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)
Old Life 
“Tendentious and regularly misleading” (quoth Stewart) – at least you get marks for consistency.
LikeLike
All of that’s very interesting, but it sounds a bit too inside baseball, given the facts on the ground. Simply put: a significant percentage of those who would currently claim affiliation with the Reformed tradition come from evangelical churches. Not Reformed-evangelical or evangelical-Reformed, but straight up non-Reformed.
I mean, look at the whole GC phenomenon. Most of those churches weren’t Reformed at all a decade ago, if they even existed. A lot of them are Baptist or just outright non-denominational. Well, a lot of the members at PCA churches have that in their background, i.e. either they themselves or their parents did not grow up in a Reformed church.
You yourself should be getting a taste of this. Many if not most of the congregants at HOPC don’t come from Reformed backgrounds, and if they’ve got evangelical inclinations, it’s not because they’ve been reading too many Calvin seminarians. It’s unlikely they’ve even heard of any. I’m not sure I have.
So trying to find which academic faction at which seminary is more responsible for evangelical influences on Reformed churches strikes me as completely missing the point. The problem isn’t with the seminaries, it’s with the congregants, and it’s not academic, it’s organic.
LikeLike
Ryan, like I tell my revivalist evangelicals: I don’t have a personal testimony, I have a personal history (big difference). And my history begins in broad secularism, goes to broad evangelicalism then lands in narrow Reformed confessionalism. So, to the extent that I’m one of those who don’t come from Reformed backgrounds but have long since landed there, I get that part of your point. What I don’t get is how this is to be completely missing the point since a post like this one resonates with me as much as experience does with experientialists (or creeds with creedalists). Maybe you’re trying to say that academic exchanges don’t mean much to laity, but then I’d have to disagree again. You also seem to suggest an inherent disconnect between seminaries and congregations, but I find that really sort of evangelical.
LikeLike
Ryan, I don’t understand the point. Many of those who come to Reformed churches (as opposed to divine sovereignty congregations) come because they want to be Reformed and to get out of evangelicalism.
LikeLike
Maybe you’re trying to say that academic exchanges don’t mean much to laity, but then I’d have to disagree again.
The fact that you’re even on here says that you’re different than 99% of the laity, most of whom, Reformed or not, aren’t all that certain of what they believe, much less why they believe it.
You also seem to suggest an inherent disconnect between seminaries and congregations, but I find that really sort of evangelical.
Exactly. Most evangelicals couldn’t name either their denominational seminary or even where their own pastor trained–should either even exist. I’d be willing to bet that the same is true, especially the latter, of a depressingly high percentage of members, quite possibly even a majority, of Reformed churches.
So the answer to “Why do Reformed think they’re evangelical?” is probably something along the lines of “Because practically speaking, they are.”
LikeLike
Ryan, to repeat my question, what is your point. Most of the early Christians were Jews, and all Protestants were reared as Roman Catholics. So does that mean that the differences among Judaism, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are of no importance (even to the average lay person)?
LikeLike
Many of those who come to Reformed churches (as opposed to divine sovereignty congregations) come because they want to be Reformed and to get out of evangelicalism.
You can take the evangelical out of evangelicalism, but taking the evangelicalism out of the evangelical is a bit harder. To answer your second question, no of course not, but note that it took a vision from God to convince Peter, of all people, that the practices of Judaism were obsolete. Paul was still writing strongly-worded letters about Jewish influences two decades after Pentecost.
Like you’re always saying: forms matter, and anyone who has grown up with evangelical forms has had their heart and inclinations habituated by decades of evangelical practice and thinking. That doesn’t go away overnight, and there are bound to be aspects of that heritage which converts to the Reformed tradition don’t even recognize are problematic, even aspects which they appreciate and value. There’s a reason the church spent a century or so freeing itself from Jewish influences. Old habits die hard, and it’s to be expected that it takes a while to let go of things once cherished.
