed, the most famous Reformed theologian of them all, John Calvin, was a Frenchman who found fame and influence as a pastor outside his homeland, in the city of Geneva. The Pilgrim fathers of New England knew the realities of exile, and the conditions that it imposed upon the people, only too well. Winthrop’s famous comment about being a city on a hill was not a statement of messianic destiny but a reminder to the colonists of the fact that their lives as exiles were to be lived out in the glare of hostile scrutiny. Exile demanded they have a clear and godly identity.

The Reformed Church has its own baggage, but given the nature of its origins and our own moment, it is the right baggage: light when it needs to be light and heavy with the Gospel when it needs to be heavy. A marginal, minority interest in America for well over a century, she does not face the loss of social influence and political aspirations that now confront Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism. We do not expect to be at the center of worldly affairs. We do not imagine ourselves to be running indispensable institutions. Lack of a major role in the public square will cause no crisis in self-understanding.

This does not arise from indifference or a lack of substance, but instead from clarity and focus. Doctrinally, the Reformed Church affirms the great truths that were defined in the early Church, to which she adds the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. She cultivates a practical simplicity: Church life centers on the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, prayer, and corporate praise. We do not draw our strength primarily from an institution, but instead from a simple, practical pedagogy of worship: the Bible, expounded week by week in the proclamation of the Word and taught from generation to generation by way of catechisms and devotions around the family dinner table.

There’s more “quotable Trueman” in there:

It is important to understand that the medieval Church’s failure to produce a theology that instilled this New Testament confidence contributed in significant ways to the Reformation. Luther’s notion of Christian freedom depends upon our clear knowledge of our identity in Christ. The bonds of sin are broken by faith’s secure hold on the truth of the Gospel. The way in which faith gives us a place to stand over and against worldliness was picked up and elaborated by Calvin and other Reformed theologians. The New Testament note of confidence—we really can know and give ourselves to the saving power of Christ—was cultivated by preaching and liturgy. This enabled Protestants to survive and then to thrive in the hostile world of sixteenth-century Europe. Our identity was not mediated by priest or sacrament. Then and today it is grasped by faith in the Word….

For those in physical exile, for those suffering for their faith, for those despised and marginalized by the world around them, the knowledge that history is under God’s control provides encouragement. However weak the Church appears to be, however many setbacks it faces, the end of history is already determined in Christ…

Reformed theology contributed to the rise of the theory of just rebellion, played a role in the English Civil War, inspired the Scottish Covenanters, and gave John Winthrop a vision for building a city on a hill in the New World. The Reformed faith resists being reduced to a type of private pietism. On the contrary, it has often proved a potent social force, even in situations of marginality and exile….

[John Calvin] spent much of his adult life in Geneva and was very influential in the city. But he was a foreigner, a Frenchman abroad, not even a citizen of Geneva for much of his time. He was never even powerful enough to persuade the magistrates to allow him to celebrate communion on a weekly basis. In short, Calvin was an exile, and he wrote his theology from the perspective of an exile. But this did not prevent him from speaking powerfully into the world where he found himself.

Yet there are differences between the Reformed and Rome. Calvin is no Thomas, and the Reformed faith is not Roman Catholicism. Where Thomas saw sin as exacerbating the limitations of nature in a fallen world, Calvin saw sin as bringing a decisive ethical darkness into the world. This difference is important and gives Reformed theology a more realistic understanding of Christian life in the public square and thus of the limits to what we might expect to achieve.

People do not call evil good and good evil primarily because they are confused or not thinking clearly. They do so because they are in basic rebellion against God.

It sounds a tad paradoxical: The Reformed use natural law for public engagement but expect little or no success. We believe that the world was created with a particular moral structure. Yet we also believe that fallen humanity has a fundamental antipathy toward acknowledging any form of external authority that threatens our own ultimate autonomy. This injects a basic irrationality and emotional passion into moral debates. This distortion of conscience and reason explains the apparent impotence of otherwise compelling arguments. And it surely reflects our actual experience as Christians in exile in twenty-first-century America.

