If you read Collin Hanson’s book on the young Calvinists you will discover that of Dort’s five points the young and restless ones affirm at most two of the five. You will also see that what drives young Calvinists has less to do with the five points of Calvinsim than with one big point – the sovereignty of God. The youthful interest in being Reformed seems to stem primarily from expressions about the glory of God – thanks to John Piper channeling Jonathan Edwards – that present to late adolescents and young adults an image of God much bigger and grander than anything they had encountered in evangelical preaching and teaching. (I could get snarky and ask what Bible have these “converts” to Calvinism been reading, but I’ll resist mainly.)
But why is an affirmation of divine sovereignty Reformed? It is just as much Lutheran as it is Reformed. It is in fact basically true of Christianity to affirm the sovereignty of God. That business in the Nicene Creed about “maker of heaven and earth” does point in the direction of a divine being sufficiently powerful to create everything and then govern and maintain it all.
So why don’t we call the new evangelical resurgence of interest in divine sovereignty Lutheran instead of Reformed? After all, there is nothing about the young and restless that is explicitly Reformed other than the Jonathan Edwards is My Home Boy t-shirts (and Edwards, for all his genius, is not exactly the standard for Reformed Protestantism).
One explanation may be evangelicals mistakenly think of themselves as Reformed because they are following the lead of Reformed Protestants themselves. The latter are more inclined to think of themselves as evangelical than as Reformed. In turn, this tendency cultivates an atmosphere where Reformed Protestants look, speak, and act like evangelicals. In which case, the reason that evangelicals don’t consider themselves Lutheran – though they do affirm as much of Lutheranism as they do of Reformed Protestantism – and don’t make Martin Luther is My Home Boy t-shirts is that Lutheranism is not a comfortable environment for evangelicals.
Evidence of this tension comes from Kevin DeYoung’s recent interview with the Lutheran pastor, Paul T. McCain (sounds pretty Scottish and not very German). To the question of whether Lutherans consider themselves part of American evangelicalism, McCain responded:
I do not think that most Lutherans consider themselves to be American Evangelicals. We tend to think of ourselves first, and foremost, simply as Lutheran Christians. I must say in light of the fact that conservative Lutherans do have a single book by which they can identify themselves, doctrinally, we find trying to nail down precisely what “Evangelicalism” is a bit like an exercise in nailing jello to a wall, and that kind of gives us the heebie-jeebies. That’s a technical term.
And in a follow up question about differences between Reformed and Lutheran Protestants, McCain had this intriguing response:
We are keen on emphasizing the proper distinction between God’s Law, that shows us our sin, and God’s Gospel, that shows us our Savior and we emphasize God’s objective work through both His Word and His Sacraments. The “S” word makes our Evangelical friends very nervous, but we hold and cherish the Sacraments and really believe that God works saving faith by the power of His promising Word through Baptism. We also believe that the Lord’s Supper is our Lord Christ’s own dear body and blood, actually under, with and in the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and drink, and that through it we receive forgiveness and life, and wherever there is forgiveness and life, there is salvation.
Now, of course, Lutherans and Reformed disagree on the Lord’s Supper and have ever since 1529. But why are Reformed Protestants any more appealing to evangelicals than Lutherans on sacramental grounds. After all, Reformed Protestants also have sacramental teachings and practices that would scare evangelicals if they ever went beyond the first question and answer of the Shorter Catechism. Does baptism come to mind? Plus, the Reformed churches’ teaching on the Supper – from the Belgic Confession to the Westminster Confession – is no more agreeable to most evangelicals (whoever they are) than the Book of Concord.
So again I find it very strange that many seem to think that Reformed and evangelical go together when as many wrinkles exist between these expressions of Protestants as between evangelicals and Lutherans. Could it be that if Reformed Protestants were as serious about being Reformed as Lutherans have been about being Lutheran the young and restless would simply be content with calling themselves Baptist?
Old Life 
Young, Restless, Calvinistic Baptist…I love it!
LikeLike
we all have trouble shedding the cafeteria approach to the Bible and theology, which is what I think is meant by Restless…
LikeLike
“I could get snarky and ask what Bible have these “converts” to Calvinism been reading, but I’ll resist mainly.”
I’ll answer: the ESV study bible.
LikeLike
I suppose it’s a matter of definitions. I’m a member at “Piper’s Church”, and he consistently (if not explicitly) preaches within the 5 Points. I’m new to this blog, so I’m guessing that Reformed and Calvinistic are not synonyms here. But I think they are synonyms at BBC.
LikeLike
Gary, you are correct. They certainly are not synonyms here on this blog, but also historically. I came to realize this a couple of years ago and it was just another step on the path that took me to Reformed faith (of which I finally arrived earlier this year). Happy trails to you as well, at least I hope so 😉
LikeLike
The answer to your last question is: Yes.
(And Reformed Baptist at that. Another odd form of nomenclature.)
LikeLike
Having been a former “Piperite” myself, I can affirm what Gary says. Piper is very outspoken in many of his sermons and lectures about all 5 doctrines of grace. If the YRR guys are less than 5 points at the least, the fault is not Piper’s.
LikeLike
If the church is primarily about preaching, Calvinistic soteriology will make for better preaching and a flock that has a better grasp of what salvation means and ought to look like. If the church is about the broader means of grace – the word (read, preached, prayed & sung, and the word applied in discipline) and sacraments – then Calvinistic soteriology is not enough. Reformed includes biblical, presbyterian church order – and everything that ought to come along with that.
