by Sam Waldron | Mar 2, 2011 | Family-Integrated Church
In my last blog I gave my “Baptist” critique of the idea that the church is family-based or simply an extension of the family. I stand by it. Scott Brown and Voddie Baucham are, however, quite concerned to make the point that that this is not what they mean by calling the church a family of families. I cited Voddie’s blogs on this subject last time. Here is the link to Scott’s article entitled: Is the Church a “Family of Families?”
In these articles/blogs these brothers are quite concerned to make clear that when they call the church a “family of families,” they are not talking about either the nature of the church or the membership of the church, but to use Voddie’s language the structure of the church.
Now I have to confess that this is still not perfectly clear to me. Part of me wants to argue with Voddie and ask if he would not agree that the nature and membership of the church should control the structure of the church. I feel inclined, in other words, to quibble about the clarity of the word, structure.
On the other hand, I think after some reflection on their articles and blogs that Scott and Voddie are saying something like this. By saying that they are referring to the structure of the church in using the phrase, “family of families,” I believe they are referring to their convictions about how the church should structure its ministry and outreach program. Voddie at the end of his blog says: “As a church, we simply prefer this ‘biblical’ category to the ones forced upon us by the culture. Thus, if we have to choose between a structure that resembles the modernist, secular humanist government education system (divided by age/clique in a Sunday “school”) and the one found everywhere in Scripture, we choose the latter; not as an attempt to redefine the nature and essence of the church, but simply to reassess its structure. All of this is done with a view toward fulfilling the Great Commission with the greatest possible fidelity to the text. If our ‘family of families’ terminology has communicated anything else, please forgive us.”
I invite Scott and Voddie to correct me if I am wrong, but as I read them here is what I think they are saying. Every church should be concerned to fulfill the great commission in ways that go beyond simply preaching and administering the sacraments at the meetings of the church for worship. The “corporate church” or “the program-oriented church” common in our day seek to do ministry and outreach by creating a plethora of programs for every conceivable set of needs. In particular they seek to “do ministry” by creating age-segregated Sunday school classes and youth programs which tend to splinter and over-commit families. I hear them saying that such programs are counterproductive and what we need to do instead is to work on and through the family unit. They believe this focus is more biblical and will ultimately be more effective than the splintering of the family which is the effect (possibly un-intended) of the so-called “corporate church.” Hence, in the church they reject youth pastors, junior churches, age-segregated Sunday school classes, and even nurseries. Outside the church they encourage home-schooling, discourage women working outside the home, and anything else that tends to divide the family and hinder the discipleship of children and Christian outreach to which the home should be dedicated.
To make a long story short, I hear Scott and Voddie affirming that when they say the church the church is a family of families, they are referring to their ‘philosophy of church ministry.’ I think this is what they mean by the church being a “family of families.” I honestly would like to know from them if I have properly understood them.
If I am right about what they mean, I don’t think the description of the church as a “family of families” is a very clear way of saying this. I think Voddie is right to have owned some of the blame for the critiques that have been launched against them through the misunderstanding this phrase engenders. As I said above, I think that other wings of the family-integrated church movement actually mean a lot more than this when they speak of the church being “family-based” and “simply an extension of the family” and deserve the critique I summarized in the previous blog.
But I also think (again if I am right) that the movement represented by men like Scott and Voddie is to be critiqued, it should be based on what they actually intend to say—what they actually mean—and not on an honest, but mistaken, view of what they meant.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Richard Barcellos | Mar 2, 2011 | Audio/Video, Books, Hermeneutics, Podcast, Practical Theology, Preaching
R. Scott Clark interviews Dennis Johnson concerning his book Him We Proclaim. I recommend the book highly, especially chapters 4. The Complication, Chastening, Rejection, and Recovery of Apostolic Preaching in the History of the Church, 5. Challenges to Apostolic Preaching, and 7. Theological Foundations of Apostolic Preaching. The interview can be listened to here.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by CBTSeminary | Mar 1, 2011 | Apologetics, Systematic Theology
I always enjoy listening to the Christ the Center podcast. In their latest episode, K. Scott Oliphint is interviewed on presuppositional apologetics. I found this to be a fruitful and edifying conversation on how we should defend the Christian faith, and I especially appreciated their critical examination of the well-known Clark/Van Til controversy. So please take the time to download and listen to this discussion!