I’ve lifted some of the passages that give the article its flavor. You can read the whole article here.

Trueman at cross-purposes

Carl Trueman has an unwittingly ironic post on Tullian Tchividjian. 

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/05/a-call-for-muchneeded-facetofa.php

Tchividjian has been accused of antinomianism. Because he pastors an influential, high-profile, (nominally?) Reformed church, that's a cause for concern. 

I haven't bothered to investigate the allegation. At this point I'm prepared to defer to the judgment of his accusers, who seem to be responsible accusers.  

Trueman makes a point of highlighting the fact that Tchividjian is affiliated with TGC. Trueman is obsessed with TGC. He seems to think it's symptomatic of all that's wrong with evangelicalism. And that's because TGC, as a free association of independent ministries, isn't under the duly constituted authority of a proper ecclesiastical body–by Trueman's yardstick. 

But here's where the unintentional irony comes in. Tchividjian isn't the senior pastor of an independent church. He's not a lone ranger. Rather, he belongs to a confessional Presbyterian denomination. That's precisely the kind of ecclesiastical oversight which Trueman champions. 

If Trueman were consistent, he'd leave it to the PCA to police Tchividjian. I'm no expert on PCA canon law, but it's my understanding that a PCA pastor is answerable to his session. If his session is delinquent, the pastor is answerable to the regional Presbytery. And if the Presbytery is delinquent, the pastor is answerable to the general assembly. The general assembly can appoint a committed to study the issue and report back. It may issue a majority report and minority report. The general assembly can vote on the report (although it's not required to do so). If it votes on the report, that becomes official, enforceable denomination policy. That's my understanding.

The appellate process is inefficient. It operates at a glacial pace. Yet that's Presbyterianism. That's the ecclesiastical process Trueman recommends.

So why is Trueman advocating a public debate that bypasses the established channels of church discipline? Isn't that outside intervention subversive to the ecclesial accountability system that Trueman constantly touts? It seems as if he doesn't really have much faith in the process he champions. He's too impatient. It can't be trusted to yield timely, reliable results. 

What can miserable Christians sing?

"What Can Miserable Christians Sing?" by Carl Trueman.

"Reflections on 'What Can Miserable Christians Sing?'" by Carl Trueman.

Thumb on the scales

I'm going to comment on a post by Carl Trueman:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/04/living-and-then-dying-by-the-e.php

The World Vision flip-flop is fascinating for a variety of reasons, perhaps most of all for me because it reveals the problems of parachurch accountability when a non-ecclesiastical group chooses to take a theological stand on something not directly germane to its self-appointed task.  

Why does Trueman constantly resort to this illogical objection to parachurch organizations? If a parachurch organization fails, that's because it lacks an ecclesiastical accountability system. But what about comparable failures on the part of denominations? Is there some reason Trueman is addicted to fallacious arguments? Why does he chronically ignore glaring counterexamples to his strictures? 

When it announced its change in policy on gay marriage among employees, that did not immediately change its humanitarian purpose but did alienate much of its financial base.  That base then mobilized to force a reversal.
The Mozilla situation is similar.  The competence of Brendan Eich to run the company is not affected by his private opinions, despite the usual histrionic attempts to characterize any deviation from the accepted line on same-sex marriage as dangerous bigotry.  Yet a powerful part of the financial base took exception to his views and used their economic muscle to force change on the organization.

Was there in fact a large-scale threat to boycott Mozilla? Are statistics available on the "part of the financial base took exception to his views"? 

Christians should accept that those who live by the sword of legitimate economic sanctions in one context might well find themselves dying by the same legitimate economic sword in another. That is the price, or the risk, of freedom.

Problem with that comparison is that we are not, in fact, in a libertarian environment where free-market forces cut both ways. Rather, gov't has its thumb on the scales. Judges, lawmakers, presidents, governors, and attorney generals weigh in on the side of the homosexual lobby.