This is even an area where virtues are problematic. For a lot of people, truly rejecting their evangelical upbringing verges on filial impiety. It’s a hard thing to realize that the things one has learned from ones parents are wrong, especially if those parents are Christians. This isn’t to say that this doesn’t need to happen, but it should go a long way towards explaining why it doesn’t, a lot of the time.
So my point is that your answer to the question of why so many Reformed types want to consider themselves evangelical is wrong. It isn’t Dutch influence, or even a lingering Old Side/New Side split. It’s that many Reformed types, even those in the clergy, are, or at least were, evangelical themselves, and it’s to be expected that such influences do not disappear the instant one first hears of the Reformed tradition.
LikeLike
Ryan, I think your point is becoming a little clearer to me now, and it’s very well taken.
Still, I think your assertion that trying to find which academic faction at which seminary is more responsible for evangelical influences on Reformed churches completely misses the point is fairly overstated. Maybe it’s a way of charting and substantiating concretely and historically what some of us know intituitively and organically?
LikeLike
Ryan is correct, but if the people in the seminaries teach that to be Reformed is to be a subset of evangelicals recovering the first Great Awakening, then getting the ‘evangelicalism’ out of evangelicals becomes a struggle over definition. Hence DGH’s emphasis, unless I’m missing something.
LikeLike
I did some googling some time ago with the purpose of finding out which denominations are considered to be evangelical. One list started like this:
Advent Christian Church
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection
American Association of Lutheran Churches
American Baptist Association
Amish
Apostolic Christian Church of America, Inc.
Apostolic Christian Churches (Nazarean)
Apostolic Lutheran Church of America
Assemblies of God
This kind of list leads me to believe the term “evangelicalism” is no more coherent than “caucasian culture.” It also tends to persuade me that it is more false than true to say that a denomination such as the OPC is part of the evangelical church. Whereas I once thought of evangelicals as “us” I am more and more been using “them.” What do I or my denomination have to do with speaking in tongues? With Arminian theology? With happy clappy worship? With legalisms and obliviousness to church history? The list could be extended; why should I identify with and therefore have a degree of obligation to defend such things? And why would I use a term that would tend to undermine the distinctives of my own denomination, implicitly taking the position that our differences with evangelicalism are relatively unimportant?
Machen reluctantly accepted the term “fundamentalist” back in the day, but he did so in order to fight for some important theological principles. I don’t see as much to defend in evangelicalism. This issue of identity becomes especially painful in trying to describe who we are to someone from outside of evangelicalism such as Roman Catholic who can make quite valid criticisms of evangelicalism; on many issue I can only nod and affirm. I would much rather defend my own denomination any my own reformed heritage.
LikeLike
Several typos there. I may need a new eyeglass prescription.
LikeLike
Very worthwhile read!!
LikeLike
If anyone is interested Craig Parton is hosting a web broadcast “The Bible on Trial” at http://www.NRBNetwork.TV in about 15 minutes (8:00 PM central time). It is supposed to be pretty good from what I have heard.
LikeLike
Michael, I think it’s possible for Reformed to conceive of ourselves as evangelical. And catholic. And apostolic. Like Prego, it’s all in there. We just don’t mean what Evangelicals mean by evangelical, Catholics by catholic or Pentecostals by apostolic.
LikeLike
But of course, Zrim, saying “it’s possible” isn’t saying much. Adjectives should be purposeful and, in context, reveal more than they conceal. Their use should be more beneficial than detrimental. Our creeds use the term “catholic” and we understand what that means. We also know what “apostolic” means in certain contexts, but I’m guessing your church is not named the First Apostolic Church of Grand Rapids; that would be misleading.
Historically the tern “evangelical” had more significance. Today it’s hard to say anything more than an evangelical church is a church that calls itself evangelical and even that’s not quite right. I guess an evangelical is a Protestant with a high view of the integrity of the scriptures who believes in justification by faith but that might even indicate more uniformity than what is there.
