Thursday, October 6, 2011
Together for Church
In a post last week I suggested that the label churchman was more attractive to me than the label evangelical. The first question asked by a conscientious reader, naturally, was "what kind of churchman?" It was a good question and I agree that stipulation can be useful in this discussion. But my concern is that the very idea of ecclesiastical subscription as the primary vehicle for guarding the gospel has fallen on hard times--irrespective of the particular flavor one has in mind.
I take as my cue on this issue two Presbyterians, Carl Trueman and Darryl Hart. As a Baptist, I have deep-seated concerns about a handful of the teachings of their church, and I frankly couldn't share the Table with either one. But I think both of them are on to something in their advocacy of churchmanship and confessionalism as superior to evangelicalism as a means of guarding the Gospel.
The pillar and ground of the truth will never be T4G. The pillar and ground of the truth is the Church. And God has equipped the church as his appointed means of guarding the Gospel in the context of a holistic network of theological concerns collectively described in Scripture as "The Faith." I'm rather ambivalent about Gospel get-togethers. I don't see them as particularly dangerous, but I see their usefulness as singularly limited by the absence of the kinds of structure necessary to the guardianship of the faith. The church is in possession of this structure.
It's easy to adopt the label evangelical. It's handed out free just about everywhere. The label churchman is earned over time in the crucible of Christian experience. I covet the latter label more than the former. Getting together for the Gospel every two years undoubtedly has some value, but not nearly so much value as getting together for church every Sunday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Mark Snoeberger
- After growing up in the great state of Pennsylvania, I settled down in 1994 with my new bride, Heather, in Allen Park, Michigan, and have been here at Detroit Baptist Seminary ever since (with a bit of time away for doctoral work). Since 2007 I have been privileged to be a part of the systematic theology faculty here. I love teaching, researching and writing, hunting with my two boys, and enjoying any little bit of God's unadulterated creation I can find (which means I occasionally have to get out of Detroit). But all these things matter to me only because theology matters. For it is God himself who gives all men life and breath and everything else (Acts 17:25).
4 comments:
Hi Mark:
Your statement that you "frankly couldn't share the Table with either one" (Trueman & Hart) jumped out at me. If they attended our church I would gladly share the Table with them and would do so at their church if invited. I'm curious about your reasoning behind your position. Is it because they haven't been scripturally baptized as you understand it as a Baptist? Since it is the Lord’s Table isn’t it for the Lord’s people or is it just for the Lord’s people who are like us? Maybe I don’t understand what you mean by “share the Table.”
Steve Davis
Our church practices close communion, so we extend communion to immersed believers who are members of duly constituted local churches (i.e., churches of "like faith and practice"). It's a fairly common Baptist position (I think you know that), and I am in full agreement with the position.
Since we view believer's baptism by immersion to be the entry rite into local church community and the Lord's Table as a rite whereby that community is both perpetuated and also policed, we do restrict the Table. This is not a judgment about the faith of those excluded, but a theological corollary of our distinctive ecclesiology--we cannot share the Table with anyone who could not be a member.
So to answer your specific question, no, I don't see the Lord's Table as for the Lord's people in a universal sense. It is a local church ordinance.
What's wrong with the simple term "confessional"? It communicates Reformed soteriology, a thoughtful approach to theology in general, and it is historically recognizable especially if it is connected to a specific confession.
"Churchman" doesn't necessarily communicate those distinctives.
By the way, it's very refreshing to see a fundy who's not afraid of the doctrines of grace. Nice header.
To Steve and Mark, I would add that baptism is the public confession of Christ as Lord in the NT. The mark of "the Lord's people" is baptism as a confession of faith in Christ as Lord. Apart from that confession by baptism, we have no biblical way to declare someone to be a part of the believing community, and therefore, eligible to remember Christ's death in communion.
Post a Comment