Indeed, I've read that it was the IRS which illegally leaked his contribution. So this is not the price of freedom. It's the price of a banana republic. 

Jaywalking

That accountability question has always been the Achilles' Heel of the evangelical parachurch movement.  

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/03/celebrity-pastors-a-retrospect.php 

The result is that a pastor's power and influence are intentionally enhanced and expanded while accountability is in practice detached from a proper ecclesiastical body.  

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/03/for-what-its-worth.php

This is Trueman's hobbyhorse, which he keeps riding into the ground. His objection isn't confined black sheep like Mark Driscoll. He constantly has TGC in the crosshairs, as well as parachurch movements generally.

By "accountability" to a "proper ecclesiastical body," I assume he's alluding to something like Presbyterian polity. But is that the solution?

i) To begin with, his position commits one to denominations. The alternative to independent local churches is a denomination. Now, I myself don't think there's anything inherently wrong with denominations. But it's not as if the Pastoral Epistles defined a "proper ecclesiastical body" as a denomination. To the contrary, they focus on the internal dynamics of the local church. 

ii) Having formal accountability structures doesn't ensure accountability. Liberal mainline denominations (e.g. PC-USA, ECUSA, CRC, ELCA) have formal accountability structures, yet that didn't prevent them from sliding into heterodoxy and heteropraxy. Indeed, church gov't enforces whatever the leaders believe. 

iii) The celebrity/megachurch dynamic is hardly confined to independent churches or parachurch ministries. Take Joel Gregory's expose of Dallas First Baptist.

When PCA pastor James Kennedy became incapacitated, a bloodbath ensued from control of his empire, resulting in a very ugly, damaging transition. Some have chided Kennedy for failing to groom a successor, but to my knowledge, a Presbyterian pastor lacks the authority to designate an heir apparent. 

Likewise, Ergun Caner was unanimously elected by the board of trustees to head a Baptist college. That travesty wasn't due to the lack of an accountability system. 

If a church board is packed with cronies, it will rubber-stamp malfeasance. Indeed, all parties may be on the take. 

iv) To my knowledge, Peter Enns is still a PCA elder in good standing. Technically, he's accountable to a "proper ecclesiastical body," but why hasn't he been held accountable? Where's the heresy trial? 

v) Beyond allusion to plural eldership, the Pastorals don't really say anything about an accountability system. Rather, they focus on the moral character of the elder. Choose a man of good character. There's no substitute for personal rectitude. 

Ultimately, it's not accountability structures that keep elders in check, but elders that keep accountability structures in check. That's why Paul makes the paradoxical statement that the law is for the lawless (1 Tim 1:9). Men of integrity don't need it. They do right without it. 

vi) Trueman acts as if the important thing is to be run over at a crosswalk rather than jaywalking. Follow procedure for procedure's sake. 

Inside the celebritydrome

One thing I've noticed in the Driscoll "plagiarism" scandal (I put plagiarism in scare quotes because we're dealing with a technical allegation) is the lack of ethical self-awareness on the part of some of his trigger-happy accusers. From the standpoint of Christian ethics, the same moral norms equally apply to the accuser and the accused. Assuming that the accused is guilty of misconduct, that doesn't exempt the accuser from being ethical in how he conducts his allegations. For instance, Carl Trueman has been one of Driscoll's most prominent critics in this current affair. And I've seen his criticisms touted by others. 

Before quoting him, I'd like to make a general observation. By his own admission, Trueman ties the Driscoll affair into a larger pattern. It's part of Trueman's ongoing campaign against The Gospel Coalition, and all that represents. And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. If he thinks TGC is fundamentally flawed, he's entitled to make his case.

The problem is when the facts are secondary to the agenda. When you don't think you have to get the details right because your cause is virtuous. So we're treated to Trueman's throwaway disclaimers about how he's not vouching for the particulars, even though he's circulating those allegations to make a cumulative case against TCG or the "celebritydrome of the evangelical subculture."

But he really needs to slow down. If the accused is charged with failing to make proper attributions, then the accuser needs to make proper attributions. 