To be evangelical is to be an heir of Billy Graham, to be a contemporary of Rick Warren, to be revivalistic, to engage in celebrity culture, to be part of a certain political faction, and to view church membership as something like a health club membership. I think there are weighty negatives in identifying with such a perspective.
So what’s the upside of such an indentification?
(I’m serious about needing glasses. Sorry if I don’t see a typo above.)
LikeLike
Wasn’t the term “evangelical” used by the Reformers and the churches of the Reformation as basically a synonym for “Protestant”? If that is the case, then we confessional Presbyterians and Reformed are “evangelical,” not in the contemporary revivalist, parachurch, hyper-experiential sense, but in the original, confessional, reformational, “churchly” sense. After all, like confessional Lutherans and Anglicans, we too confess the “evangel” (the biblical gospel of justification “sola fide”). Of course, Zrim is correct to note that we are not “evangelical” in the sense that most Evangelicals today would use that term (just as we are not “catholic” in the sense that our Roman Catholic friends employ that term); which just goes to show the contemporary limitations of the term (hence the ongoing discussions within Evangelicalism about evangelical identity). At the same time, I think there is a sense in which we can lay claim to being the real “evangelicals” (paleo-evangelicals?), and also of charging contemporary “evangelicalism” with being pseudo- or faux-evangelicalism from the standpoint of the original evangelicalism of the Protestant Reformation.
LikeLike
Pastor Willour, what does “evangelical” get us that is more illuminating than “Protestant” or “Reformed?” If the advantage is to indicate we are not Roman Catholics I think that’s covered.
And, yes, I suppose we can try to reclaim the term, but the cost-benefit analysis is not positive. I think its best use is in historical or sociological literature. Reclaiming it today is like charging up a hill with 50 soldiers when 1000 are shooting down from the crest.
LikeLike
Michael, what Geoffrey said. I don’t think there is much to be gained by Reformed going hostile on “evangelical” the way Evangelicals go on “catholic.” But maybe there is a way to asterisk the e-word whenever we use it the way some asterisk the c-word in printed creeds? Personally, though, I find such footnoting just this side of insecure and neurotic. So I suppose the upside of retaining the word is the same as any effort to retain a good word despite someone else’s sullying of it. Does it help to say that “Reformed” is the identifier and “evangelical, catholic, apostolic” are more descriptors?
LikeLike
I would fight for the use of the word catholic, and especially for apostolic. Just because we wouldn’t use these terms in naming a denomination or church doesn’t mean they are unimportant. These terms speak crucial, foundational truths about what and who the true church is and descended from. But the word evangelical, even in it’s Reformation context, isn’t of the same significance, in my opinion. I would argue that apostolic includes the notions/beliefs that evangelical signifies, as does Reformed of course! But we are baptised into and are members of the one holy catholic and apostolic church: this is an important truth and an important statement of truth which we should cherish.
LikeLike
Zrim, when I’m happy I don’t say I’m “gay.” I wouldn’t use the term “niggardly” in a black urban setting. When a single woman has a child I don’t tickle its cheek and say “what a cute bastard!” I’m not suggesting any of these words be removed from the dictionary, but if they are not beneficial I won’t use them.
I’m still waiting to hear of all the benefits of calling ourselves “evangelical.” Today.
Now, strictly speaking it’s hard not to use the word. Not to get all obscure on you, but I am now mindful of Derrida’s “sous erasure” technique, whereby he would use a word but it would be lined out, that technique shows the term must be used but it ought to fade into non-use. Hence step 1: Sunday School classes on Derrida!
LikeLike
Derrida’s term was “sous rature.”
LikeLike
Michael, “gay” means “lame.” Even my gays know that. Well, the non-evangelical gays anyway. And to describe a state of happiness as “gay” is lame.
But I think you overstate things. The benefit to describing the Reformed indentity as being evangelical is to say something, like Geoffrey does, about the biblical gospel of justification sola fide. Why dump a perfectly good, biblical and historical word? Same question for you, Alexander.
