If Reformed Protestantism is basically evangelical then how do you account for the major divisions that have occurred among American Presbyterians? The fundamentalist controversy apparently has nothing at stake for the Reformed/evangelical consensus since Machen and other conservative Presbyterians were fighting liberalism and EVERYONE knows that liberalism is bad. (Of course, the problem here is that Machen’s evangelical colleagues at Princeton were some of his biggest opponents – the revival friendly Charles Eerdman and Robert Speer.)
According to this consensus the Presbyterian opposition to revivalism during the Second Pretty Good Awakening is also easy to explain. Charles Finney and company were delinquent on theology and possibly practice (revivalism and new measures instead of just plain revival). So the Second Pretty Good Awakening proves nothing.
Then there is the First Pretty Good Awakening where Calvinists promoted revivals. This is the golden-age for the Reformed/Evangelical consensus. But what about the Old Side critics? Well, as I learned at Westminster and from Leonard Trinterud, the Old Side were proto-liberals, propounding a rationalistic theology with Enlightenment echoes, and they were drunks, falling off their horses on the way home from presbytery thanks to a heavy elbow.
In the recent exchange with Ken Stewart over at the Christian Curmudgeon I came across another explanation for the apparent tension between Reformed Protestants and evangelicals – which is, blame the Dutch. In response to differences of interpretation about revivalism, Stewart wrote to the Curmudgeon:
I think we disagree is in our estimation of the danger posed by Hart and his school of writers. Westminster Escondido, in a strange continuity with Calvin Seminary Grand Rapids (these schools are usually at loggerheads) are centers from which revival is disparaged. So important a church historian as George Marsden (raised in the OPC) termed Darryl Hart’s book on American presbyterianism “anti-evangelical” because of its steady misrepresentation of the Great Awakening. So, while from your vantage point, you are aware of Hart, from mine – I think he and his allies represent a danger so great that it needs to be countered.
When pushed on the fact that George Marsden, who studied with Cornelius Van Til, who was very critical of evangelicalism, Stewart responded:
I don’t dispute CVT’s anti-evangelical posture; in fact I would suggest that the influx of CRC faculty into WTS in the 1930′s fundamentally shifted the young WTS away from its Princeton heritage, which had been decidedly the other way. When one stands back from this, it makes us realize that the whole conservative Reformed tradition in this country has been influenced far more by Grand Rapids theology than is generally acknowledged. I am not demonizing the CRC in this particular respect; I am simply highlighting the fact that throughout the 20th century, there have been rival versions of the Reformed faith jockeying with one another for dominance.
What is fairly amusing about this reply is that the Dutch-Americans at Calvin Seminary were responsible for printing a review that Stewart wrote of Recovering Mother Kirk, which was hardly flattering of the book’s author or his interpretation of the Reformed tradition. If the Dutch-American Reformed mafia wanted to enlarge their control of the interpretation of American Protestantism, they fell asleep when reading Stewart’s submission.
Stewart and others who reject the argument that Reformed and evangelical are at odds gain a lot of traction by suggesting that Reformed critics of evangelicalism construe Reformed and evangelical Protestantism as fundamentally at odds or separate entities. The proponents of an evangelical-friendly Reformed faith also like to point out that Reformed churches have made lots of room for evangelicalism and even revivalism. So both conceptually and historically, supposedly, the Reformed critics of evangelicalism are flawed.
But for this critic, it is obvious that evangelicals and Reformed are both Protestant and so overlap at certain points, both religiously and historically. Experimental Calvinism arose in the context of Reformed churches (especially when the prospects for reforming the national churches were looking bleak) and Reformed and Presbyterians churches have been friendly to evangelicalism (though I wish they were not).