LikeLike
I think it probably has something to do with the fact that if you’re Protestant, and you aren’t Lutheran, your tradition, such as it is, comes from or is at least heavily influenced by the Reformed tradition. So when you wake up one day and realize that hey, it might be nice to have some, you know, actual theology, odds are overwhelming that you’ll turn to at least quasi-Calvinistic sources.
The Reformed tradition is, as far as I can tell, the major theological tradition of the English-speaking world. Lutheranism has never really had the same kind of cultural pull, given that its origins are German and that Lutherans tended to stick to German pretty strongly even after they immigrated. So any time an English-speaking Christian starts searching around for his theological roots, he’s going to run into Calvinism sooner or later.
LikeLike
Gary, I take Reformed to mean (Augustinian) Calvinist. But in the vein of Muller’s “How Many Points?”, not to mention Belgic 34, I also take it to mean paedobaptist, which would seem to make BBC something other than Reformed. And to hear Belgic 34 speak, predestinarianism doesn’t make up for the sacramentarian errors:
For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life ought to be baptized only once without ever repeating it — for we cannot be born twice. Yet this baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives.
For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children.
LikeLike
“If the church is primarily about preaching, Calvinistic soteriology will make for better preaching”
If soteriology is what people take out of the five-points .. however it seems that for many the 5-Points reduce to a negative energy version of the 1st question of the shorter catechism.
LikeLike
As in Christian hedonism??
LikeLike
Gary,
And the Westminster Confession speaks of how it is a “great sin” to condemn or neglect the ordinance of Baptism (including that of infant baptism). More evidence for the validity of Richard Muller’s “How Many Points,” per Zrim. You should give Dr. Muller’s article a read. Kim Riddlebarger has a link to it, here: http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points/
LikeLike
-There’s no such thing as a 5 point Baptist. Baptists take issue with (at least )the Canons of Dordt I, art. 17.
-Suggested Lutheran t-shirt slogan:
“Ubiquitarianism is where it’s at.”
LikeLike
Or how about, like Visa, “Ubiquitarianism: It’s Everywhere You want to Be.”
LikeLike
“Could it be that if Reformed Protestants were as serious about being Reformed as Lutherans have been about being Lutheran the young and restless would simply be content with calling themselves Baptist?”
Yes, but.
This overlooks the fact that the Baptists in question are quite decidedly those who branched off from the Reformed churches. As much as you might disdain them, they’re your stepchildren. There’s a kinship that you just can’t shake.
The problem goes back to the post-Reformation era itself and the kinship expressed between the Reformed on the continent and the Puritans, the latter of whom are to blame, generally speaking, for the muddled mess that is American religion.
LikeLike
Here’s a simpler way to demonstrate this thesis, using only two words:
“Lutheran Baptists.”
Never gonna hear it.
LikeLike
I really, really bristle at “Reformed Baptist.”
I used to buy the line that “Calvinistic Baptist” was a happier phrase, but that’s not really fair to Calvin, now is it? Granted, “calvinist” is used as a synonym for “predestinarian” in many theological conversations, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense. If we’re shooting for a semblance of accuracy, we should go with
“Soteriologically Calvinistic Baptists,”
or simpler,
“Predestinarian Baptists.”
Regardless, we should labor to make “Reformed Baptist” sound as oxymoronic as “Lutheran Baptist.”
LikeLike
The issue of sacraments is certainly more important than I think you allow for, Dr Hart. At least in my neck of the woods you’ d be hard-pressed to find a Reformed person [unless Dutch, maybe:0)] who understood the sacraments in anything other than a Zwinglian way, which is presumably why Evangelicals can so easily migrate to Reformed churches, where the preaching is so much better anyway, without too much of a challenge.
I also think Ryan Davidson is on to something when he mentions the dominance of Reformed theology in the Protestant, anglophone world. Lutheranism is still an alien in this setting. If you’re looking for serious theology in an evangelical bookshop, for example, odds are it will be Reformed, not Lutheran.
LikeLike
Chris – Does this mean that Southern Baptists are Danny DeVito to our Arnold Schwarzenegger? (Twins)
LikeLike
Red-headed stepchildren?
LikeLike
As Paul McCain stated, the answer lies in the “S” word and the fact that the Lutheran Divine Service centers around the taking of the Lord’s Supper which seems much too Catholic to most Evangelicals and even to the Reformed. Evangelicals and the Reformed are much more Word centered in their Sunday morning services. I have gotten used to the Lutheran Divine Service and do not expect to get much more than a 15 to 20 minute sermon each Sunday. When you do participate in the Bible studies before the service and the Confessional studies led by the Pastor I find that the content is much more in depth and meaty than any Evangelical or Charismatic Church I have attended. The Lutheran Pastor is always willing to talk the scriptures and theology with you whenever you ask him or set an appointment with him. At least that has been my experience. Most LCMS and Wels Pastors I have come in contact with are well trained and know their Bibles, Lutheran theology and the confessions well. I have found that they are not too concerned about competing theological systems though. It seems to me that this could cause some problems.
The American Religion and the American psyche are not well disposed towards the Sacraments and liturgical religion. Most who frequent this web site are well aware of that. Once you get used to it and get to understand it better you have no desire to go back to the Evangelical and Charismatic type Sunday service. In fact, it begins to repulse you when you experience it and see it again.
