John H Armstrong

Reformed Christianity and the Christian Church, Part Four

I began this series of posts on Monday by quoting a portion of a letter that a conservative Reformed minister wrote to a friend who had recently joined the Orthodox Church. In that letter this minister told his friend that he had left the Christian faith by becoming Orthodox. I said this response was ludicrous and harmful to both Christians and the well-being of the church. I then turned to the Reformed tradition to show how this type of thinking has impacted churches and denominations and why this approach is not consistent with the better parts of the Reformed tradition. I have particularly looked at John Calvin’s thoughts about unity since he is universally agreed to be the first great theologian of the Reformed faith.

In 1552 John Calvin wrote to Thomas Cranmer in England. Cranmer had invited Calvin, Melanchthon, Bullinger and others to a meeting at Lambeth Palace for the purpose of writing a creed that would be suitable to all the Reformed Churches. Cranmer’s plan failed because of the death of Edward VI and his own martyrdom under the reign of Mary. But Calvin’s response to Cranmer’s offer is powerfully moving and supportive of what I have been saying. Calvin wrote:

I wish indeed it could be brought about that men of learning and authority from the different churches might meet somewhere and, after thoroughly discussing the different articles of faith, should, by a unanimous decision, hand down to posterity some certain rule of faith . . . . As to myself, if I should be thought of any use, I would not, if need be, object to cross ten seas for such a purpose. If the assisting of England were alone concerned, that would be motive enough for me. Much more, therefore, am I of opinion that I ought to grudge no labor or trouble, seeing that the object in view is an agreement among the learned, to be drawn up by the weight of their authority according to Scripture, in order to unite widely severed churches.

It is no surprise that a Calvin scholar like A. Basil Mitchell observed, “Calvin was mastered by the vision of a world-wide church one in Christ, and he regarded it as one of the great ends of his earthly mission to promote its realization.” This vision was shared by a number of sixteenth century Reformers. It was also shared by some Catholics but their voices were eventually not heard above the din of polemics and fierce loyalty to their own church form. It would thus take centuries for this voice to be heard again. By the early twentieth century the concerns of John Calvin were being raised again and some began to listen.

The confessions of the Reformed churches also underscore this truth and the actual spirit behind it. Article 27 of the Belgic Confession says: “We believe and profess one unique catholic or universal Church, which is a holy gathering of true believers in Christ . .. . This holy church, moreover, is not confined, bound or limited to a certain place or to certain persons, but is spread and scattered over the whole world; and yet is joined and united with heart and will in one and the same Spirit and power.”

The minister who wrote the letter to his Orthodox friend affirms a commitment to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). I often wonder if such conservative Presbyterians have actually read the words of their own confession. In the WCF there is a reference to the communion of saints. There is a significant phrase there that is all too easily missed: “Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus (XX.VI.2). This statement prompted the late John Mackay to say, “Could there be a more decisive testimony to what it means, in a practical sense, to belong to the Holy Catholic Church or a more articulate clarion call to inter-communion?”

It is very obvious, if you study Reformed Christianity carefully, that this tradition had much more to say about the catholic church, and thus about unity and ecumenism, than many advocates of the tradition now seem to believe. The writers of the Reformed confessions, and many of the best advocates of this theology, knew that to be truly Reformed meant that we must always be catholic and evangelical. This is the modern reformation that we need, not the one advocated by modern Reformed polemicists who continually attack other Christians and their church communions.

Reformed Christianity and the Christian Church, Part Three

I began this series of posts by sharing a portion of a letter written by a conservative Reformed minister who told a friend that he had left the Christian faith by joining the Orthodox Church. I believe that this response is not only preposterous but it is fostered by the sin of pride and reflects a divisive spirit that is condemned by the Scripture itself.

I noted that John Calvin distinguishes between essential and non-essential matters of faith. This distinction has been made by teachers and theologians since the early church. Calvin is simply following the long tradition of the faith in making such a point. He says, “A difference of opinion should in nowise be the basis of schism among Christians.” He says, in The Institutes (IV.1.12) that the characteristic core doctrines that are essential are these: “God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests on God’s mercy and the like.” He adds, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, “[The one fundamental doctrine] which it is forbidden to overthrow, is that we might learn Christ. For Christ is the one and only foundation of the Church.” He is saying that the one final test of a person, or of a church, is that its doctrine must be right concerning Christ. (This, for example, is why all Christians believe the Jehovah Witness movement is not a true church.) Calvin, like Catholic and Orthodox Christians before him, believes everything hinges on this question: “What do you think of Christ?” (Matthew 22:42).