What the proponents of the consensus are incapable of doing is accounting for the splits that have occurred within Reformed churches over evangelicalism (even without the presence of Dutch Reformed). The Old Side and the Old School split from their Presbyterian peers because the pro-revivalists believed subscription and polity were secondary to conversion and holy living. And so it has always been with evangelicalism. It is inherently anti-formal in the sense that forms to not matter compared to the experience of new birth or ecstatic worship. Evangelicals are also inherently inconsistent about this because since we exist as human beings in forms (i.e., bodies that are either male or female), we cannot escape formalism of some kind. Either way, on the matter of forms – creeds, worship, and polity – those who promote revivals or consider themselves evangelical are indifferent. The Spirit unites, not the forms. The same goes for different shades of evangelicalism: for the Gospel Coalition it is the gospel not the forms that unite; and for the Baylys and other “do this and live” types, it is the law not the forms that unites. Sticklers for the regulative principle, the system of doctrine, or presbyterian procedure are simply ornery obstacles to uniting Protestants on what is truly important.
What should not be missed either is that when Presbyterian particularists insist that forms matter, that the word reveals forms, and that the word and the Spirit work in conjunction, the response is invariably that the particularlists are mean and lack the fruit of the Spirit. Why? Because they do not recognize the presence of the Spirit.
And so to bring a little more light on the matter from one of those nefarious Dutch-Reformed types (though he is actually German), here is a useful reflection from Richard Muller on the impulses within evangelicalism that lead away from the insights of the Reformation(if only he had been editing the Calvin Theological Journal when Stewart reviewed Recovering Mother Kirk):
Even more than this, however, use of the language of personal relationship with Jesus often indicates a qualitative loss of the traditional Reformation language of being justified by grace alone through faith in Christ and being, therefore, adopted as children of God in and through our graciously given union with Christ. Personal relationships come about through mutual interaction and thrive because of common interests. They are never or virtually never grounded on a forensic act such as that indicated in the doctrine of justification by faith apart from works – in fact personal relationships rest on a reciprocity of works or acts. The problem here is not the language itself: The problem is the way in which it can lead those who emphasize it to ignore the Reformation insight into the nature of justification and the character of believer’s relationship with God in Christ.
Such language of personal relationship all too easily lends itself to an Arminian view of salvation as something accomplished largely by the believer in cooperation with God. A personal relationship is, of its very nature, a mutual relation, dependent on the activity – the works – of both parties. In addition, the use of this Arminian, affective language tends to obscure the fact that the Reformed tradition has its own indigenous relational and affective language and piety; a language and piety, moreover, that are bound closely to the Reformation principle of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. The Heidelberg Catechism provides us with a language of our “only comfort in life and in death” – that “I am not my own, but belong – body and soul, in life and death to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ” (q. 1). “Belonging to Christ,” a phrase filled with piety and affect, retains the confession of grace alone through faith alone, particularly when its larger context in the other language of the catechism is taken to heart. We also have access to a rich theological and liturgical language of covenant to express with both clarity and warmth our relationship to God in Christ.
Even so, the Reformed teaching concerning the identity of the church assumes a divine rather than a human foundation and assumes that the divine work of establishing the community of belief is a work that includes the basis of the ongoing life of the church as a community, which is to say, includes the extension of the promise to children of believers. The conversion experience associated with adult baptism and with the identification of the church as a voluntary association assumes that children are, with a few discrete qualifications, pagan-and it refuses to understand the corporate dimension of divine grace working effectively (irresistibly!) in the perseverance of the covenanting community. It is a contradictory teaching indeed that argues irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints and then assumes both the necessity of a particular phenomenology of adult conversion and “decision.” (“How Many Points?” Calvin Theological Journal, Vol. 28 (1993): 425-33 posted at Riddelblog)
86 Comments
I think that it cuts both ways, Darryl. To say to someone in North Jersey that I am Reformed will require me to tell them both what I am and what I am not, if they know what a lot of the RCA in that area are up to.
If I say that I am Reformed but answer “No” when asked if I am evangelical by these same NJ folk–that would mark me as a liberal to them, interested in the social gospel and not the gospel.
It all has to do with one’s context and is, I think, a proper part of becoming all things to all men. Are there contexts in which it would be helpful to foreground “evangelical?” Yes. Are there contexts in which “Protestant confessional” would communicate little? Many. “Protestant confessional,” e.g., does not identify me as Presbyterian (which always has to be explained) over against my Lutheran brethren.
You may be assuming that the word ‘Reformed” or some other word has less baggage than “evangelical.” That may be increasingly true, but I am not so sure, given especially what is happening in the Reformed and Presbyterian world these days. It may not feel as comfortable to say “evangelical” but I don’t think that it is more inaccurate than other unexplained tags.