LikeLike
I did not notice Pastor Henderson’s remark before I started writing my post. I would concur heartily with what he said. Good to hear from you again too!!
LikeLike
Off topic – if there was a presbyterian church that had two officers plus one prospective member who were regular Old Life commenters, would that church be considered the most Old School/TR of them all?
LikeLike
Particular baptist is the historical term and is more appropriate to their reductionist tendencies. And, dear Lutheran brothers, there’s a little thing called the Federal Vision that’s making it harder to pry our brothers away from Herr Zwingli.
LikeLike
Maybe Lutherans are less prone to mixing with Evangelicals because there are many awesome Lutheran Dad’s and they know how to mess with Dispensationalists (plus they love satire which tends to turn Evangelicals off):
http://networkedblogs.com/jqoCz
LikeLike
Pardon me if I’m missing something here…
I understand many baptists out there who claim to be reformed are probably no more than 5 (or 4 1/2 pointers for those who flinch are particular redemption), but how are guys who hold to the London Baptist Confession not “reformed” in most senses of the word?
I attend a PCA church right now that is much less sacramental (given we’re only talking about the Lord’s Supper when I mention this, they ARE baptist), and much less concerned about the ministry of the word and generally speaking much less confessionally minded in life and practice than the reformed baptist church I came out of before I moved. Honestly they’re more focused on covenant theology and ecclesiology than my current church. Am I getting this right that London Baptist guys are not at all “reformed”? Acknowledging the inconsistency of holding a higher proper view of the Lord’s Supper and a wrong view of baptism but I’d hardly call them “evangelical”.
Am I missing something?
LikeLike
Pastor Mark, sure many Reformed are Zwinglian, but that likely owes more to the influence of pietism and revivalism among the Reformed than it does to the actual teaching of the Reformed churches. It is hard to find a Zwinglian reading of the Supper in either Westminster or Belgic.
As for the ethnic dimension, when did Calvin become an Englishman? And if you’re going to use Reformed to describe yourself, you’re using the Continental term. English-speaking Reformed Protestants generally called themselves Presbyterian. Presbyterian Baptist?
The most accurate term is Particular Baptist.
LikeLike
Brad, I believe those circumstances would make you “No Life Presbyterians.”
LikeLike
Johnny, great Lutheran dad, but when is he going to throw out the liturgical dancers?
LikeLike
Johnny K., maybe it’s a questions of seriousness. Serious believers are generally more interesting than moderates.
LikeLike
“No life”… a batting practice home run, pitched to you by an arthritic old assistant coach.
LikeLike
“Lutheran Baptists.” Never gonna hear it…we should labor to make “Reformed Baptist” sound as oxymoronic as “Lutheran Baptist.”
Brian, what I keep wondering is why, if there are (credo) Baptists, there aren’t any (paedo) Communionists. Maybe there will be (paedo) Communionists that will break off from the CREC someday? And then they’ll become Reformed (paedo) Communionists to complement the Reformed (credo) Baptists.
LikeLike
Alternative to term “Reformed Baptist” could be “Primitive Baptist”. I think they are predestinarian so this would really be a better moniker for these folk.
LikeLike
Eliza – “reformed” baptists would never accept that as most (if not all?) primitive baptists are hyper-calvinists.
LikeLike
“Particular” is the best umbrella term. It would cover the primitives, the occasional Calvinistic landmarker/independent, the Deverites, the Piperians, and the Soon-to-be-Middle-aged, Confused, & Calvinistic.
LikeLike
And some Arminian baptists call the particulars “deep-water presbyterians”…would that this were closer to true. Do you know what baptists call the meetings of pastors that get together to ordain preachers? Presbyteries. (Insert blind squirrel/nut remark at your discretion)
LikeLike
Sometimes you really don’t think at all like a historian, Darryl. You often speak as if these traditions exist in the realm of platonic forms rather than the very uncooperative world of flesh and bone, brick and mortar, cultural whims and psychological frailties. People largely don’t align with their local church bodies according principled considerations of historic doctrine. You seem astonished that evangelicals are infesting your pristine confessional tradition with their philistine sensibilities and their inability to distinguish word and sacrament from praise and worship. Well that’s what happens in the very free, open market of culture, and amid accidents of geography, cultural preference, and personal loyalties.
I understand the source of your lament as an OPC Presbyterian. I don’t understand your surprise and consternation as a trained historian.
LikeLike
Jay, I actually you are the one to suffer from a lack of historical understanding. Creeds, institutions, officers, by-laws are all things that historians study. Why even your college is connected to a church where Lutheranism would not get you a call to the ministry and would require an interview from the session. On the other hand, you treat evangelicalism as if it were some voice of the people, but I’m still waiting for you to indicate where evangelical bricks, mortars, and membership cards exist.
I am well aware of the voluntary conditions of American society. What I have trouble understanding is trained experts in history and religion arbitrarily assigning terms like evangelical and Reformed to people and movements that have no relationship to Reformed creeds, polity, communions, and constitutions. Your disposition is akin to assigning the word Republic to Bill Clinton because he triangulated with Newt Gingrich. If names matter in American politics, why not in American religion?
LikeLike
Historians are also in business of studying lived realities, practices, and often whimsical cultural accidents, even as–perhaps especially as–they unfold without respect to official governance or well meaning codification.