Calvin worked hard to preserve unity in the church. He was conciliatory towards Luther (whom he never actually met) and his followers. The model of his charity can be seen in how he treated Melanchthon, Luther’s principal theologian. Melanchthon was notoriously unstable and held views that Calvin strongly and openly opposed. Within Switzerland Calvin worked with disparate Protestant factions to seek unity as well. In 1549 a union was reached.

Calvin’s correspondence reveals an even deeper concern for true unity. In a letter to Bullinger (Zwingli’s successor and the leader of the German-Swiss Reformed Churches) he says:

What, my dear Bullinger, should more concern us in writing at this time, than to keep up and strengthen brotherly friendship between us by all possible means? We see how much it concerns not our church alone but all Christianity that all to whom the Lord has entrusted any charge in his church should agree in true concord. . . . We must therefore purposefully and carefully cherish association and friendship with all true ministers of Christ . . . in order that the churches to which we minister the Word of God may faithfully agree together. As for me, as far as in me lies, I will always labor to this end.

But there is a rather amazing part of Calvin’s story that I had never heard from those conservative Calvinists who remain steadfastly committed to schism. Following the Council of Trent, which revitalized Roman Catholicism in many excellent ways, Calvin was concerned that the Reformed cause might be lost. In 1557 he tried to persuade Melanchthon to arrange a conference in Germany on behalf of peace and union. In 1560 he made further attempts to renew this project. He proposed an assembly that would renew the union project by “a free and universal council to put an end to the divisions of Christendom.” The very next year, in 1561, he even gave consent to hold a gathering at Poissy which would have included Roman Catholics. He would have attended himself had not his friends prevented it. Adds John Hesselink, “This is all the more remarkable in that his frail body was being wracked by ever more frequent bouts of the painful illness which was to bring him to his death only three years later.”

Many modern conservative Calvinists prefer polemics against other Christians to praying and working for unity. One reason for this stance is that they really do not think other Christians are real Christians. They believe, in other words, what the Reformed minister believes who wrote to his friend and told him he had left the Christian faith by becoming Orthodox. What a sad departure from the true Reformed view of the church.

Reformed Christianity and the Christian Church, Part Two

A charge often leveled at Reformed Christianity is that it is inherently schismatic and fiercely anti-ecumenical. This is simply not true. A superficial reading of recent Reformed history may seem to support this idea but the facts are far more interesting. A proper understanding of the term "Reformed" calls for a much deeper understanding of this term than that employed by modern Calvinists who define their use of this term by a TULIP or some similar form of reductionism.

The Reformed Church in the Netherlands, as well as the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, both experienced serious dissensions that led to formal schism in the nineteenth century. In fact the Church of Scotland had already experienced two divisions in the eighteenth century. Some of these splits led to a wave of new immigration to America. These American churches were later plagued by further splits. But this is not the whole story. There have been reunions as well. Sadly, this part of the story is much less talked about.

A primary reason for these Reformed splits is quite easy to discover—Reformed Christians generally take doctrine more seriously than many other Christians. What looks like a minor theological issue to some Christians is a serious concern for many Reformed Christians. Yet it would be wrong to assume this history is only true of the Reformed. Lutherans and Baptists have had their own share of divisions, as have many other groups.

In spite of this heritage some of the strongest proponents of unity and catholicity have been Presbyterian and Reformed Christians. John Calvin, contrary to the misunderstanding that many have of his writing, was a strong advocate of unity. And in the twentieth century ecumenical movement it was Reformed Christians who often became strong leaders in calling for unity. Many worked tirelessly for catholicity.

My conclusion here is shared by many historians and theologians. Reformed Christianity has a classical commitment to the church catholic and thus takes the injunction to pursue unity very seriously. This is the mainstream witness of the movement. At the same time there has been a sectarian strand of Reformed Christianity that has often overshadowed the better nature of this movement. This strand glories in schism and in a type of elitism that sees Reformed Christianity as true Christianity. It sees Reformed Christianity as exclusionary of other expressions of the Christian faith. This sectarian strand is what lies behind the quotation I gave yesterday from the words of a Reformed leader to a friend of his who joined the Orthodox Church. In his response he makes it clear that his friend has left the Christian faith altogether. You should ask: "What makes a person say something like this in the face of the obvious fact that Orthodox Christianity affirms everything essential to orthodox Christian faith?"

