In this post, Russell Moore makes a sharp distinction between Christianity and almost-Christianity. He did so in a way that made me think of the distinction between a great point and almost-a-great-point.
Moore is talking about the results of a Pew Center study which shows that nominal Christianity is taking it on the chin. Christians who actually believe what they say they believe are holding their own, and Moore rejoices in the vibrancy of faithful churches, and rejoices also in the collapse of the ecclesiastical also-rans.
What he says is all quite true, and pretty helpful, and . . . almost a great point. But there is a vast territory to be explored in this sentence of his in the penultimate paragraph. “We’ve been on the wrong side of history since Rome, and it was enough to turn the world upside down.” Right — but what happens in an upside down world? What then?
There is absolutely no way to create a vibrant center without also creating a wanna-be periphery. If there is the vibrant faith that Moore and I both want, then there will be worldly counterfeit versions of it. If there are no worldly counterfeits, then that means there is nothing there worth counterfeiting.
So, I would propose a toast, and you can quote me, two cheers for nominal Christianity!
La Rochefoucauld once said that “hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue,” but once true virtue is recognized as such by a significant number of people, you cannot keep the knock-offs from happening. It was happening when Christians were still being thrown to the lions. It was happening when Ananias and Sapphira were fudging the numbers on their sale documents. Such fakeries are not good things in themselves, obviously, but there is no way to have that which really is genuinely good without creating an array of common grace goods, or special grace spillover goods.
So while I agree with Moore that you can get to Hell from Mayberry as well as from Gomorrah, a robust Christian faith, as part of turning the world upside down, will create a bunch of Mayberrys. And Gomorrahs, not so much.
Why did this guy pick on the Bible Belt and NASCAR? Is he trying to be cool? It isn’t working if he is.
Good points Doug. The thing that frustrates me is that Moore seems to miss that many of these nominal Christian’s children become genuine Christians because their not-really Christian parents take them to church every week out of social obligation. A corollary to what Moore wrote is that it is better for these kids to not have the chance to hear the gospel as children for the sake of not having phony Christians. I assert that if these kids don’t go to church with semi Christian parents then they won’t hear the gospel until they are neck deep in the world,… Read more »
+1
Hypocrisy is a particular obsession of modern thinking, as a result of its individualism. It’s much better for social order for people to commit sin in secret and condemn it publicly than to commit sin in the open and demand its acceptance. A properly functioning Christian society will necessarily create hypocrites out of sinners by enforcing social and legal sanctions against open sin. On the other hand, this reduces the temptations present in general social life. Better half a loaf than none.
ashv,
Exactly. With a more restrained social order there will be fewer “…angelic visitors in there who have to be dragged out into the streets of San Francisco and shown the sights.” even if closeted sin rejoices at the thought.
This is not a denial of repentance and regeneration. It is an affirmation that a rising tide influences all boats.
In Reformed Is Not Enough, Doug wrote, “…according to the Bible, a Christian is one who would be identified as such by a Muslim.” Isn’t your “objective Covenant boundary” (baptism) a built-in wannabe periphery? The seeds of nominalism are built into your parochial “picket fence” misunderstanding of the New Covenant. Christians are identified in the same way that Communists are: the Church is a gathering of those who share the same allegiance. This is not a difficult concept. Nobody is born a Communist. The whole idea of a “Christendom” is just nominal Christianity given a positive spin. I’m not against… Read more »
The vibrant center Doug & co want is “not a regenerate one”?? Huh? If it’s not regenerate, it’s not vibrant. But I say infants can be regenerate. If not, at what age did Jesus get saved? I say the same Holy Ghost who physically caused Jesus’s very conception can spiritually regenerate at any age He pleases, including in the womb or before speech. (My 2-year-old doesn’t talk nearly as much as she understands.) I say if children can’t have faith, then they can’t be justified by faith, so either they go to Hell or “justification by faith alone” (justification by… Read more »
Hi Andrew “I say the same Holy Ghost who physically caused Jesus’s very conception can spiritually regenerate at any age He pleases, including in the womb or before speech.” Yes, you say that. But God says faith comes by hearing. This is because faith is ethical in nature, related to the conscience, and self judgment – eyes opened not physically but ethically, as it was for Adam and Eve. Physical eyes are the first birth and ethical eyes are the second. But then you guys and gals are so brilliant that your babies are born with law degrees, which is… Read more »
Hi Mike,
Given your strong statements here, could you please elaborate on your perspective regarding John the Baptist in Luke 1:15, as well as what you believe is going on in Psalm 8:2 (and accordingly, Matthew 21:16)? Much appreciated.
Mike Bull sees a radical distinction between God’s covenants and their respective covenant signs. Mike would associate baptism with the new “ethical eyes open” condition, and circumcision with old “physical eyes”, having to do with bloodlines, etc. So in his hermeneutic, Mike could tolerate an infant being circumcised in the old covenant (ethical eyes still closed anyway), but he wouldn’t tolerate an infant being baptized without ethical eyes open. This kind of radical covenant isolation misses the close Scriptural association of circumcision with ethical awareness and uprightness. God requires His people in the old covenant to circumcise their hearts and… Read more »
katecho,
Jesus says, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” Why do you say water baptism is the sign of the new covenant?