P.S. Remember when Jean Paul tweaked Elaine’s single mother neighbor’s baby’s cheeck and said, “What a cute little bastard!” in his Jamaican accent because he overheard George’s American executives throwing the term around affectionately to one another? That was funny.
LikeLike
I’m with Michael on this one. I don’t see any benefit to using the e-word other than wanting to feel we belong to a big movement. I’ve heard plenty of conservative Presbyterians say they don’t use the word Presbyterian because people associate it with the mainline churches. Maybe that was true pre-Ronald Reagan. But that argument applies even more to evangelical now — too many bad associations. So give it up. Reformed Protestant works fine and it’s the same number of syllables.
LikeLike
It’s ironic to me, Darryl, that you’re aiming to manage your place within a tradition with this sort of linguistic gymnastics. I find it ironic because this brand of individualistic, cafeteria-style religious style identity construction seems a classic kind of modern American “evangelical” move.
We don’t get to choose the impulses within the historic roots of our traditions any more than we get to choose our parents. Many of the central impulses that inform our Reformed and Presbyterian lives are not only called evangelical. They, in fact, ARE evangelical, in both the best and worst senses of that word. From Martin Luther to Billy Graham. Like it or not.
LikeLike
Zrim, my oldest daugher once used the word “gay” to describe her happiness. I’m guessing she got it from something like The Sound of Music, Pride & Prejudice, or the like. I thought it was cute that she used it. It was a pleasant experience. And you know evangelicals can’t question someone else’s experience, so back off!
LikeLike
Jay, history isn’t static. Neither are subcultures like evengelicalism (yes, a subculture -that’s how ridiculously elastic the term “evangelical” is). Even dictionaries change. Would you lock us into the e-word forever, or is there some point at which we say its negatives currently outweigh its positives?
Besides, the history of evangelicalism (American-style) is not the history of the reformed. It was all about putting a smiley face on fundamentalism.
LikeLike
Jay, then why are Lutherans suspect among evangelicals? Could it be that evangelical is about as descriptive as “white” or “Asian”? Actually, your comment applies as much to “evangelical” as to me since the move to identify oneself as an evangelical is all about individual choice and self-definition. Does anyone belong to “evangelical”? How do you leave? Where do you get your membership card? And the church to which I’ve taken vows, not that vows mean anything, of course, does not belong to the National Association of Evangelicals.
So does this make you the umpire of evangelicalism? You get to determine by fiat who is in and who isn’t?
LikeLike
Michael, it is as if in this age when everyone is questioning metanarratives, which plenty of Christians are doing, especially those who teach at evangelical colleges, are busy perpetuating an evangelical metanarrative that did not exist until the middle of the twentieth century, the same time when the “West’s” metanarrative became especially useful.
LikeLike
I don’t know, Darryl. Certainly the point about bad associations isn’t lost on me. But for this speaker, the e-word has nothing to do with wanting to belong to a big movement at all. If Protestants generally can still describe the church as catholic and apostolic I don’t see why Reformed specifically couldn’t describe the faith as evangelical. At the same time, there is a significant difference between the evangelically Reformed and the confessionally Reformed. How about a conservative use of “evangelical” instead of a progeressive one?
Michael, you use the word “cute”? That’s gay.
LikeLike
“Michael, you use the word “cute”? That’s gay.”
I’m glad that made you happy, Zrim.
LikeLike
My point is that evangelicalism functions as a kind of broad tradition, one that is extraordinarily broad and complex. (Lutherans, for instance, aren’t the least bit suspect among the evangelical consensus in the small Ohio town where I grew up). And acknowledging the tradition-bound quality of these traditions should infuse a bit more realism into the conversation about how much of its DNA really exists within those who gladly participate in more decidedly confessional churches.
The more basic point I wanted to make is that your desire to choose, to opt-out, to leave, to dissociate, even to re-pristine YOUR tradition by cleansing it of its evangelical residue makes you (historically and sociologically speaking) more not less “evangelical” in your sensibilities.
