Assessing the historical significance of a person is not an activity that suits quantification. But when historians put together reference words such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, they need to assign word counts for subjects to control the project’s size and scope. In which case, the people with the more important biographies receive more space or words.
I made this point during Sunday school talks on J. Gresham Machen last Spring and continue to think the point has some merit. The standard biographical reference work for the United States, Oxford University Press’ American National Biography gives a window into the collective mind of professional historians and how they judge a figure’s significance. Online access allows readers to generate a quick list of word counts for those persons who made the editors’ cut.
Here is a sampling of presidential word counts:
George Washington 8,025
James Buchanan 3,150
Abraham Lincoln 11,125
Woodrow Wilson 8,400
Ronald Reagan 9,900
Buchanan’s tally as the president consistently rated the worst (but Pennsylvania’s lone national executive) makes sense, but surprising is that Washington takes a back seat to Wilson and Reagan. Lincoln is, well, St. Abraham.
Here are some Reformed theologians:
Charles Hodge 2,925
Benjamin Warfield 1,525
John Williamson Nevin 1,450
Archibald Alexander 1,250
John Witherspoon 2,550
And here are some figures from the Presbyterian controversy of the 1920s:
Henry Sloane Coffin 1,100
Robert E. Speer 1,375
Charles Erdman 850
Clarence Macartney 1,025
William Jennings Bryan 3,500
J. Gresham Machen 1,325
Of course, Bryan was more than a Presbyterian controversialist and his running for the presidency three times on the Democratic ticket explains why he receives more space than Buchanan.
Finally, the tallies for Orthodox Presbyterian notables (or would be OP’s):
Cornelius Van Til 0
John Murray 0
Geerhardus Vos 0
I guess, when the lights and cameras were packed up, the OPC’s theologians looked a lot less interesting to historians.
So what does this have to do with union with Christ? I have engaged consistently with union advocates about the doctrine’s relative importance and have asked repeatedly why the doctrine does not receive more coverage in the Reformed creeds and confessions. The response often is that the Holy Spirit does not merit a separate chapter in the Westminster Confession but that doesn’t make it unimportant. The point that usually follows is that union was so important to the Divines that they did not need to assert it. But I continue to wonder about this argument and a handy search of the Westminster Standards reveals the following word counts:
Union 6
Spirit 79
Some may want to claim that because union and communion go together in the Standards, then references to “communion†should also be counted. In which case, the same should go for all uses of spirit, as in “spiritual.†Here are the results:
Union and communion 33
Spirit and spiritual 114
Which leads me to continue to wonder about the import of union with Christ for defining Reformed orthodoxy. I do not deny that it is there or that the Divines wrote about it in their personal writings. But if it were so crucial to Reformed soteriology – and if it were so important for delineating Reformed and Lutheran doctrine – then you would think union would receive more words and space. After all, the Divines were not bashful as going into specifics.
Old Life 
Justification/justified appear 38 times in the Confession and Catechisms. Accounting for the roughly 32,500 words in the three documents, should our conclusion be that justification is .01% more important than union?
LikeLike
Jason, maybe. But what is the ratio between 1 (chapter on justification) and 0 (no chapters on union)?
LikeLike
The framers of the confession also knew how to clearly distinguish themselves from Lutherans when they wanted to. Is there any evidence that the language of union and communion is used in such a way as to make that distinction?
LikeLike
If you narrowly define “reformed orthodoxy” as the Westminster Standards, or even the major confessional documents of the Reformation (say 3 Forms of Unity & Westminster Stds), you might make something of a case for the lower priority or emphasis of the union with Christ concept than the doctrine of justification. That is an obvious consequence of the historical context of the composition of those documents and the state of affairs in the period of church history (aka “the
Reformation”). Everyone agreed that justification was the collision point between Rome and Reform.
But this doesn’t really hold that strongly when restricting your definition to the classic Reformation Creeds. Union in effectual calling, united to Christ in his saving benefits, these are the basics of “Union with Christ.” And let’s not forget that the Heidelberg Catechism begins with the concept and words: my only comfort is that with body & soul, both in life & in death, I belong to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.
In terms of this post: Hermeneutics 101: you are forgetting presence of a concept is not restricted to a single word or word-family. This is true in confessional & theological documents, as well as Scripture. In fact, you forgot to add “Ghost” to the word count for “Spirit” (missed 23 hits there).
All this aside, who (and where) is union with Christ being used “to define” Reformed orthodoxy?
LikeLike
Cris, some prominent union advocates are using union to drive a wedge between the Reformed and Lutheran traditions. And if the Divines were as eager about union as these advocates are, they would have mentioned union as much as the advocates do. The advocates are hardly silent or implicit about the idea. The divines were silent and implicit. Why the difference? And why use a doctrine that was not polemical — why use it polemically?
LikeLike
DGH, thanks for the reply.
OK. So some union advocates are using a doctrine polemically? If that’s correct – makes sense. By that I mean, if these folks have an agenda or a goal, then using a doctrine polemically might be a useful strategy (or is that a tactic?). Which moves the question to be, what is this goal or purpose of these union advocates? Is it in part the Reformed/Lutheran wedge you mention? And this Reformed/Lutheran wedge, does it mean a wedge between current or contemporary Lutherans & Reformed, or is this a reassessment (rewriting) of historical relationship?
These are sincere questions. This whole union/not-union debate is puzzling to someone who is still coming out of his Canadian Reformed theological exile.
LikeLike
Dear Dr. Hart,
Greetings in Christ’s great Name!
You say the score is union=0 justification=1 when comparing chapters in the Confession. I respectfully think you are incorrect. The Confession actually has a lot of chapters on union with Christ. I am counting 16 at this moment: 7,8,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 32.
All these chapters “manifest” our union with Him. These chapters in the Confession are part of what compose the “whatever else” that manifests our union with Him of which our Catechism speaks. As our Larger Catechism reads:
WLC 69 What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ? A. The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.
So, I think the score is actually union=16 justification=1.
May your writing ministry continue to be both blessed and a blessing!
In Christ,
Brett
LikeLike
Brett, since union depends on justification — as in how am I right with God — then by your logic it’s at least a tie. But when it comes to chapter titles union loses.
LikeLike
Dear Dr. Hart,
“union depends on justification”? That’s not what my Confession says. My confession says, “justification, adoption and sanctification our union with Him.” Where do you get the idea that “union depends on justification.” That is foreign to the Confession. That doesn’t sound Genevan, but rather Wittenbergesque.
Were you not united to Christ in your election? As Paul writes: Ephesians 1:4 “he chose us before the foundation of the world.” Dr. Hart, you were united to Christ in election. Your union through election preceded your justification (I assume you don’t believe in eternal justification like Dr. Twisse) so justification cannot “depend on justification.”
If we go on chapter titles alone, then you are correct that the score is 1-0. If we make use of the word-concept distinction (which we must as Reformed people) and we understand that that which is taught implicitly by good and necessary consequence (WCF 1:6) is as binding as that which is taught explicitly (which we must since there is no single verse that says “believe the trinity, baptize your babies, worship on Sunday” since they are taught implicity by good and necessary consequence) then clearly the score is 1-16. 16 implicit union chapters is a lot more than one explicit justification chapter. That is 2 touchdowns and a safety.
In Christ,
Brett
LikeLike
Obviously I was joking about the Wittenbergesque comment. I mean no offense.
LikeLike
Not that there’s anything *wrong* with Wittenberg! 🙂
LikeLike
Brett, union does not answer the question, how am I right with God, which is THE question of the Reformation. Even the unionist, John Murray, knew that. For union to answer that question it needs to put in the justification tape.
LikeLike