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
by Richard Barcellos | Mar 1, 2011 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology
Introduction: Christian hermeneutics includes a study of those interpreters and schools of interpretation in the Christian theological tradition who, in fact, may not be Christian in the soteriological sense. This field of study usually starts with the second century A.D. and carries on into the present era. In our study of Christian hermeneutics, we will select some highlights along the historical continuum to introduce students to the main practitioners and interpretive schools. We will concentrate on the Apostolic Fathers/Patristics, the schools of Alexandria and Antioch, the four-fold method (quadriga) of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and Reformation, the Reformed orthodox of the post-Reformation era, the Enlightenment, nineteenth-century Germany, Princeton Seminary prior to and including Geerhardus Vos, and briefly look at the end of the twentieth century. This will give us a wide-ranging look at the key players and key movements.
It is of interest to note that, at least in the past, historical Christian interpretive methods have received a highly negative assessment from conservative Evangelicals. Patristic methods, for example, have been down-played as models for us to emulate. In the words of C. S. Lewis, a sort of “chronological snobbery” seems to be part of the reason for this. The Middle Ages are viewed as casting a dark shadow over the church in terms of hermeneutical method (and just about everything else). Though all agree that the Reformers got back to the Bible, their immediate successors, the post-Reformation Protestant Scholastics, so the theory goes, supposedly left the Bible and substituted it with a neo-Aristotilian, Confessional/Dogmatic Scholasticism that utilized careless proof-texting, an ad nauseam hyper-syllogistic form of argumentation, and left the Christocentric hermeneutical emphasis of Calvin. Some even view the post-Reformation Protestant Scholastics as precursors of the rationalistic Enlightenment.[1]
This highly negative assessment of the history of Christian interpretive method has been challenged and is slowly being qualified and modified in our day.[2] Granted, no one is so naive to assert that all interpretive methods throughout the history of the church are equally valid or that there are no bad examples. What is being recognized, however, is that we have much to learn from the history of Christian hermeneutics and we need to sit humbly at the feet of those who have gone before us and carefully listen.
As will be noted below, the Enlightenment caused a revolution in hermeneutical theory. It sought to make hermeneutics an objective science and effectively took God out of the hermeneutical equation. The meaning of biblical texts was limited to what the interpreter thought the human author (or editors) intended. In the name of objectifying hermeneutics, a subjective principle was smuggled into Evangelicalism as a cure-all for interpretive conclusions. Human authorial intent became the goal and end-all of biblical interpretation. However, in order to determine human authorial intent, interpreters became dependent upon background sources, which are neither infallible, nor objective. Pre-Enlightenment/pre-critical interpreters did not limit the meaning of texts to the human author. Human authorial intent as the end-all of interpretation is a post-Enlightenment phenomenon and, in essence, has caused several generations of Evangelical interpreters to shun pre-critical hermeneutical practitioners as worthy examples of biblical interpretation. As Moises Silva says, “…the popular assumption [is] that the Christian church, through most of its history, has misread the Bible.”[3] Our brief survey will attempt to show that a more positive assessment is warranted.
[1] Cf. Richard C. Barcellos, The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology: Geerhardus Vos and John Owen – Their Methods of and Contributions to the Articulation of Redemptive History (Owensboro, KY: RBAP, 2010), 53-107.
[2] See the relevant discussions in Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, Moises Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?,” Dennis E. Johnson, Him We Proclaim and Richard C. Barcellos, The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology, specifically, 66-78.
[3] Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?,” 33. Cf. 34-37 for Silva’s discussion of F. W. Farrar’s negative assessment of most of the church’s interpretive history. Cf. David C. Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 95-109, for Steinmetz’s discussion of “Calvin and Isaiah” in the context of the history pre-critical exegesis. Steinmetz takes Farrar to task (esp. pp. 95 and 107).
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