LikeLike
How about this – “evangelical” means those who adhere to the traditional, broad doctrines of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. This knocks out the RCC, the liberals, the works crowd, and others. Reformed means those who adhere to Calvinistic soteriology and Presbyterian church order. This narrows the field and knocks out the YRR crowd who are really just evangelicals with a different emphasis in soteriology. I’d also love to include the RPW in the Reformed definition. This would mean that my three-letter denom which begins with “P” and ends with “A” would have many non-Reformed congregations in it. I’ll leave it to others to fight over where various Lutheran denoms would fit in this rubric.
LikeLike
And as Darryl has noted many times before, Reformed (R) is not a sub-set of Evangelical (E). E came from R and degenerated, not the other way around. The L-word is still problematic though.
LikeLike
Harkening back to that quote from Dr. Muller’s 1993 CTJ article, here are the first couple of paragraphs:
“…I once met a minister who introduced himself to me as a “five-point Calvinist.” I later learned that, in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist, he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely “ordinances” of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the Fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ’s Second Coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. I also found out that he regularly preached the “five points” in such a way as to indicate the difficulty of finding assurance of salvation: He often taught his congregation that they had to examine their repentance continually in order to determine whether they had exerted themselves enough in renouncing the world and in “accepting” Christ. This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of “born again” adults who had “a personal relationship with Jesus.”
In retrospect, I recognize that I should not have been terribly surprised at the doctrinal context or at the practical application of the famous five points by this minister — although at the time I was astonished. After all, here was a person, proud to be a five-point Calvinist, whose doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of “Calvinism” at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions of the Reformed churches—whether the Second Helvetic Confession of the Swiss Reformed church or the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism of the Dutch Reformed churches or the Westminster standards of the Presbyterian churches. He was, in short, an American evangelical…”
I like this quote and have invoked it many times. In fact, I used it just a few years ago while we were having our “exit” interview with the pastor of an independent Baptist church (he wanted to know why we were leaving). I told him that we disagreed with many things that had been taking place in the church recently, including the excessive use of overly-amplified CW songs, the hiring of a female “semi-pastor” who was actively involved in everything from teaching from scripture (to a mixed gathering of adults) to presiding over the distribution of the elements of the Lord’s Supper. Further, I told him that we would be transitioning to a congregation that was more “reformed.” At that point he smiled smugly and announced that he considered himself a “reformed Baptist.” I’m sure my jaw dropped visibly and I wasn’t sure whether to laugh or cry.
So, for any etymologists reading this blog – yes, the nature and definition of words have changed down through history. The papists hijacked “catholic” at the Council of Trent and mainline American protestants robbed “evangelical” (with lots of help from the religious publishing industry) from Lutherans and others who used the post-reformation label. So be it. Like Dr. Muller, I’m happy to apply the term in a somewhat pejorative sense to American cafeteria-Protestants … like that Baptist pastor.
LikeLike
Jay, anyone who wants to use terms precisely or who takes church membership seriously is evangelical? “Evangelicalism functions as a broad tradition” no offense is vacuous. Who says? Asian-American is an ethnic identity. Who says? Tell that to the Korean-Americans who experienced the Japanese occupation.
My point is not an evangelical one. I don’t belong to evangelicalism. I don’t even remember describing myself as such until the inerrancy debates of the 1970s. But I’ve never belonged to an evangelical church. Your usage seems to be the very American one of lumping everyone together no matter whether they want to be or not. As David Hollinger has noted, multiculturalism did to the Irish what 400 years of British rule could never do — it made them Anglo.
LikeLike
Brad, Muller’s “How Many Points?” is cited in this post. One of the upshots of that was to rightly say that credo-baptism isn’t Reformed, which draws endless howls, not least because by this construal many PCAs which commune credos would be less-than-Reformed. He also narrows the field with eschatology.