“Well, that solves the wine vs. grape juice debate.”
If you were really led by the Spirit you would know it was grape juice.
But, Todd and Michael, it doesn’t solve the gluten-free bread vs. ordinary bread question. And there’s still frequency, but I suppose if one has swallowed the Holy Spirit feathers and all it’s moot.
Frequency is up to the Pastor, Zrim, and if you ask any more questions like that you obviously don’t have the Spirit either.
See how that works? Its a kind of discipline to keep people in line – a threat that goes to the very root of whether you are even a Christian. Now imagine the nerve it would take to question someone’s mid-service prophesy.
Michael, yes, way back in my pre-Reformed-Bible-church days and teaching at a Charismatic church school I was familiar with that whole program. And when it was said of grace it is a doctrine wherein “one gives sinners an inch and they take a mile,” that was my cue.
Imaginary grape juice is only slightly worse than real grape juice. If one went to the trouble to pretend, why not have pretend wine?
Now that I think about it, grape juice is pretend wine, so what is pretend grape juice? Grape juice communion is one of the e-word vestiges to be found in otherwise solid old-school churches. Methodist Br’er Welch’s invention says a great deal about the do-gooder, legalist impulses behind both “conservative” evangelicalism and the lib mainliners.
Brad, we didn’t have imaginary smoke, drink or chew, or imagine a woman who do.
Brad, whatever pretend grape juice tastes like, real gluton-free bread is worse.
“…Methodist Br’er Welch’s invention says a great deal about the do-gooder, legalist impulses behind both “conservative” evangelicalism and the lib mainliners…”
Don’t leave out “Pietists.”
Yep, pietists too. And Yankee profiteers.
MM,
Lawyers are usually Poly Sci majors not philosophy majors. What’s up with that? I never figured you as a charismatic type either. Charismatics and Confessionalists are not under the same tent and would most likely avoid each other on the “green” too. You got that right!!
I could give you tons of wacky charismatic stories. I used to call my oldest son Brian Bud (I still do alot) all the time and one lady tried to cast a buddy spirit out of him when he was like 3 or 4 years old. I almost went ballistic on her but maintained my self-control. We did not stay around that church much longer- unbelievable.
Truth be told I was the one guy who didn’t raise my hands during worship so I never really did fit in. Your demon possession story shook loose a few more oddball stories of mine but I should probably just stop with the one.
Nah, let me do just do one more. This one is not all about me. This was maybe a year after I left the Church of God, and no longer had charismatic sympathies. Oral Roberts’ son was in town to heal the lame and make the blind man see. Well, the place was pretty crowded, but I slipped up to the balcony where there was just me and a journalist a few rows away. Preacher Roberts was gearing up to do a wonder: “come forward, young man! Folks, this young man has a lame leg. God is going to do a miracle for this young man! Look at me now, young man…” Someone walked up to Preacher Roberts and whispered in his ear. After a nod and a pause, he went back to the same person: “God is going to do a miracle for this young LADY…”
Maybe her name was Pat.
This type of topic of reformed and evangelicals in juxtaposition is a regular one which is good to get me thinking. We have lost, at least in the world of blogging, one of the most able contributors to these matters – Dr. R. Scott Clark. Come back Dr. Clark, please! I mention him especially as his input in terms of books and Heidelblog was excellent.
There is room though, I believe, for more influential books to maintain what is hopefully a migration from evangelical and charismatic thinking and practise to the Reformed church. Does anyone agree? There is also scope, for a further reasoned critique in such a book of the YRR movement . There can be no half way house in these matters, or perhaps even a ‘village green’ debating arena – the flaws of the non Reformed need constant exposure, but always with humility.
Paul (UK), yeah, I think he was registered as being in favor of retaining the term “evangelical” but subsuming it beneath “Reformed” along with “catholic.”
Alan Strange wrote:
“…the point is, folks, that you’re going to have to qualify any terms that you use–none are unsullied, and if they are, then they’re not widely used or understood.”