I commented at the weekend that Janet Mefferd's allegations of plagiarism against Mark Driscoll should be fairly easy to establish on the grounds that we have empirical evidence in the form of texts to compare.  She has posted a link to photographic plates here.  Regardless of whether one is instinctively inclined to like Ms. Mefferd or Mr. Driscoll, text is text and you can judge for yourselves who is in the right.  The second set, from comments on the Petrine epistles, is particularly noteworthy.
Elsewhere, Frank Turk has highlighted a few weird aspects of the whole affair.  Again, I make no comment on his statements as he provides evidence by which one can judge for oneself the plausibility of his interpretation.

Notice how Trueman covers his own tracks by invoking plausible deniability. He isn't personally vouching for the accusations. He's merely referring interested readers to what others have said. You can judge the evidence for yourself. But there are ethical problems with that tactic:

i) It's easy to foster a misimpression by selective presentation of the "evidence." So unless Trueman has independently investigated the evidence, he's in no position to say if that's representative. He's lending credibility to the charge by lending credibility to Mefferd. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But don't try to have it both ways. Either you think Mefferd is a reliable source or not. You give credence to the allegation by giving credence to the reporter. So be honest and upfront about what you're doing.

ii) It's also too much like a Fox News anchor reporting that CNN just reported that the FBI has arrested Richard Jewell as its suspect in the Centennial Olympic Park bombing. If it turns out Jewell was falsely accused, the Fox News anchor is supposedly off the hook because he didn't personally allege that Jewell was the suspect. He was merely reporting what another news outlet was reporting. This is something we see every so often, where the reputation of innocent ordinary citizens is ruined or tarnished by word-of-mouth. 

Over at First Thoughts, Collin Garbarino offers some very perceptive comments on the Driscoll plagiarism affair.  He makes the point that such activity receives a failing grade at his university.  I would only add that at Westminster it also involves automatic suspension from the degree program followed by discussion with the powers that be about whether Christian ministry is really an option for the perpetrator.

Several issues:

i) To begin with, universities can have double standards on plagiarism. Harvard has one standard for students, but another for faculty. Laurence Tribe was snagged in a blatant plagiarism scandal, but he didn't lose his job. He wasn't even demoted. 

ii) I'm sure most seminaries define plagiarism in the student handbook. They define plagiarism for students. But do they define plagiarism for pastors? A sermon is not a term paper. How many seminaries are giving students practical guidelines for what does and doesn't constitute plagiarism in the pulpit? 

iii) There's more than one way to cheat. A seminary prof. can cheat his students if he fails to do his job. On the face of it, Trueman doesn't take his day-job very seriously. He was hired to teach church history. Isn't that his real job? Isn't that a full-time job? But he also moonlights as a pastor. Jets around the world on speaking engagements. Does a radio show. Churns out a steady stream of op-ed pieces. And so on and so forth.  

Isn't he spreading himself pretty thin? Does he really have time to keep abreast of the secondary literature in his own field, much less conduct original research in church history? How many books and articles are published each year in church history? 

Trueman recently wrote a morally pretentious article on "Why is So Much Preaching So Poor?" I say "morally pretentious" because I have to ask how much time does Truemen devote to sermon preparation? Driscoll does 1-2 hours per week while Mark Dever does 35-40 hours per week. Where does Trueman fall along the spectrum? Or what about nurturing one's prayer-life. For instance, Trueman recently said:

My children have to be at school by 7:30, so I rise at about 6:15 to 6:30. I usually wait until I arrive at work, ca. 8 a.m., to have devotions. Westminster offices do not open till 8:30 so this gives me a half hour of peace and quiet. 

Maybe that's one reason why so much preaching is so poor. 

The Mefferd-Driscoll controversy points to another aspect of celebrity culture: celebrities are routinely allowed to behave in ways which would not be tolerated in ordinary mortals. 

Couldn't the same thing be said for celebrity church historians who shirk their professional duties? Is Trueman part of the solution, or part of the problem?