Do not misunderstand my view. There are legitimate reasons for being concerned about union and unity. Purity of doctrine is a valid concern. So is the fear of certain types of bureaucracy that will cripple the church in missional faithfulness to Christ. Opposition to some unions is not necessarily wrong.

John Calvin is very helpful at this point. He was no “ecumaniac,” ready to rush into union at any price. Calvin wrote, in his commentary on John’s Gospel: “Schism is the worst and most harmful evil in the Church of God.” Yet he adds, “It is those who will not be obedient to the truth of God who tear the church by schism.” Dr. I. John Hesselink, a first-rate Calvin scholar, says that there are three criteria for true unity in Calvin’s thought: (1) Obedience to the truth; (2) Genuine godliness or piety; and, (3) The unity of faith. But having said this there is still the very practical problem of how we determine what is essential and nonessential regarding truth. The classic Protestant definition of a true church is one in which the Word of God is faithfully proclaimed and the sacraments are properly administered. But this still leaves a wide open door to question what is “true” and what is not. Says Hesselink, “Everything hinges on how one defines truth and purity.”

Interestingly Calvin warns against overscrupulousness in regard to doctrinal and ethical standards. A church, he says in The Institutes (IV.1.12) may “swarm with many faults.” I think he is spot on. The church in Corinth demonstrates his point. Here we have a congregation that abused the Lord’s Supper, failed to practice moral discipline (even tolerating serious sexual sin), divided over various leaders and their gifts and then missed the centrality of the bodily resurrection. Can you think of a more incriminating list of errors? Yet, Paul still addresses this flock as a true church.

It seems apparent that Paul believed that if the basic teaching of the apostles concerning God and Jesus Christ were sound then a true church exists. Perfectionism is, in this instance, a grievous sin. Christians who continually insist on dividing the church often commit serious sin in the process. Calvin adds, “It is a dangerous temptation to think there is not church where perfect purity is lacking. Anyone who is obsessed by that idea must cut himself off from everybody else, and appear to himself to be the only saint in the world, or he must set up a sect of his own along with other hypocrites” (Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 1:2).

The question, it seems to me, is thus clear: How much is necessary to believe in order to avoid heresy on the one hand and perfectionism on the other? I will address this tomorrow.

Reformed Christianity and the Christian Church, Part One

There is a deep ambivalence in Presbyterian and Reformed history with regard to the unity of the church. In the sixteenth century there was a strong desire for unity, one that was stretched by the division with Rome and then impacted by division with other Protestants, especially with Lutherans. (Sadly, all of the magisterial Reform movements rejected the hated Anabaptists, thus joining with the Catholics in their assault on these simple believers.) In the twentieth century Reformed churches and ministers became some of the most prominent leaders in the rise of the modern ecumenical movement. But you would not know this if you listened to many of the popular Reformed teachers of our day.

This fact is indeed clear: many conservative Presbyterian and Reformed Christians are known for some of the fiercest doctrinal debates imaginable. Numerous splits between these churches have been the sad result of several hundred years of theological warfare. In America these fires have been stoked by deep fears within a number of denominations and groups. The Internet provides a marvelous means for the vigorous pursuit of more schism. People who engage in this kind of polemical debate have virtually no desire to pursue unity with anyone who does not agree with their “essentials.” (The list of “essentials” varies from person to person and from place to place!)

I have routinely argued that a strong desire for unity is the best expression of true Reformed Christianity. The regular reader of these posts can see that there are strong opponents of this view, some of whom routinely raise objections to my posts. I remain Reformed but I seek to follow a way of charity and unity with other Christians who are anything but Reformed in their understanding of a number of significant doctrinal debates.