I think we differ in thinking terms like “Reformed,” “evangelical,” or “Lutheran” can be studied as if they have some kind of ontological status by virtue of their official and creeds and institutions. It is right and necessary that you assume they do as a Presbyter or as a member of your session (or, say, as a board member at a denominational college). But as a historian or cultural observer, I think the only status these terms maintain is phenomenological.
Your point about Bill Clinton sort of makes my point for me. If you want to assign the Democratic Party a kind of ontological status, wouldn’t you need to evaluate Clinton’s presidency according to his fidelity with Andrew Jackson’s 1828 presidential platform? The Indian Removal Act? His controversy with the Central Bank? No, a Democrat is someone who does and supports things that that Democrat does while he or she is a Democrat, whether other Democrats agree with them or not.
LikeLike
Jay, studying things as they unfold is journalism. Studying “lived” religion is what religious studies scholars do. I still don’t see history.
A word’s meaning is not ontological. But it does help if it has some reference outside itself. Why use the term if it can mean whatever it’s current adherent wants it to mean.
How does “I am black” work for you? Be careful not to give ontological status to race or skin color since we have plenty of bad examples of such usage.
BTW, Democrats do have platforms, membership, and fund raisers. So far evangelicalism has none.
LikeLike
Jay. If I am missing something here, please pardon me. I’m trying to understand what point you are making. It seems like you’re trying to argue that the terms “Reformed”, “Evangelical”, and “Lutheran” are arbitrary movements that lack definition and definitive standards to measure one member from any other. How can that be true when, at least for Presbyterians and Lutherans they have confessions and catechisms that govern the bodies. If you hold to the Westminster Standards, for instance, you are not a Lutheran by definition. That is measurable. Evangelicalism being a broader and intentionally less defined movement still has certain observable traits that set it apart from other groups.
One could object and say that there are Presbyterians that don’t hold to the Standards, but that was Machen’s contention was it not? If you do not hold to the confessions and official body of teachings of a specific church you are not, by definition, of that church.
The point about democrats seems incomplete because the democratic and republican parties seems more akin to evangelicalism with it’s trends but lacking definitive standards (in modern day politics). For instance, Ron Paul is on republican ticket when everyone and their mother knows he’s way more libertarian, though they share certain common traits. I would contend that Reformed and Lutheran are more defined and discernable institutions (even if there are people who try and blur the lines, which their are).
LikeLike
“Ontological,” Jay? Aren’t you just talking about static vs. fluid definitions?
Then, “a Democrat is someone who does and supports things that that Democrat does while he or she is a Democrat, whether other Democrats agree with them or not” is just circular. Tweaked for the present context, I guess you would say “an evangelical is someone who does and supports things that evangelicals do while he or she is an evangelical, whether other evangelicals agree with them or not.” Do you really want to argue for that?
LikeLike
“Particular” is the best umbrella term. It would cover the primitives, the occasional Calvinistic landmarker/independent, the Deverites, the Piperians, and the Soon-to-be-Middle-aged, Confused, & Calvinistic.
Possibly true, Brad, although “limited” would be a nice double entendre.
LikeLike
Or “peculiar” — but that would work for Lutherans too. Also for that Amish guy who beat Darryl’s Phillies tonight.
LikeLike
Darryl, of course it requires more than an individual’s assertion (“I am black”) to alter or culturally validate a new meaning for a term, but that doesn’t mean such evolution in meaning doesn’t legitimately happen. Or that historians aren’t tasked with describing that evolution. For instance, 100 years ago, Italian immigrants were not considered “white.” Neither were the Irish. But of course both are “white” today. And Latino immigrants undoubtedly will “become white” in another 50 years. (See Matthew Frye Jacobson’s WHITENESS OF A DIFFERENT COLOR).
Even something one might assume to be concrete and incontrovertible (even physiological?) is subject to cultural change and negotiation. You wouldn’t agree that it’s the historian’s responsibility to track and consent to that kind of change?
Interesting that I haven’t heard you complaining that the leadership or recent historians of the PCUSA continue to use the term “Reformed” or “Presbyterian” to define themselves, even as they have abandoned the Confession and much of its contents (maybe you have). By calling PCUSA pastors “Presbyterian,” aren’t you in some way conceding my point about historical thinking?
It’s like Joan Wallach Scott has said: “Those who would codify the meaning of words fight a losing battle, for words, like the ideas and things they are meant to signify, have a history.”
LikeLike
John Knox, I’m not saying that there are no standards by which to measure people, or that church officials and church members shouldn’t appeal to such standards to determine what counts as legitimate Presbyterian or Lutheran belief or practice. My point is perhaps an intramural one among historians over whether particular historians, when describing these groups, should be required to use the same strict standards. I say no.
As a Christian, I think Machen was right when he said that those who embrace liberalism no longer practice Christianity but something else. However, as a historian, I completely agree with Mark Noll’s decision in his 1992 history of Christianity in the US to describe individuals and groups as “Christian” simply on the basis of their use of that label for themselves (I believe Noll was a member of Machen’s OPC at the time he wrote the book). I think it’s a realistic, fair-minded (dare I say, common-kingdom-oriented) way of making historical and cultural observations about others who are in some way associated with any sort of Christian tradition.