And…
“It all has to do with one’s context and is, I think, a proper part of becoming all things to all men. Are there contexts in which it would be helpful to foreground “evangelical?” Yes. Are there contexts in which “Protestant confessional” would communicate little? Many. “Protestant confessional,” e.g., does not identify me as Presbyterian (which always has to be explained) over against my Lutheran brethren.
“You may be assuming that the word ‘Reformed” or some other word has less baggage than “evangelical.” That may be increasingly true, but I am not so sure, given especially what is happening in the Reformed and Presbyterian world these days. It may not feel as comfortable to say “evangelical” but I don’t think that it is more inaccurate than other unexplained tags.”
GW: Excellent points, Professor Strange. As you state, no theological label or descriptor is perfectly unsullied (including our own beloved “Reformed” label). Theological labels/descriptors such as “Protestant,” “Presbyterian,” “Evangelical,” “catholic,” and even “Confessional” all have potential or real “baggage” attached to them. Your point about being sensitive to the “context” in which we use such terms is spot on, IMO. Thank you for the clarity you bring to this discussion.
GW and Alan, but given that evangelical is a buzzword now with the religious right (and for that reason evangelical becomes more of a problem for 2k folks, whether Reformed or Lutheran), to use the word evangelical requires more explanation than using Reformed — which would likely leave most people with blank stares (who likely know Mormon better than Reformed). So doesn’t the quantitative factor settle it? If I have to explain more and longer what evangelical is than Reformed, then I use Reformed.
What am I missing? What particularly do Reformed Protestants have invested in the word evangelical that makes it “too big to fail”?
UK Paul, I think such books are possible. But what if Reformed Protestants themselves have become so infected with the leaven of pietism that they cannot tell the difference between evangelical and Reformed (or they have become so politicized in U.S. culture wars that they want to be part of the “conservative” movement)? In that case, we don’t need crossover but catechetical books for our own.
Darryl wrote:
“…. but given that evangelical is a buzzword now with the religious right …. to use the word [evangelical] requires more explanation than using Reformed — which would likely leave most people with blank stares (who likely know Mormon better than Reformed). So doesn’t the quantitative factor settle it? If I have to explain more and longer what evangelical is than Reformed, then I use Reformed….What am I missing?…”
If I am a “confessional” Lutheran (which I used to be) and the press if filled with headlines about the sordid deeds that the ELCA accomplished during their Twin Cities convention a couple of years ago … or are filled with stories about how they’re either famous for importing H’mong refugees or “kidnapping” children from earthquake-stricken Haiti – all in the name of social justice – do I not get stereotyped in with the actions of the nation’s largest Lutheran synod, even though these things have little or nothing (mostly nothing) to do with what I “confess?” And even those un-Lutheran acting Lutherans include the term “evangelical” in the name of their synod.
Should/can the ELS, WELS, and what’s left in a confessional sense of the LCMS have to explain “more and longer” what Lutheran is to those who read the news articles about the infamous ELCA and assume that Lutheran is Lutheran?
[during my career in the telecom industry we used to have a little rhyme that went, "ground is ground the world around." Of course, it wasn't true and getting a good "earth ground" in certain soil types (like the kind they have in much of Michigan) was often difficult. What one meant by "ground" had to be carefully defined, often with the associated test results of various instruments. Is this not true, as well, with what we are all saying about "evangelical" (or Reformed, for that matter)? It just cannot be used in a general sense any longer without slapping a definition on it.
The same thing happened with the term "hacker," which used to mean a hobbyist who either bread-boarded his own microcomputer or fooled around modifying existing ones during the early 70's before mass production was common. The secular press hastily robbed that "innocent" term and twisted it to mean some who tries to sabotage or break into someone else's computer system. I place most of the blame on the "religious press" in this country for doing the same thing with "evangelical" with lots of help by people like Barna.]
Dr. Hart,
I read that Dr. Carl Trueman is about to publish a book about the importance of the confessions for his evangelical friends; I wonder if this will address any of the flaws in evangelicalism and give the more accurate way forward for churches through catechisms and the confessions? I also that see Daniel Hyde published a book about the Reformed Church, but there is abundant room for an edited book including various authors (or a book by a sole author?) which would robustly and with some polemical punch articulate the differences between evangelical pietism and the Reformed approach with the catechisms succinctly and sweetly explained as being the primary historical means of the church’s teaching of the Christian faith.