Recently a friend answered an email from a man who wrote him to say that he had left the Reformed Protestant faith for the Orthodox Church. What made this correspondence interesting to me was that I have also had more than a few friends join the Orthodox Church. One of my dearest friends, and the past chairman of our ACT 3 board, left the evangelical Protestant ministry to become an Orthodox priest. This experience led me to take an immediate interest in this particular correspondence. My friend answered this man by telling him why he regretted his decision to become Orthodox. But he also indicated that he would remain a friend and brother in Christ. The letter of my friend was then forwarded to another Reformed leader. This second correspondent is a strong advocate for the polemical stance of much conservative Reformed Christianity in America. Without divulging the name of this person I share a part of his response to allow you to see precisely what I am talking about when I write various posts on this subject. I do not make this stuff up. This letter will demonstrate my point abundantly. Here is the unnamed Reformed leader’s response to the conversion of his friend to Orthodoxy:

Because I have so enjoyed our friendship, this news is hard for me. As you already know, my views on Rome and Orthodoxy are decidedly less sanguine than [those of your other Reformed respondent]. In my judgment you are leaving behind the Christian faith, and for that I mourn. I'm not angry, and I'm not offended, and I'm not hurt. I'm just sad. It is a sadness I have been through far too many times, including with respect to sheep that were at one time actually under my care. I don't need to fuss and fume, and you can rest assured of two truths. First, I will pray that God would open your eyes to the truth on these matters. Second, if He should be so pleased, I will rejoice with the angels in heaven.

There you have it. This man’s response is to tell his friend that he is “leaving behind the Christian faith.” This is utterly and completely preposterous. I will explain my response more fully tomorrow but it must be said now that everyone who confesses “Jesus is Lord” (1 Corinthians 12:3) is my brother.

Yes, I am quite aware that there are many who confess Christ who are not truly his disciples. Our Lord repeatedly warned his followers to make sure that they really knew him. I am also quite prepared to say that you do not know who his true disciples are since “the Lord knows those who are his.” A little more humility here would go a long way. When you are convinced that you possess the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then you are prepared to tell people who become Catholic, or Orthodox, or anything else besides your version of the faith, that they “are leaving behind the Christian faith.” This is unmitigated tragedy. Who made you the judge of your brother or sister?

The Road to Re-Understanding Is Through Misunderstanding

Somewhere, from a friend whose name I cannot recall, I recently heard it said: “The path to re-understanding is often through misunderstanding.” I profoundly agree with this insight. My own journey to what I call missional-ecumenism has followed a path of re-understanding what the church has taught in previous centuries, especially in the early centuries, that began when I plainly began to see that things I misunderstood where the very things I assumed to be correct. So my path to re-understanding followed a road that began with my misunderstanding.

I find myself hoping and praying, almost every day, that more and more Christian leaders would acknowledge their limited perspective regarding many things that they assume so confidently they clearly know. What I call “epistemic humility” is always appropriate. We know what we know, especially when it comes to the revelation of Christ by the Holy Spirit, but even what we know is never so certain that we cannot understand more than what we know. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Paul says “knowledge puffs up while love builds up” (1 Corinthians 8:1b). Serving within the Reformed sector of the kingdom of God has shown me far too many times than I can recall that this principle is experientially true. Rather than being humbled by the doctrine of divine sovereignty many become the proud teachers of a human system that has all the answers. This certainty about the human system gives proponents a strong disdain for those who do not “get it.” Other expressions of the faith offer their own platform for such human arrogance but this is the one I know best.

The point is clear. If we are to re-form and re-new the church we need to re-understand the past and the present. The best place to begin is by facing our current misunderstanding(s). 

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Yesterday I referred to Anthony N. S. Lane's new primer, A Reader's Guide to Calvin's Institutes (Baker, 2009). I highly recommend this helpful small book.

It dawns on me that it might be helpful to comment on Calvin's aims in writing this famous theological treatise. The Institutes appeared in several different editions, over the course of several decades. Each edition included changes and additions by the author. Each edition tells something of Calvin's growing awareness of what he was writing for on the title page. In those days title pages were long and gave you the back thesis of the author. (How publishing has changed over the years!)

In the 1536 edition Calvin wrote:

Embracing almost the whole sum of piety and whatever is necessary to know in the doctrine of salvation: A work most worthy to be read by all persons zealous for piety.

Calvin is saying that what he wrote was meant to be a brief summary of the Christian faith with the goal of edifying his readers so that they would embrace the truth about God's salvation.

In the 1536 edition Calvin also dedicated the volume to King Francis I in order to make an appeal that the king would end violence against the French Protestants. I find this so moving. Calvin wanted to see martyrdom end and he wrote theology to that end. His work was an apology for these Protestants and an appeal to the heart and mind of the king.