So when I interview folks for membership in my capacity as elder at my church, I use a rather stringent, ontological definition of Christianity. But when I’m writing a history of 19th century New York City, I use the decidedly phenomenological sense of the word “Christian” when talking about Bishop John Hughes and his debates over the use of the Protestant Bible in public schools.
I think Edward Gibbon best described the distinction I’m trying to make when he wrote, “The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing religion as she descended from heaven, arrayed in her native purity; a more melancholy duty is imposed upon the historian–he must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption which she contracted in a long residence upon earth among a weak and degenerate race of beings.”
LikeLike
Michael, as a matter of what I’m willing to say as a historian, yes, that’s basically what I would want to argue. I don’t think it’s a circular argument as much as it’s a concession that words (labels in this case) are given meaning by what counts as regular and commonplace use of those words. That’s why I don’t find it all that productive to do a lot of hairsplitting over who gets to “legitimately” think of themselves “Reformed.”
I wonder what in Darryl’s critique of evangelicalism couldn’t likewise follow for the more general use of the quite common term “Christian”? As I say in my response to John Knox, we’re probably not prepared to reserve the word “Christian” in general observations about culture only for those who we might, in a more particular cases, admit to the table for the Lord’s Supper.
LikeLike
I enjoyed this post. I never understood how one could view Piper–and other such Finney-Edwards prototypes–as “Reformed.”
From my understanding, “Reformed” and “evangelical” are antithetical categories. Heck, my Dutch Calvinist (RCA) grandmother still believes that Billy Graham is the anti-Christ.
LikeLike
Jay,
I think you bring up some thought-provoking questions here, but I am not sold. Here’s why, while there is some elasticity in language, and things do change over time, the meaning behind the debate doesn’t, and what seems central to this debate is how a group identifies itself. The issue in the Reformed camp is a valuable one, claiming that “Reformed” (Group R) is merely a subgroup of “Evangelical” (Group E) muddies the waters, and leads to confusion within both groups without a good deal of qualification. Here’s why I think this is the case:
1) If R thinks it is a subset of E, at the very least some in R may not be clear what distinguishes R from E. Maybe on a few big items such as infant baptism or TULIP, this wouldn’t be the case. But confusion could come in terms of a perception of shared history, shared socio-political ideals, and even shared notions of what is important regarding the grand truths of Christianity.
2) If E thinks R is a more particular expression of its broader identity, E may begin to blur distinctions between itself and R, it may assume the same problems as above. E may assume that R shares a common belief in the ‘core’ of Christianity, the role of church in the world, and similar shared historical and social-political identities. In other words, R is like us E’s with the (sometimes) exception of baptizing babies and TULIP.
The fact of the matter is the differences in churchly culture (for a lack of a better term) between E, especially in the last 75 years, and historic R are vast. Their views on Christianity are so distinct that they don’t even really speak the same language, both in terms of doctrine and liturgy. My problem wouldn’t be so pronounced if Evangelical actually had a semi-stable meaning, but even that is hard to pin down. In many ways it is a definition-defying movement, yet we want to draw lines of congruity between an Evangelical identity that defies defining and a Reformed identity that at its best is a reflection of its Confessions, not to mention it’s nearly 500 year history.
Assuming evolutional anthropology (in reality I don’t), I could claim I was an African-American since my anscestors originated in the Rift Valley a few million years ago. And, my ancestral line, several magnitudes of order later might prove that point. But, the problem is that there is a more stable definition of African-American that is operative today with a distinct social/racial group that owns the term. My subsequent European, central Asian, and Native American ancestry (at minimum) since leaving the African continent would make my claim to be African-American kind of silly. Now the degree of separation between Evangelical and Reformed isn’t as pronounced as this example, but it illustrates the separation of history, common language, polity, and doctrine. I could cop to being an Evangelical, but only after I have qualified it several times.
LikeLike
Jay. So would you say that any comment on the validity or the events of history steps outside the bounds of being a historian? You brought up in your post to Darryl about calling the PCUSA guys Presbyterians because they refer to themselves as Presbyterian which seems to follow what you said about Mark Noll referring to anyone who claimed the name “Christian” as a Christian for a fair representation of history. I’m assuming you would argue the importance of this is to fairly and honestly represent history yes? I can see and agree that a historian has the duty to be unbiased in his representation. History needs to be preserved honestly and without spin, I get that.
Here is what I am a bit confused on still. It seems like you’re pushing this to the point of saying that a historian cannot offer any commentary or critique of a historical event and still maintain his credibility as a historian. Sorry for being dense, but are you holding to the opinion that presenting history honestly must be kept separate from commentary on the validity of the historic claims of historic people? Are historical commentators and historians two separate people?
Tying it into the current discussion, it seems fairly hard to represent historically the very real observable differences between certain Christian cultures in our society. It seems impractical to paint all “Christians” alike without clarification and commentary. Of course you should use their definitions and their concerns, but we have seem to have very different strands of “Christian” do we not?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Agree with you about the Reformed Confessions not teaching Zwinglianism, but that doesn’t seem to matter to most Reformed down here (‘down under’ that is). Indeed, I think Calvin’s doctrine is even less known among them than Luther’s.