I also think you’re onto something with the idea of doxology being a fourth mark. I have always wondered why a tradition that is the only one with something like the RPW wouldn’t make worship a mark.
LikeLike
I suppose this means that the EPC is the most confused denom since the old Calvinistic Methodists of Wales. I’d love to hear DG’s take on whether that Welsh group is the true grandfather of YRR crowd. They sure like the CM’s favorite son — Lloyd-Jones.
LikeLike
On on Lloyd-Jones, the trajectory of Westminster Chapel after his departure is very instructive. SGM before SGM was cool?? Lloyd-Jones was a great preacher, Calvinistic, but was NO churchman in the Reformed sense.
LikeLike
I could be wrong (nothing new there), but even though I would not personally lose any sleep over dropping the description “evangelical,” I can think of a number of reasons why Reformed Protestants might want to retain the term “evangelical” in describing themselves and their churches (as long as they clearly define what they mean by “evangelical”):
(1) It is an historically accurate descriptor, at least in terms of the terminology of the Protestant Reformation (revivalistic, parachurch American “Evangelicalism” being a distortion and degeneration of original reformational evangelicalism). Why should we not seek to reclaim a perfectly good descriptor word, especially if it gives us an opportunity to distinguish ourselves from the distortions of parachurch revivalistic evangelicalism?
(2) Retaining this term can help to assure broader “evangelicals” who are considering the Reformed Faith that we too affirm the evangel (sola fide). And thus it can serve as a bridge in helping evangelicals come to embrace a more churchly, confessional faith such as is offered in confessional Presbyterian and Reformed churches.
As someone who was raised in a liberal mainstream church (Episcopal), converted to Christ in high school via revivalistic “evangelicalism,” and who has come to embrace the Reformed Faith in its more “old side” Presbyterian expression, I can tell you that in my more revivalistic days I would have been deeply suspicious of any professing Christian who was unwilling to identify himself as an “evangelical,” precisely because I would have wondered why anyone who affirms the biblical gospel (the “evangel”) would be reluctant to identify himself as an “evangelical.” I know I’m probably being a bit too autobiographical here (I’ll blame it on the remnants of my old revivalistic self), but I’m wondering why we would want to put up a stumbling block in the way of our evangelical brethren that might prevent them from seriously considering the riches of the Reformed Faith (a faith that offers a robust, churchly, confessional expression in confessional Presbyterianism)? Maybe I’m being too pragmatic here (another “revivalistic” trait), but if retaining the description “evangelical” helps to pave the way for evangelicals to consider and embrace the Reformed Protestant faith and practice, what would be the harm in retaining it?
(3) In my library is a little volume by the great Princeton theologian A.A. Hodge entitled “Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine”. Hey, if a great Presbyterian churchman and theologian like Dr. Hodge can use “Evangelical” to describe the Reformed theology contained in that volume, why should we today be so skiddish (sp?) about using the term? (Of course, this volume was published by Banner of Truth. If we use guilt-by-association thinking, then we could just dismiss this volume as being way too “revivalistic.”) 😉
Grace and Peace,
Rev. G. Willour
LikeLike
Geoffrey, as to your point #2 I might say that a nearly (now) meaningless term is less helpful than simply pointing the inquirers to your confessions. Any reassurance provided by the E-word might be founded on a number of incorrect assumptions.
LikeLike
Brad, the Evangelical Free denom seems to give the EPC a run for its confused money where both credo- and paedobaptism are affirmed practiced.
LikeLike
Brad, I don’t know enough about the Welsh even if I are a quarter one. What you say about paving the way for SGM sounds plausible.
LikeLike
MLJ was an early hero of mine. When I learned to love Reformed churchmanship I realized he wasn’t one. At all. He was a congregationalist who actually preferred credobaptism. He followed G. Campbell Morgan in London, RT Kendall (no shining light of orthodoxy) followed MLJ. Westminster Chapel eventually embraced the Toronto Blessing of all things. Westminster Chapel was little more than a preaching platform early on, now a “worship experience” platform. Should have been something better – a church.