In a letter to the reader in the 1539 edition Calvin explains that the reader of the Institutes should use this material as a guide to the study of Holy Scripture and as a complement to his numerous commentaries on the various books of the Bible. Simply put, Calvin is richly biblical and deeply committed to encouraging readers to study the Bible itself, not Calvin. This connection warns us against a common mistake made by people who read Calvin. Some like his commentaries and some the Institutes. Calvin does not see them in conflict but as tools to be used together in order to understand the Holy Scripture.

In the French editions from 1541 to 1551 Calvin presents the Institutes as a guide to the laity in their study of the Bible. This underscores an earlier point I made. This work was intended for the ordinary reader, not specialists and professional theologians. It is "a summary of Christian doctrine." Calvin's goal was "lucid brevity." As long as the books seem he actually accomplishes this goal, making this still one of the most important tools anyone can read to better understand the Bible.

A Reader's Guide to Calvin's Institutes

I would guess that 9 in 10 people I meet have no real idea what the term "Calvinism" actually means. Most have never read John Calvin. Most have only met a few very conservative Calvinists who promote things like TULIP and various scholastic readings of the great reformer. (And quite a few of these are mean, separatistic and critical of almost every other expression of the Christian faith) While the TULIP does have clear historical connection with the post-Calvin developments at the Synod of Dort in Holland (and thus the conclusions of the Synod are preserved in Reformed churches down to the present time as one of the three forms of confessional unity) Dort is clearly not the whole story. When TULIP becomes the strong focus then Calvinism becomes a lot like looking at a lovely person by staring at one, not so complete and not so clear, "photo-shopped" picture. And this picture is neither accurate nor helpful.

The real Calvin is flawed. But he is also an intriguing and very important figure in church history. No one can rightly defend Calvin's actions with regard to the killing of Michael Servetus. (Yet, just last week I had someone ask me if Calvin approved the martyrdom of many that he disagreed with. This is preposterous if you know the facts at all.)

I do not defend some of Calvin's ideas about predestination, such as the idea of "double predestination." I also disagree with some of the way he expresses other biblical truths. But I remind friends and foes alike that John Calvin wrote for reasons that were not rooted primarily in the doctrine of predestination. In fact, his views on this subject should never be divorced from the whole of his purpose or you will get a distorted view of the man and of his influence upon Protestantism, especially the Reformed Church.

How should the ordinary person read John Calvin? The answer is rather simple. Read The Institutes of the Christian Religion, which is certainly one of the ten most important books of theology in church history. Get the Library of Christian Classics (Westminster/John Knox) edition, edited and translated by McNeill and Battles. Their notes and comments are worth the price of the two cloth bound books and the translation is simply superb. I have been amazed over the years by what happens when ordinary people get these two volumes and begin to read them. They are devotional in style and biblical in content. This surprises many who do not know the man or his theology.

Now we have been given a wonderful guide to Calvin's Institutes. Anthony N. S. Lane, professor of historical theology and director of research at the London School of Theology, has written A Reader's Guide to Calvin's Institutes (Baker, 2008). Lane, a world-class Calvin scholar, gives the reader a streamlined introduction to Calvin. He divides the Institutes into thirty-two portions. The whole is covered in simple, clear language. Lane is a wonderful guide and understands both the subject (Calvin) and the subject matter (his theology). People on several sides of the debates about John Calvin all agree that this book is clearly the best such primer we have in print. It sells for $16.99 and is 176 pages in length. This book can be used personally or in the class room. I encourage you to get it.

Was A. W. Tozer a Calvinist?

A question was raised about whether A. W. Tozer was a Calvinist when I quoted him last week in several of my blogs. I have several responses to this statement and the supposed objections that come with it.

1. Who cares? Seriously now, must we who are Reformed in our understanding of divine revelation always use this “label” to prove a point or to discredit the contributions of another Christian thinker who is not precisely where we are on some doctrinal points? Can’t I be a Reformed minister and still count the confession of this particular historical understanding of faith as much less important than the simple fact that I am a Christian? If I must rank these commitments, as labels are generally used to judge others, then I am a mere Christian first and a catholic Christian second. Beyond that I would call myself a Protestant catholic Christian. Only then would say that I am a Reformed Protestant catholic Christian. My order here is precisely the priority that I really do give to these labels. The truth, however, is that I still do not care about labels that much. I have been personally tagged with a bunch of labels and quite honestly I do not care what you call me so long as I remain a true and faithful follower of Jesus Christ. Ands this is primarily what I care for about you as well. If my life is one where faith is lived, and not simply a list of labels, then I will be happy at the end of my days. A faith that is lived, genuinely and honestly, means more to me than what you "understand" about the divine and human components in the ordo salutis; i.e., the order of salvation. 