As for the ‘Reformed’ label, pardon me… it’s a Lutheran thing ;0)
And I think Calvin became an Englishman when the 39 Articles became the rule of faith of the C of E, if you see what I mean. The fact is Reformed theology was much more widely received in England (and Scotland) than Lutheranism after a very early point in their respective Reformations. I don’t think it’s possible to argue otherwise. Take it from me, for an Englishman to become Lutheran is a much longer stretch than becoming, say, Presbyterian.
LikeLike
Darryl,
My doesn’t seem to have come through, so:
Granted, what you say about the Reformed confessions not teaching Zwinglianism is true, but that doesn’t seem to matter to most Reformed down here (‘down under, that is). I think most of them would fall over if they read the old Scots Confession, for e.g., which I quite like.
As for using the term ‘Reformed’ to describe Presbyterians, sorry, it’s a Lutheran thing ;0)
It’s the way we classify confessions; goodness, even John Wesley is Reformed to us!
And I think Calvin became an Englishman somewhere between the first and second prayer books, if you know Anglican history. What I mean is that after a very early point in the English Reformation, continental Reformed thought was much more widely recieved and influential than Lutheranism was. As a result, and take it from one who’s done it, it’s a much bigger stretch outside the comfort zone for an Englishman to become Lutheran than it is to become Presbyterian. For a start, much of the classical Lutheran theology is only now being translated into English.
LikeLike
Jay, do you codify “ontological”? Does the word have ontological status and are you violating Scott’s adage when you attribute such definite meaning to it?
You do not seem to be able to treat historically people who think of themselves as Presbyterian, with a certain understanding based on the past, who then operate a church accordingly. Are these historical actors supposed to follow historians understanding of historical change and abandon their sense of trying to maintain a certain kind of church that follows teachings and practices from the past? Were the Lutherans who opposed Samuel Schmucker’s efforts to move Lutheranism into the evangelical mainstream guilty of attributing to Lutheranism an ontological status? And a historian who writes about confessional Lutheranism, is he supposed to disregard such an expression of Lutheranism or the controversy and communions it creates as merely the folly of people who can’t cope with change the way historians do?
Sometimes historians to be historical actually have to let words have definite meaning if they are going to do justice to historical actors.
I have no trouble calling PCUSA ministers “Presbyterian” because the last time I checked they called themselves Presbyterian. I’d like a similar courtesy from you, which would mean not calling me an evangelical but a Presbyterian. Or do you know better what everyone is?
LikeLike
“As in Christian hedonism??”
Well, that contains it’s own problems. If I have to be happy, where is the Gospel? Though I was referring more to the tendency of some in the YRR camp to delight in ever more negative framings of the doctrine of predestination (isolated from everything else in the institutes).
LikeLike
Johnny K., yes, I think Jay’s separation of his duties as historian and those as elder are inaccurate. If he calls everyone who claims to be a Christian a Christian in his account of history, then he has no reason for explaining to readers or students why some Christians think other professing Christians are false. In other words, he has no apparent ability to explain what separates a Protestant from a Roman Catholic. But if you can do that as a historian, then the sorts of judgments that elders make can be akin to those that historians practice all the time. Both a historian and an elder are looking at actions and listening to words with definitions and both decide on who gets in the Presbyterian Church and who doesn’t.
LikeLike
Pastor Mark, I agree on the historical point but I’m still puzzled how Presbyterians who think of themselves as Calvinistic do not regard the sacraments more highly, why they are more comfortable with a Baptist understanding of the sacraments than with the Reformed.
LikeLike
I’m puzzled too.
Personally I feel a strong kinship with the ‘Sydney Anglicans’, who are the most vibrant self-consciously Reformed group down here, because of their commitment to scripture and justification, but on the sacraments they seem mostly Zwinglian (this seems to have repurcussions in their worship, too, with a strong drive to ‘lay presidency’ in holy communion services even when a minister is present). Ditto the Presbyterians, at least the ones I have talked with. Part of it may be the strong anti-Roman Catholic sentiment which marked Australian Protestantism until fairly recently, which I surmise may have led the Reformed into a reactionary stance against ‘sacramentalism’ and disconnetced them from their confessional heritage. A parishioner of mine tells me that in his youth Lutherans, of which there are many in this area, were called ‘the German Catholics’ by other Protestants, with disapproval!
LikeLike
Someone who says Zwingli wasn’t Zwinglian:”If I have called this a commemoration, I have done so in order to controvert those who would make of it a sacrifice. . . . We believe that Christ is truly present in the Lord’s Supper; yea, that there is no communion without such presence. . . . We believe that the true Body of Christ is eaten in Communion, not in a gross and carnal manner, but in a spiritual and sacramental manner, by the religious, believing, and pious heart. Elmer S. Freeman, The Lord’s Supper in Protestantism.
The WCF 29.2: In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all…
LikeLike
Confessions of a Restlessly Reforming Evangelical Fundamentalist:
Fortunately, I bypassed the whole Piper YRR movement (Piper’s creative and independent streak is waay too Baptist for my taste) and swallowed the whole TR thing hook, line and sinker…Or so I thought. The further one goes, the more one discovers which exaggerates the differences between what it means to be Evangelical (in modern Western Christianity, that is) and what it means to be Reformed.
First, you fall for the 5 points; then you get over the hump about baptism (my logic was, “if the seventeenth century Baptists agreed with Presbyterians on so much,” as I was then coming to perceive, “then what makes them think Presbyterians are so wrong about baptism?”)…
…then you deal with stuff like exclusive “Acapulco” psalmody, and, for me living in a region where there is no glut of Reformed churches, I take the lazy man’s approach and say this isn’t an issue I have the luxury of standing for, even if I were persuaded of it. And some of their arguments I do find attractively compelling. If it weren’t for those of the advocates of instrumental hymnody.