On another completely different matter, have you been able to sample any of the new Yes album? Steve Howe is on top form with his infectious playing throughout the album, and Chris Squire has co written perhaps the most radio friendly and ‘sunny’ song since Wondrous Stories in The Man You Always Wanted Me To Be. The production by Trevor Horn, a strong advocate of Yes, has sculpted the music and sound to bring out the best of the material.
UK Paul, we shall see what Trueman writes. So far Horton, Clark and I have written books about the church. Judging by what Trueman wrote recently at Ref21 it seems he views confessions as having a utilitarian benefit — checking celebrity pastors — rather than being of the essence of the church, as one part of a communion’s teaching ministry. Horton has an old line about evangelicals as people who when they hear a new idea put that new page into their notebook. But these folks never recognize that the new page requires taking old pages out. The question is whether Trueman can get evangelicals to get rid of those old pages, or whether he’s simply trying to persuade them to add another page.
I haven’t heard the Yes LP yet. Thanks for the reminder.
Darryl
This does not seem too complicated to me. Historically, the connections are there between Reformed and evangelical. But I am happy to put that aside and simply to speak practically.
Let’s say I am in an airport and strike up a conversation. It turns to matters religious and my conversation partner inquires as to mine. I am happy to say “OPC,” “Calvinist,” “Reformed,” “Confessional,” and so forth in describing my faith. “Evangelical” for me would not ordinarily be among the first ways that I would describe myself.
But if this person is a Baptist, for instance, I might say “evangelical” as a part of my descriptor so as to establish a point of contact. If they are a mainline Methodist of a liberal sort (I recently just had a great conversation with one on Cook County Jury Duty) and they say, “you sound like some of the evangelicals in my denomination,” I could address that.
I understand all these problems about evangelicalism. There are a ton. But I repeat what Geoffrey picked up on, it depends on the context. I do not take “evangelical” to be a swear word and I can in a sentence or two show the link from thatto what I believe (and make any necessary distinctions).
Let’s bottom line it. Who would I rather be identified with? Evangelicals who really believe the gospel (not the penal-substitutionary-atonement-is-cosmic-child-abuse-sort) but have defective polity and worhip that makes me a bit uncomfortable, or mainline liturgicalists whose worship style and atmosphere is more staid, as is my own, but who do not believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the cross.
I would take an evangelical, or even a fundamentalist, any day over anyone who does not really believe the Bible. Even up to quite recently, “evangelical” meant that one at least believed gospel basics. I am unwilling to relinquish this to pseudo-evangelicals who do not really believe the Word.
You may say, “who wants to make that choice, between evangelicals and liberals, with whom we both differ?” But we have to make it all the time. Are real evangelicals our enemies more than religious liberals? I have heard in some of our circles (not on this blog) comments to that effect, and I think that its seriously misguided and wrongheaded and shows misplaced priorities at the least.
I realize, Darryl, that you have not at all brought up or treated this question(evangelical over liberal) that I have just addressed. But this is part of the wider conversation and not extraneous to how we approach things.
Alan, your understanding of evangelical is in my estimation fictional. Sorry to be so direct, but even in the so-called good days of evangelicalism the underbelly was not so great. If you look at the NAE, Fuller Seminary, Christianity Today, or Billy Graham even in the 1950s, all was not well and people like Van Til and E. J. Young (in my view) were right to critique it.
That neo-evangelical movement defined evangelical. Prior to the 1940s even liberals like Shailer Matthews called himself an evangelical. In fact, the word historically is plastic so that if you want to say that evangelical and Reformed are close historically, you have to make up a definition of evangelical that makes sense to you but that was not used at the time by the likes of a Whitefield or Owen or Witherspoon. There is no evangelical creed unless you want to arrive at an interdenominational point of view and claim that all creeds that affirm the nine points of the NAE are evangelical. There is no evangelical church that defines itself according to the tenets of evangelicalism. It is a broad “movement” or network that certain parachurch institutions have used to gain consensus.
So the word is both historically and presently useless in my view. The ninth commandment and truth in advertising demand better.