2. Tozer was not a confessional Calvinist, at least as a minister would be who is in a denomination like I am; e.g., the Reformed Church in America. But saying that he is not a Calvinist, at least in the general sense of what this term has meant, is another matter altogether. After I read the comment about Tozer not being a Calvinist I thought to myself, “Yes, that is true in one sense. But in a more important sense it is not quite true.” Why? Well, because Calvinism does not consist in affirming the five points of the Synod of Dordt. This is how many think of it but this is not the heart of the theology at all. Generally the term has been used, more broadly, to describe anyone with a fairly robust view of the sovereignty of God and a deep and growing desire to maximize God's glory in the way they live and teach the faith. (This is why Calvin's own symbol is an outstretched hand offering one's heart to God!) In this sense Tozer was a “Calvinist.”

In Chapter 22 of The Knowledge of the Holy Tozer writes on the subject of “The Sovereignty of God.” After telling his readers that “God’s sovereignty is the attribute by which He rules His entire creation” Tozer adds that “to be sovereign, God must be all-knowing, all-powerful, and absolutely free.” He then spells out what he means by each of these terms. The one that is most closely aligned with the “spirit” of Calvinism is the term “absolutely free."

Tozer writes:

To grasp the idea of unqualified freedom requires a vigorous effort of the mind. We are not psychologically conditioned to understand freedom except in its imperfect forms. Our concepts of it have been shaped in a world where no absolute freedom exists. Here each natural object is dependent upon many other objects, and that dependence limits its freedom (108).

He later adds:

God is said to be absolutely free because no one and no thing can hinder Him or compel Him or stop Him. He is able to do as He pleases always, everywhere, forever. To be thus free means also that He must possess universal authority.

The Tozer then faces squarely the objections to what he has claimed about God. He says there are two primary ones.

1. The presence in the creation of free things which God cannot approve, such as evil, pain, and death. He could have stopped these from ever occurring so why did he choose not to do this? He says a “complete explanation of the origin of sin eludes us” but there are a few things we do know. God has “permitted” evil to exist in “carefully restricted areas” and thus Satan and evil are “a kind of fugitive outlaw whose activities are temporary and limited in scope.” This led Martin Luther to say, “The devil is God’s devil.” God has acted, in this regard, according to “infinite wisdom and goodness” (110).

2. The second real problem is the “will of man.” How can man exercise free choice if God is really sovereign? And if he cannot exercise choice how then can man be held accountable for his actions? Tozer wisely says, “The attempt to answer this question has divided the Christian Church neatly into two camps which have borne the names of two distinguished theologians, Jacobus Arminius and John Calvin” (110). Tozer believes that these two views can be reconciled so as to not do “violence to either” view. (I think he is overly optimistic about this and does not have a clear grasp on how this was tried and, so far at least, has failed.) Thus I do not agree with him here, at least strictly speaking. I do, however, believe that both approaches have strengths and weaknesses. These can allow people from either side of this debate to learn from the other side and then pay more careful attention to some real dangers for their own side if they will seek to truly learn from the other side.

Tozer says,

Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What dost thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon his creatures. He would be afraid to do so.

The Reformed view would argue that men are morally free but they are enslaved to sin because they are Adam’s children and thus because they are in union with their human head they fell into sin. It has to be noted that there is even more profound mystery here but what is at stake, I believe, is a robust and biblical doctrine of the fall, of human nature and of sin. Tozer thus does not go far enough here, but what he says, in and of itself, is not altogether wrong. He uses an illustration of a group of passengers buying a ticket to sail on an ocean liner. Once they are on the ship they are free to move about but also limited by their choice. With Augustine and Calvin I believe that Adam bought a ticket for the family and we joined him on the ship. It is sinking and the problem is the people on the ship are spiritually dead and without hope in God.

Tozer later concludes, “Nothing [can] turn Him aside from His plans. Since He is omniscient, there can be no unforeseen circumstances, no accidents. As He is sovereign, there can be no countermanded orders, no breakdown in authority . . . (112).

Tozer says that all who commit themselves to Jesus Christ will become the sons of God and all who continue in darkness and rebellion will remain in a state of spiritual alienation. This is precisely what I believe as a Reformed minister.