Now that I’m preparing to join an OPC church, and begin reading all this vast literature about this “splinter group” of a denomination, I feel I’ve come full circle in some ways back to a Presbyterian version of my separatistic IFB background (even the local church planting missions emphasis is reminiscent of the IFB, without the Faith Promise giving campaigns), if you consider some of you more outspoken OPC guys’ position and attitude about TGC and T4G.
Yes, growing up among separatistic fundamentalists, yet consuming my fair share of big tent Evangelical media, it is quite a process in coming to a point where you can confidently call yourself “Reformed” without crossing your fingers behind your back.
LikeLike
I think you’re right John. Getting over the baptism thing was what launched me deeper and deeper in reformed theology. My journey to paedobaptism was actually thanks to John Piper. I listened to a message on the difference between circumcision and baptism and when he gave the fact that they were both signs of faith but said that the difference was in application. He said something along the lines of “it goes against everything baptism stands for to baptize someone who is not born of God”. I thought about that for days. Finally i came to the conclusion if he really believed that he couldn’t baptize anyone with a clear conscience because no pastor can ever guarantee only those who are born of God are baptized. So with the entire basis of credobaptism in question, I started to learn about covenant theology…the rest is history.
LikeLike
Good stuff Chitty, and great art. You’re added to my iGoogle page for sure.
LikeLike
I think you guys are being a bit hard on poor Jay. He makes a fair point: how we understand something changes over time. This is also true of what it means to be Reformed. For example, some of the most Reforme or Presbyterian churches in the world (over here in Scotland), with very strict adherence to the Confession, have a very strong revivalistic culture. Then there is worship: how many of you guys are in denominations that are exclusive psalm singing, my impression is not many- if any. So is there anyone here who can actually claim to be in a Reformed church/denomination.
Churches nowadays do not live in isolation. Even if colleges maintain the party line, the layman is influenced by all sorts of outside manifestations of Christianity.
Jed: in your analogy, isn’t your self-identification as African-American equivalent to the 16th century definition of Reformed ie the “ontological” definition, whereas the modern understanding is the modern manifestation of Reformed church? You kinda make Jay’s point: if no-one today practices Reformed church exactly as it was back then, then obviously something has changed.
LikeLike
Alexander,
I am not advocating no elasticity, and the point isn’t ontology, but who are the proper heirs of the Reformed tradition, and what relation Reformed has with Evangelical. When we speak of “Reformed”, the confessions should be the first place we look. Confessionally Reformed have always had means of modifying or correcting errors in their secondary standards in an effort to conform better with Scripture. So changes, even at a confessional level don’t mean that “Reformed A” (as confessed in the 16th & 17th cent), and “Reformed B” (e.g. revisers of WCF in 1789 up to the modern period) have semantically shifted on a definitional level that the two are unintelligible. If we were to draw a venn diagram, A and B would share ~99% of the same semantic territory.
The same isn’t true with a venn diagram of contemporary Reformed confessionalism and any of the various flavors of evangelicalism. We might have more in common with LBC Baptists, or Lutherans, but these definitions (LBC Baptist, Lutheran) actually mean something, evangelical is still too slippery. I am more comfortable to Michael Horton’s analogy of Evangelicalism as the village green where Protestants of a more or less conservative strip coexist, converse. But when it comes to where we worship, and where we actually recognize churches who execute the three marks of the church, it isn’t at the village green. It is at their local PCA church, OPC, LCMS, ARBCA, etc. These have meaning, they tell me what someone believes about Christianity and Scripture. ‘Evangelical’ just tells me that the person in question is “born again” and believes a few core doctrines that I believe as well, but it lacks specificity.
I appreciate the feedback though, I hope we didn’t scare Jay off, disagreement or no, he had some interesting points, and was fun to dialogue with. Also, I take it you are in the UK, and there are still more differences between the Brittish understanding of the term and the American one. But we all know what a Lutheran is….zing.
LikeLike
Are we talking about ELCA or LCMS or WELS Lutheran?:p
I agree with what you say about evangelicalism. Apologies, my previous post was a tad hit and run: was short on time, posting on my iPhone. I certainly didn’t intend to say that the pursuit of a Reformed church is pointless or that it’s a meaningless term. Absolutely not. We should strive for exclusive psalm singing; Reformed sacramentology; covenant theology. We should oppose revivalism (hard though). I just think that when asking why Reformed people identify as evangelical, or exhibit such characteristics, as has been said in a previous thread: we need to look at the men and women in the pew. They bring ideas into their congregations, from which future ministers come from. In my old congregation (church of scotland) there was a general acceptance of a pseudo-charismaticism despite such positions never officially taught in the church.
And yes, I’m in the Scotland that is in the UK 🙂
LikeLike
Alexander, so does the reality that some people in the pews of Reformed churches don’t identify themselves as Reformed mean that they are the norm for being Reformed? This seems to be Jay’s position — you look at the lay of the land, see what the people think, and that is what Reformed it — anyone who says they are Reformed is.
