Guest Post by John Inglis Re: Carl Trueman’s First Things Article “A Church for Exiles”

Last updated on: September 2, 2014 at 7:08 am by Roger E. Olson

Guest Post by John Inglis Re: Carl Trueman’s First Things Article “A Church for Exiles” 2014-09-02T07:08:50-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Guest Post by John Inglis Re: Carl Trueman’s First Things article “A Church for Exiles”

From Roger Olson: I agree with those who have suggested that frequent commenter John Inglis is an excellent and insightful writer. I asked him to work one of his recent comments into a guest post for this blog and below is his response. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Carl Trueman’s “A Church for Exiles” and Roger Olson’s response are worth working through carefully: if Christianity is at the margins, and is a church in exile, then how we deal with that issue is very important. Consequently, I contributed a number of responding posts to professor Olson’s lead post. In my posts I have tried to elaborate on what I see as deficiencies in Trueman’s approach to being a church in exile as well as point to other theological traditions (particularly anabaptist) which have riches that are needed by a church in exile. In what follows I discuss two further inadequacies of Trueman’s article.
The two additional inadequacies seem endemic to Reformed responses because they appear to be blind spots in Reformed theologizing. First is an overly heavy emphasis on the Bible / the Word. Second is an un-nuanced and kneejerk use of historical (i.e., dead) Reformed theologians. Before I address those two matters, however, I do want to acknowledge that Reformed theologians themselves can be and have been insightful and critical of their own church. For example, in Nazi Germany Karl Barth wrote, “For the millions that suffer unjustly, the Confessing Church does not yet have a heart. When it speaks, it speaks only about its own affairs.” I note that Barth’s words are applicable to more than just that period of time.
Trueman’s emphasis on “the Word” and his lack of emphasis on Jesus bothers me quite a bit—and more each time I read his article. Trueman writes that the church draws its strength from, ” the Bible, expounded week by week in the proclamation of the Word and taught from generation to generation by way of catechisms and devotions” and corporate performance of that “Word” in liturgy. Throughout his article, Trueman unreflectively uses “Word” with reference to the Bible as if that is its only reference. But for New Testament writers the Word is primarily Jesus.
It is Jesus as the Word who saves us; the Word that was in the beginning and which was God (Jn. 1). “[A]nd you do not have his [the Father’s] word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life (Jn 5:38f., not the contrast between Word and Scripture). It is Jesus who saves by joining of us to him as a branch is to a vine, so that we share in the indwelling Spirit (Jn. 15).
Does Paul write that he preaches the Bible (the OT)? No. What does Paul write? “I preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23). He and the other writers focus on Jesus, on the good news of Jesus Christ—the gospel. It is not the Bible that saves, but Jesus. Of course Paul will refer to the witness of scripture to support his argument (1 Cor. 1:19, 34) and he does correctly note that people must hear about Jesus in order to be saved (Rom. 10:14, 1 Tim. 4:13), but Scripture is not life in and of itself.
The automatic emphasis and primacy of Trueman’s references to the “Word” (a.k.a. Bible) strikes me as symptomatic of scholasticism, which has been a perennial problem of the Reformed. I am reminded of T.F. Torrance’s stories of encounters with people who asked him, “is God really like Jesus?” That repeated question greatly troubled him, and drove part of how he worked out his ministry of Christ to others. That question is the sort that comes out of a church that is too scholastic and too confident in its theological answers, and not sufficiently focussed on Jesus and on his very practical commands to live out true religion.
On this first point I give the last word to Swiss Reformed theologian Barth who was quite critical of the church of his time and found himself increasingly Christocentric (I think it significant that Trueman does not refer to Barth): “I suddenly realized that I could not any longer follow either their ethics and dogmatics or their understanding of the Bible and of history. For me at least, 19th-century theology no longer held any future” (“The Humanity of God”).
With Barth’s critical abandonment of older theologians, I turn now to Truman’s unuanced blanket approval of Puritan theology, and his implicit assumption that if we returned to that theology we would have the wisdom, knowledge and strength to live in exile. But while there is good in Puritan theology and theological writings, there are also great and grave defects. These defects warrant developing a new theology for our time in exile, a theology that draws on other faith traditions that actually spent all or most of their time in exile (I’m thinking primarily of anabaptists here, but the experiences and theology of pentacostals and baptists are also very important).
Surely something is fundamentally wrong when a theology doesn’t provoke its followers to continual and deep self-critique and to deep change, and to a confrontation of what is evil in themselves and their culture. Their cultural milieu was one of enslavement and killing of heathens and non-whites and they theologized in a way that supported rather than critiqued it (there were very few contrary voices, and they got the boot).
The Puritans didn’t have a theology or a Jesus that confronted them with the evils of killing Indians, enslaving Indians and blacks, etc. The Puritans were blind to how they subordinated their theology to the culture of the day and to their failure to critique their society. For example, when the Puritans of Plymouth joined with other colonies in 1643 to form the New England Confederation, the articles of that confederation legalized the slave trade. Massachusetts was among the first colonies to legalize the slave trade—almost 20 years before any southern colony did.
Even though Puritans knew that slaves were captured in Africa by slavers, and did not willingly become slaves or enter it because of debt, the Puritans did not as a rule question their right to buy such captured slaves (the 1641 Massachusetts Bay law referring to slaves resulting from war was soon expanded to allow slaves of all kinds). Indeed, they often argued that black skin was connected to sin and that slavery was a blessing to the enslaved.
A blessing?!? Beginning with South Carolina in the 1690s, laws were passed that punished runaway slaves with branding (hot burning steel on facial skin), and severing of body parts (without anaesthetic): cutting of ears, castration. It is even recorded that a slave was driven to suicide by his Puritan master. (An excellent reference work is Richard A Bailey, Race and Redemption in Puritan New England). We should instead cry with Barth, “Humanity that is not co-humanity is inhumanity.”
The Puritan’s theology and Biblicism managed to maintain the status quo and mute the nonviolent justice of Jesus, and instead make violence and injustice the norm. Hundreds of years later Barth had to make a protest against a Reformed that hadn’t learned; he claimed that one was not preaching the gospel of Jesus if one was not preaching against the persecution of the Jews. So then, how does one hear Trueman’s call to return to the beliefs of the Puritans and Pilgrim fathers in order to live as a church in exile if one is black or native, or from an area of the world where one was/is tortured for one’s faith? The controversy surrounding Propaganda’s recent negative rap about “precious Puritans” is telling.
Reformed theology needs a very serious log picking, and we need a very different proposal for a church in exile.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 30, 2014

Evangelical Superstars and Why They Fall

Next Post

September 2, 2014 Some Follow-up Thoughts about God and Genocide

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In Revelation, what is the correct sequence of events in the End Times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, false prophet rises from earth, mark of the beast given False prophet rises, dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, mark of the beast given Mark of the beast given, dragon cast to earth, beast rises, false prophet rises Beast rises from sea, dragon cast to earth, mark of the beast given, false prophet rises