As an abstract and academic discussion, this question of whether or not we should describe ourselves as “evangelicals” is both interesting and important. However, as one who has had the immense privilege of serving as a church planter in an OPC mission work (a work which was particularized in 2000), and who has had the joy of seeing “evangelicals” of a revivalistic bent (as I once was) gradually mature and grow to embrace a more consistently-Reformed, “churchly” and confessional piety (in varying degrees of consistency, of course), my perspective on this issue is perhaps more crudely “pragmatic” than it is polished and scholarly (again, perhaps I am guilty of harboring remnants of revivalism within my soul). It’s not that I think we shouldn’t take Dr. Hart’s concerns seriously (I do!); but in my own experience in trying to lead “evangelical” Christians into the riches of the Reformed Faith, I believe using the designation “evangelical” (reformationally-defined!) has been a help in this process, not a hindrance. (Of course, my own personal experience does not make me an academic expert on this subject, nor does it necessarily mean that I have been correct in my use of the term “evangelical” in seeking to shepherd revivalistic evangelicals into the green pastures of a more churchly Reformed faith and practice. But I do think it gives me the right to add “my two cents worth” to this stimulating discussion.)
Thank you, Dr. Hart, for your insightful writings and for providing a forum where these important issues can be discussed.
Geoffrey
I have always appreciated your graciousness. And once again, it has proven exemplary. I had been otherwise minded in my response to the moderator but your kindness acted as a restraint (does this mean that the sanctification of believers can help encourage other believers in their sanctifcation? I think so).
Your gentleness prompts me to respond with mildness and to note that the moderator and I seem, once again, to disagree and I am content to exit the discussion, having contributed as I have for better or worse to this conversation.
GW, you’re welcome but don’t go on too much about the academic vs. practical distinctions or pedigrees. I certainly understand what you are trying to say about your pastoral work and if I were an elder on your session I would not try to reign in your approach. Where I think my practicality comes in is with mature Reformed people who tend to think of themselves as evangelical and so support parachurch endeavors or fail to criticize parts of the broader evangelical world because they don’t want to rock the boat. And please believe me that this dynamic is there among Reformed scholars who may have entree into evangelical scholarly or parachurch circles and don’t want to come out with the ways in which Reformed and evangelicals differ.
It would be a shame not to include one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Hart in which he defines evangelicalism as follows:
Combine two cups of inerrancy, one cup of conversion, and a pinch of doctrinal affirmations; form into a patchwork of parachurch agencies, religious celebrities, and churches; season with peppy music professionally performed; and bake every generation.
Insightful, provocative, contrarian. Pure Hart.
Maybe this would be a good time to ask: is my book in the mail yet?
MM,
I think he mistakingly sent it to me!!
A mistake indeed, Yeazel.
MM, when I return to Michigan after participating in the ISI Honors Conference, your book will be “in the mail.” Yeazel is just jealous.
Darryl G. Hart said:
“GW, you’re welcome but don’t go on too much about the academic vs. practical distinctions or pedigrees.”
You are correct that the distinction between academic and practical is a false dichotomy. Ultimately the “academic” and “abstract” are very “practical” in the outworking of their implications. I could have expressed myself better. Thanks for pointing this out. Correction well taken.
Alan: Thank you for your very kind comments.
What’s wrong with doctrinal affirmations? Aren’t the catechisms and confession doctrinal affirmations par excellence? Or am I misunderestimating you?
I would have thought the problem with evangelicalism was a lack of doctrinal affirmation, except, you know, when it comes from the doctrine of the bedroom.
I might be jealous but at least I don’t revert to brown-nosing in order to get what I want.
Let it go, Yeazel. You can stand in line and spend your hard-earned cash like all the other little people. I might even quote it (as blog topics permit) so you can get a few crumbs off the table. See, I’m generous like that.
I take your last post as you being confident not cocky, MM- even though you may be bordering on presumptuous. One of the differences between Lutherans and Calvinists is that us Lutherans are not ashamed to eat the crumbs that fall off the table of the Word of
God since the image of our individual selves is that of beggars when it comes to our position before a Holy God. I hope no one is taking this back and forth banter seriously.
One Trackback
[...] Why Do Reformed Think They Are Evangelical? [...]