Which leads to a problem. There are people who identify themselves as Reformed and believe that the evangelical people should also be more consistent with their Reformed identity. That leads to controversy in the church and it has produced any number of splits in Reformed churches since the Reformation. But if it is just a case of whatever a Reformed person does is Reformed, then we have no way to adjudicate these disputes and determine whether one side or the other has a point.
It’s as if a rapper who only sings Bach chorales but calls himself a rapper becomes our norm for rap.
LikeLike
I appreciate counterpoints, but this is what I understand Jay to have said:
1) a reformed person is someone who does and supports things that reformed people do while he or she is a reformed, whether other reformed agree with them or not.
2) terms like “reformed” change over time.
3) therefore we should not or can not change the definition of “reformed.”
So, it’s a circular definition followed by “the word always changes so you shouldn’t try to change it”
As Colonel Jessup said, “Please tell me you have something more, Lieutenant.”
LikeLike
Michael, let’s not forget that Jay also said it was very evangelical to try to distinguish Reformed from evangelical — as if abandoning evangelicalism is a form of evangelicalism because evangelicals abandon things. So apparently Jay knows something about me that I don’t — that I am an evangelical — and he has a definition of it that transcends my own experience, because evangelical should be whatever an evangelical does, which would seem to include ceasing to be evangelical but really being evangelical.
Sheesh. I’m confused.
LikeLike
That paragraph made me dizzy, dgh. Not sure I should read it again on a full stomach.
And, anyway, in that regard the evangelicals are actually doing the opposite thing: they run from history and confessions, whereas the proposal for recovering “reformed” is plugging into history and being oriented by the confessions.
LikeLike
Michael, yes, it makes me woozy.
LikeLike
Without making any specific judgments about whether Darryl is or isn’t an evangelical (a case about which I don’t think I ever tried to make), I would like to comment on the seemingly rhetorical question raised about whether I might know something about Darryl that he doesn’t know about himself. In theory, yes, indeed, the historian does know things about his subjects that they don’t know about themselves. That shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone who has done historical research, or even among people who have relationships with other people. Our own self-knowledge isn’t exactly complete or perfect.
This point is made brilliantly by John Lewis Gaddis in his book “The Landscape of History.” It’s a point also nicely made by Grant Wacker in a volume you, Darryl, co-edited ten or fifteen years ago.
LikeLike
But Jay, you have also said that being Reformed is whatever a Reformed person does. So sometimes you know better than the historical subject, and sometimes you let the subject dictate the knowledge. I’m befuddled.
LikeLike
I know this is happy hunting ground for you schismatics who have little sense (and, it would appear, love) for the Body of Christ but delight in denominations – or at least their own ‘pure church’ – and I am a lamb to the slaughter to open my mouth (as will no doubt be ably demonstrated) but was not Zwingli a Reformer? Was Luther a Reformer? And did not the Reformers differ among themselves? Can there really then be such a definitive thing, such a hermetically sealed entity, as ‘the Reformed Faith’?
Jed, I think, says the Reformed Confessions define what is ‘Reformed’? Who says? Certainly the confessions succeed the reformers. In any case, note the plural. Confessions! Why the plurality? Because there was not universal agreement about what ‘confessionally’ was Reformed. In the same way confessions have been altered or updated as beliefs about what is ‘Reformed’ have been redefined or nuanced.
In Scotland some Presbyterian churches have music some do not. Some sing only psalms some sing hymns too. Some countenance homosexuality and some do not? Which are truly Reformed? Is 2 kingdom theology truly reformed or is some form of transformationalism or neo-calvinism truly Reformed? Is the gospel/law distinction a la West Cal the truly ‘Reformed’ teaching or is someone like John Frame’s take on this the properly Reformed understanding? Would Calvin with his at best equivocal views on IAO be welcomed in today’s Reformed Presbyterian Church? Would he want to be?
Words like ‘Reformed’ are not inflexibly determined for these reasons if no other. However, quite apart from the aforementioned reasons why it is impossible to definitively define ‘Reformed’ the evolution of a word means we have no option but to grapple with the changes in meaning it may undergo. Jay’s arguments here should not be sneered at. They have more than a little truth in them.
The true tragedy is not the difficulty in defining ‘Reformed’ but the carnality of hearts that delight in sectarian labels.
LikeLike
John, so this is it? If I insist on a definite idea of being Reformed, I’m carnal? Why is it that the folks who are the most broad minded are also the ones who think they can decipher the human heart?
Jay’s comments were not met with sneers. They were met with confusion.
LikeLike
Better to focus on justification than on a regeneration that makes you better than the next guy.
But on the other hand, does God use water as means toward both regeneration and justification?
And can you have the law-gospel distinction without a “domestic use of the law”? (third use, after it won’t kill you)
Can you deny that Adam “could have” earned immortality for some others, without denying that God’s law came with creation (as law, but not as “covenant of works”?)
Nestingen: “Augustine, with the Early Church, took the Greco-Roman tradition of natural law. An order built into the shape of life by creation, in the Christian interpretation of it, arranges everything that has being in a hierarchical order from top to bottom. The law, the lex aterna, preserves this order so that all things will move toward the end assigned to them by their status in the hierarchy of being. Natural law is thus inherent in life and necessary to the shaping of existence….But this makes the Law the original way of salvation…. (170).
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/review-cphs-new-called-third-use-law-book/#JGjK7h3iFUslkvRw.99
LikeLike