LikeLike
Westminster Chapel under MLJ is a difficult church to place in the pantheon of denominations – that said, I don’t think you can blame MLJ for what took place afterwards (in spite of his experiential bent).
There was a long interregnum during which time the appointing committee either couldn’t find someone they wanted, or tried to appoint people who didn’t feel called to lead WC. Under RT Kendall, the church stayed numerically the same until the Toronto Blessing came around – at which point a number of people walked out.
I think there probably is a ‘evangelicalism’ in terms of there being a set of churches which share the same baseline narrative – but this is a much simplified one from the narrative of scripture, which is why they tend to head off in odd directions.
LikeLike
I am not sure those who have never been involved in an evangelical or charismatic church can appreciate the burden that is lifted when church becomes a place where Christ is actually looked upon to minister his grace (through Word and Sacrament) to those in the congregation. It is no longer us who are cajoling and striving to enter into God’s presence with whatever evangelicals and charismatics muster up and fabricate in their own imaginations but what God has promised to do for us as we gather together thankful for what He did for us in Christ. It is a completely different mindset and it is this which mainly distinguishing evangelicals and charismatics from the confessional tradition. I actually enjoy and look forward to church because I know it is a place where I can find forgiveness, grace and the Gospel each week. I do not need to be entertained or motivated, I need to know that I can be forgiven so I can continue on in my life and fulfill the duties God has enabled me and called me to perform until His Son comes again and establishes His Kingdom forever.
LikeLike
Rev. Willour,
Thank you for your well-thought out response. While it is a historical descriptor, with some rich, deep meaning (and therefore even Hodge could use it), I don’t think there is any *real* possibility of re-claiming the term–at least in our current cultural context. [I think it is worth a fight to retain/reclaim the term “Reformed,” however.] 🙂
For some reason, for me, this is a conversation that comes up frequently with others. As I observe the current state of “evangelicalism” (American-style), and am asked about my own “religious identity,” I no longer respond saying that I am an evangelical. There is simply too much baggage– doctrinal, ecclesiastical, *and* political, for me to ascribe that term to myself. I even avoid using terms such as “liberal” or “conservative” in theological/religious discussions because of their political connotations.
Rather, I term myself a confessional protestant (I think DGH has used that in a book…). I think contrasting evangelicalism with confessional protestantism can be a very rich conversation starter, especially in discussions with evangelicals themselves.
DLW
PS – I think I had lunch with you and Elder Brian at GA
LikeLike
Geoffrey:
I think that you are right and I have made–and make–a similar argument myself all the time. Simply put, Reformed are evangelical. We can differentiate ourselves from the plethora of errors that today plague evangelicalism. Please note that “ism” ending. We are those who would call evangelicalism to return to the biblical evangel.
I, too, came from an evangelical/fundamental background, and many still do, into the OPC and would have found it, shall I say “strange,” if the OPC did not self-identify as evangelical when and where I came in. Yes, I also knew Reformed folk; had they denied being evangelical, I would have gone the opposite direction. I was on the East Coast back in the 1980s and knew Reformed who were not evangelical, but were liberal, Norman Vincent Pealites, or something else. To me, to say that you were Reformed but not evangelical was to say that you were a liberal RCA member. I did not run into evangelical RCA churches until I came to the Midwest.
In A.A. Hodge’s day evangelical was wider than Reformed and understood to be so but those Princeton men (who were princes of men!) were both distinctly Reformed and committedly catholic (in the best sense of that term). Hodge could oppose the 1869 OS/NS reunion on doctrinal grounds and give an address thereafter at a pan-Protestant conference, understanding that the Reformed faith is that toward which all true faith tends. Princeton knew how to be both sound and outreaching. Hodge was no New Schooler. But he was not parochial either.
I would commend you for your properly qualified use of evangelical: 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.