He concludes with this excellent counsel, counsel that every Calvinist should freely give to all sinners:

We must choose whether we will obey the gospel or turn away in unbelief and reject its authority. Our choice is our own, but the consequences of the choice have already been determined by the sovereign will of God, and from this there is no appeal (113).

Calvinists have the tendency to preach divine election as if humans make no real choice. In fact, a well known theologian once preached a sermon in my own pulpit and said, “Since you are dead in your sins you can do nothing at all. The best you can do it put yourself in the place where God might save you!” (This notion of "seeking" has a long and sad history.) The next Sunday I explained to my congregation why my esteemed friend was wrong and for the only time in my entire life I corrected a guest preacher whom I admired and loved. Simply put, the doctrine of total depravity is never presented in the Scripture as a doctrine that hinders any unbeliever from coming to Christ whenever they desire to come. Free grace and human responsibility, and thus real choice, are doctrines of the Bible. The mystery will remain because “The secret things belong to the Lord our God but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

However you understand and teach divine sovereignty it should never be handled in any way that discourages sinners from coming to Christ. And it should never be handled in a way that keeps Christians from being faithful to the mission of Christ. Much modern Reformed theology, of the kind that is debated and argued about in many conservative circles and on the Internet, denies both.

Question: Can you tell sinners that God loves them and that he really and truly wants them to repent and believe the gospel? If you can’t then you ought to rethink your doctrine and consider that you have moved away from the clear teaching of Scripture to a doctrinal system that actually harms the mission of Jesus.

Conclusion: I do not believe that good Reformed theology and teaching creates this problem but rather the logical minds and cold hearts of some people promote it in spite of the “mystery” that lies at the heart of a proper understanding of divine sovereignty.

So, was Tozer a real Calvinist? Not in a strict confessional sense I feel sure. But as to the root of the matter he was and you can sense it and feel it in his spirit and words. And, as I said above, “Who cares?” He loved God, wrote powerfully about Scripture and human experience, and has helped a multitude do the same. I think you can do far worse, and likely not much better, whatever you may believe about Calvinism.

And while I am at it, if you love Jesus then you belong to him and I belong to you as your bother, regardless of other doctrinal differences that we might have. I call this missional ecumenism and it is at the very heart of my life and ministry.

Machen's Warrior Children

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) is still an esteemed name among some conservative Reformed Christians in America. It was Machen who wrote the classic book, Christianity and Liberalism, in which he argued that consistent liberalism in theology was not Christian. He also authored a number of other well-regarded books such as: The Virgin Birth and The Origin of Paul's Religion. A graduate of Johns Hopkins University and Princeton Theological Seminary, Machen was deeply influenced by pious parents of Southern demeanor and sympathy. He was also profoundly marked by the famous B. B. Warfield, and the older Calvinism, favored by Charles and A. A. Hodge.

During the 1920s Machen was at the very center of the theological debates that rocked the Presbyterian Church in America. He was a champion for orthodox Christianity and saw some real dangers ahead for the Presbyterians. He eventually left Princeton, after  serious shuffles changed the school internally, and helped found Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia in 1929, where he was both the president and a New Testament professor. When the Presbyterian Church disciplined Machen in 1935 he then helped found what became known, just a few years later, as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). He was the first moderator of this new church. He was gravely disappointed that so few of his conservative friends left the old denomination to go with him. He died only two years later.

Machen has always represented some of the best of serious scholarship among very conservative Reformed people who left the mainline. (There is no debate about the fact that liberalism had begun to impact the church, the question was really about how to deal with it.) After Machen's departure from Princeton things there clearly followed a more liberal course, as an abandoning of the older, stricter Calvinism of the 19th century quickly followed. Entire books and dissertations have been produced about all of these events, events which are far better known to professional historians than I care to go into in this blog.

Several years ago Professor John Frame, who taught at Westminster Seminary, both in Philadelphia and California, wrote a magnificent article titled: "Machen's Warrior Children." John now teaches at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando and remains a friend that I admire and love personally. We do not agree on several things but we retain a true friendship, albeit from a distance since we try to see one another once a year. John would generally defend Machen, and what he stood for, in ways that I would not. Actually, it is safe to say that John loves Machen. But John's own written work angers some of Machen's present-day children. That's the rub. If you wonder why then read his most excellent article that I have linked above. It is cogent and clear to anyone who cares to see what Frame means by Machen's present-day "warrior children."

