Carl Trueman is, I think, a man with whom I could stand, side by side, in worship and praise of God. He is, IMO, a consummate and incisive communicator. Not an easy read, necessarily, but, if one recognizes the terminology on even an elementary level, the argumentation is cogent and compelling.
Here is a brief sample from his recent article,
Why Are There Never Enough Parking Spaces at the Prostate Clinic? at the Reformation21 blog:
You yourself can test this appetite for trivia easily. Today, more people in church are less familiar with the basics of the Bible and Christian theology than ever before; so you should ask your pastor to arrange some parallel seminars on a Saturday with one on, say, the elements of the Apostles' Creed, and one on a Christian approach to movies or sex. I guarantee you that the second will be far better attended than the first. Peripheral trivia trumps central truth every time, even within the ranks of the orthodox consumers in our churches.
Certainly, I'll let you 'discover' the relevant commentary within the article. It does, however, gives me a sort of spring-board for my own following comments: I intentionally and deliberately disdained the opportunity to plunk down my entrance fee, thereby eschewing the viewing of Mel Gibson's 2004 Passion of the Christ. I did so for several reasons, not least of which was the belief that the movie would be, more than anything else, a blatant promo for Gibson's preferred brand of Roman Catholicism. All the reviews that I have read, admittedly, all in a negative vein, have confirmed my original misgivings about the movie. That is to say, I became more convinced of the 'wisdom' of my decision, as it became more apparent that the movie served best to raise a question in the minds of 'tentative' protestants (erstwhile evangelicals): what's all the fuss about? Where's the huge distinction between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism? So, at least to a large extent, it was for Mel, goal accomplished. Whatever gains were made, in terms of personal conviction of sin, and attendant repentance and faith, were over-shadowed by a net reduction in on-going commitment to the maintenance of clear distinctions vis-a-vis Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. I know, there was a strong rationale for availing one'self of an opportunity to evangelize, but, I remain unconvinced that the net gain was greater than the net loss. Additionally, it is clearly apparent that Mel Gibson, for all the embracing of such as, for example, Dr. James Dobson, hasn't subsequently done a lot - in the positive interest of either Roman Catholicism, or Evangelicalism. Evangelicals clinked millions into Mel's coffers.
Oh, I have no doubt that the heightened affection for, and enhanced perception of the significance of, the person and work of Jesus Christ, has, with the passage of time, largely waned, in and for the vast majority of viewers of that movie. It is also, in my opinion, significant that we are, biblically, to be 'inspired word(s)' oriented, rather than a 'people of the picture'. Carl Trueman makes that case, I believe, without stating it in those precise terms.
Enjoy the 'words' of Dr. Trueman! Okay already, his terminology is not on an elementary level.