LikeLike
Alan, isn’t there a difference between explaining what you ARE from what you ARE NOT. To explain what it means to be Reformed can be a positive exercise. To explain that you are evangelical but not this — and the list goes on — raises questions about why you are using a word that is so infelicitious.
LikeLike
“I am not sure those who have never been involved in an evangelical or charismatic church can appreciate the burden that is lifted when church becomes a place where Christ is actually looked upon to minister his grace.” – JY
And, in case anyone was wondering, charismatic churches are not just churches led by emotional guys. For a year I went to a Church of God. At that time it could hardly be contained by its building, and needed three Sunday morning services. It was led by a charismatic charismatic – the man was electric and owned the pulpit area as he yelled, whispered, paced, and occasionally broke out in a 2/3 holy, 1/3 mischievous grin.
I dreaded personal introductions because, as a student, I would soon be asked about my major. When I answered “philosophy” there was an inevitable pause as if the other person was trying to decide whether to rebuke me then or save it for another day.
That was merely uncomfortable; hardly worth mentioning compared to several surreal Sundays I still recall. On one the pastor had a sudden leading to have communion. (That means the Holy Spirit was specifically telling him to have communion.) But there were no elements. What to do, what to do? No elements, no problem: he had the congregation pass an imaginary tray of bread, then an imaginary tray of grape juice cups. Without a murmur, hundreds of adults held on to the imaginary elements, waiting for him to tell them to partake. While others piously looked down I took a quick look up, scanning the congregation to see if anyone at all was opting out of this invisible communion for the visible church. It didn’t look like it.
I’m not inclined to use a term that puts my current church and that church in the same tent.
LikeLike
“No elements, no problem: he had the congregation pass an imaginary tray of bread, then an imaginary tray of grape juice cups.”
Well, that solves the wine vs. grape juice debate.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“Well, that solves the wine vs. grape juice debate.”
If you were really led by the Spirit you would know it was grape juice.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Imaginary grape juice is only slightly worse than real grape juice. If one went to the trouble to pretend, why not have pretend wine?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Brad, we didn’t have imaginary smoke, drink or chew, or imagine a woman who do.
LikeLike
Brad, whatever pretend grape juice tastes like, real gluton-free bread is worse.
LikeLike
“…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.”
LikeLike
Yep, pietists too. And Yankee profiteers.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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”?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.]
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
MM,
I think he mistakingly sent it to me!!
LikeLike
A mistake indeed, Yeazel.
LikeLike
MM, when I return to Michigan after participating in the ISI Honors Conference, your book will be “in the mail.” Yeazel is just jealous.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Alan: Thank you for your very kind comments.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I might be jealous but at least I don’t revert to brown-nosing in order to get what I want.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
If only you lived in Scotland, you would learn to be less sectarian about words like “Reformed” and “evangelical”
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/should-they-stay-or-should-they-go#.VzdkspErKM8
Truman—“Randall does an excellent job in explaining THE EVANGELICAL POSITION. He also points to the incoherence of those who remain in the C of S while claiming to disagree with her position on sexual ethics. As he argues on p. 45, acceptance of the teaching of the Church on the issue once it has been legislated is what Presbyterianism means. He could well have referred to Charles Hodge’s statement on such an ecclesiastical point: once the Church as a whole has made a formal decision on a matter, ministers have but three options – they can wholeheartedly support the position, passively accept it, or peaceably withdraw. The specious claim that one can remain a good Presbyterian while repudiating the denomination’s official teaching is simply disingenuous and inconsistent with being a good Presbyter. One might add that it is an inconsistency lost neither on liberal insiders nor observant outsiders. As to those who have adopted the ‘Rick Astley Protocol’ and declared that they will never give up on the Kirk, no matter what she does – Randall skewers that as strategically disastrous. One might also add it indicates a complete absence of any real Protestant understanding of the Church. Of all the options, this one is the most self-evidently self-defeating and ridiculous.”
LikeLike