Baptism is the sign of the new covenant that corresponds with circumcision as a sign in the old. These two are signs of God’s covenant claim of ownership and of covenant belonging, but they relate very closely with the other signs. So I don’t suggest that baptism in any way conflicts with the covenant as represented in the Lord’s Supper. No need to reconcile friends. In fact, both baptism and special sacrificial covenant meals are prefigured quite strongly in the old covenant as well. My point is to show the relatedness of all these things across both covenants, rather than… Read more »
“Baptism is the sign of the new covenant that corresponds with circumcision as a sign in the old. These two are signs of God’s covenant claim of ownership and of covenant belonging.” Not true. Christ now claims all people. Because circumcision of heart made both circumcision AND uncircumcision redundant, there is no longer any need for a sign upon infants. Regarding Covenant continuity, this is the continuity between the cutting of sacrificial flesh (circumcision) and the fragrant smoke of faithful testimony on the lips, a heart that pleases God. Paedobaptism is a perverse hybrid of flesh and obedience. So there… Read more »
katecho,
Asserting that water baptism is the sign of the new covenant does not make it so. I’m not aware of any scripture that identifies water baptism as the sign of the new covenant. Rather, Peter tells us that water baptism corresponds to Noah and his family being brought safely through water. And water baptism now saves [us], “not as a removal of
dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience,
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Perhaps Barry is operating with his own special definition of what a covenant sign is. Regardless, I’ve tried to explain that baptism is the new covenant sign that corresponds with circumcision, and that this does not make baptism the only new covenant sign or ritual. I’ve shown how sprinkling (baptism) in the old covenant was closely connected with the sacrificial blood which was sprinkled on the altar and on the people. Blood and water are recurring themes in both old and new covenant rituals. Preparation of the sacrificial meal was bloody, sprinkling (baptism) with the blood was bloody, circumcision was… Read more »
katecho, you write:
‘Notice how Paul connects the old covenant sign of circumcision directly with ethics and uprightness before God:
“But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of
the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from
men, but from God.” — Romans 2:29’
Paul isn’t connecting the old covenant sign of circumcision (physical circumcision) directly with ethics and uprightness before God. In the context, he is explaining true circumcision, contrasting it with physical circumcision.
That’s simply incorrect. Paul is hardly contrasting God’s sign of physical circumcision with the righteousness that God expects in our hearts. Those are in harmony, as God designed. (Remember that Paul had Timothy circumcised.) Rather Paul is contrasting those who have a circumcised heart from those who don’t, period, regardless of whether they have the outward circumcision. Physical circumcision was not to be a substitute for heart circumcision (just as physically binding the Law to hand and forehead was not to be a substitute for actual Lawful actions and thoughts). The outward was to represent the inward state of righteousness.… Read more »
Boy, talking about missing the actual point of circumcision. True circumcision of heart arrived at Pentecost, rendering circumcision of flesh redundant. That means that paedobaptism is also redundant. A truly biblical baptism does not point to circumcision of heart, it celebrates it. Your baptism is meaningless.
Thanks JH – certainly. John was the greatest “born of women” – but still less than anyone who was born again. It amazes me that paedobaptists use miraculous signs to support their doctrine. If all Covenant babies were “filled with the Spirit” why even mention it? John pointed to Christ even in the womb. Do you expect your babies to do that? John’s ministry was all about the coming of the Seed, the fruit of the womb, and the end of the promises concerning the Land. That Covenant is finished. Get over it. Jesus had no children because the New… Read more »
Jesus doesn’t put a period after “nursing infants” in his quotation of Psalm 8 (Matt. 21:16).
Sure – make it a semi colon then. But a) You’ve still missed His point, which is about the failure of Jewish leaders to recognise Him, the one whom the texts their infants were trained to recite spoke about, b) He’s quoting a snippet of a text His audience was familiar with, so we need to check that text. So my point about the Psalmist quoting Deut. stands (the KJV renders it the most similar to Ps. 8). Of course my main argument is that if you have to go panning for texts to manipulate into support for a rite… Read more »
The point of the singing of the song of Moses was not to condemn simply, but to bring conviction, so that disobedient Old Covenant Israel repented and believed. How could God’s word (sung by children) affect adults, and leave the singers themselves untouched, in the sovereign working of the Spirit? It was meant to affect the children who learned it by memory. Nothing in the Bible suggests that God doesn’t work this same way today. If one believes that physical circumcision was only about the flesh, no Scriptures regarding children, repentance, and faith under the Old Covenant administration (such as… Read more »
Thanks John – I don’t disagree with you on this. But there is a difference between cultivation and fruit. Israel was God’s cultivated land, a people under the ministry of the Word. Circumcision was the boundary of that people, a sign upon all males (not a sign upon offspring). That boundary no longer exists. Baptism is NOT about cultivation but about fruit, in this case the fruits of the Spirit (not the womb). So I am all for cultivation, but the beauty of the New Covenant and its sign is that when there is spiritual fruit, one’s heredity (i.e. whether… Read more »
Actually, you do disagree, if you make circumcision about heredity and blood ties. Because Paul says circumcision was about the gospel, faith, and justification.
Circumcision was a sign to Abraham, concerning the fruit of the womb and the fruit of the land (note that these are tied together in the 5th commandment). It was all about firstfruits of the earth. Baptism is about the firstborn from the dead. Both are about the Gospel, but the focus has shifted.
And I know which I’d rather live in.
I think your point is almost a good one- and I think Moore roughly agrees with you. He says: “the number of Americans who identify as Christians has reached an all-time low, and is falling. I think this is perhaps bad news for America, but it is good news for the church.” Bad news for America, he says, which means that he thinks that Mayberry is a better cultural influence than Gomorrah. If you think this still indicates a declining proclamation of Real Christianity in the USA (because fewer hypocrites are bothering), I think you’re probably reading too much into… Read more »