What amazes me is that some of these "warrior children" now openly advocate this appellation as a designation for themselves. They seem to enjoy being known as "warriors" and thus wear this special label as a badge of honor. Even more amazing to me is that a small industry has grown up around Frame's original title re:  Machen. These folks are serious about their reliance upon Machen's "warrior" spirit. Indeed, some theologians promote this stuff openly. Now we have a whole line of products, clearly offered in good-natured fun but nonetheless demonstrating that some people think this is more than just a bunch of fun. Maybe these folks are so terribly serious about this that they want to make a statement by wearing these shirts and using these mugs. What they seem openly proud of in all of this is being called: "Machen's Warrior Children."

Dog lover that I am I was tempted, for a brief moment, to order one of their products---a Machen shirt for Neo. But she already gets called "Neo-Orthodoxy" enough I reasoned. I think she would never wear this shirt with a great deal of pride given her training, but what can you expect from the training I gave to her in her infancy. One never knows, however, since German dogs can be particularly funny about their likes and dislikes, just like German theologians. Maybe such a shirt would be seen as a loyalty pledge on my part. On second thought, I rather doubt it. Since I am not a "warrior child of Machen" I suppose I have no right to even order a shirt for my little Neo. I suspect that she will thank me someday, being the catholic twenty-first century dachshund that she is. 

The PCA Divided Again by the Charges Against Steve Wilkins

Sadly, some leaders in the Presbyterian Church in America refuse to tolerate what they perceive to be "deadly errors." I am not suggesting "deadly errors" should be tolerated, not in the least, but let's be honest here. This debate is about whether or not the errors themselves, assuming they are errors, are indeed "deadly." Additionally, this is about whether or not the person who holds the supposed errors really denies the Westminster Confession of Faith (WSF) or not. This is an honest debate, in the formal sense, for sure. And Presbyterianism allows elders to have this struggle. (This is a matter for more thought but I seriously doubt that this "type" of presbyterian practice can thrive, and help a groups of churches grow, in the new century. Clearly, the next generation has no tolerance for it at all. Sadly, many in my generation really love it and thrive on it, preferring rational debates about doctrine to actually dealing with real people in pastoral and missional ways.)

The response defenders of "strict confession," if you read the various Web sites that promote their rather militant judicial approach, is simple. The man in question, teaching elder/pastor Steve Wilkins of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana, is guilty of denying the gospel. So the question comes down to this: "Does Rev. Steve Wilkins deny the gospel of grace and teach doctrines that are in obvious contradiction with the WSF?"

Interestingly, the regional presbytery, which has responsibility for investigating such formal charges, has found Wilkins not guilty. Many PCA leaders would simply like to see this attempt to drive Wilkins away just go away. But it will not go away for one simple reason. The poison of a "strict old school confessionalism" is pervasive in some parts of the PCA and the leaders of this fighting remnant will not let this go. They are, simply put, determined to drive Steve Wilkins out of the denomination. Some of us wonder who they would then pursue once they get Wilkins out of the PCA. (By the way, this is one reason why Wilkins doesn't simply leave on his own. He is filled with courage and hope beyond your ordinary pastor. He has influenced many pastors, counts a number of them his good friends and thus stands with them in resisting these continual attacks that they deem false and unfair.)

Here is the issue, in formal PCA type judicial language:

"Louisiana Presbytery, by neglecting its duties to handle properly TE Wilkins differences and by not finding a strong presumption of guilt on the part of TE Wilkins, and thus either embracing his views or refusing even to being open to considering his guilt therein, has evidenced its refusal to deal with the views of TE Wilkins that differ from the Confessional Standards and Scripture; thereby creating an impasse that can only be resolved by Louisiana Presbytery either repenting (and showing its repentance by bringing TE Wilkins to trial in a fair and impartial way or by referring the matter pursuant to BCO 41), or failing which, having the ecclesiastical connection between Louisiana Presbytery and the Presbyterian Church in America dissolved by the General Assembly, with the geographical bounds of neighboring presbyteries being expanded to cover the geographical area of Louisiana Presbytery, with said neighboring presbyteries, after due examination of elders and deliberation, being responsible for receiving any elders and churches desiring to be reunited with the Presbyterian Church in America."

What this claim is saying is simple. The Louisiana presbytery did not act as these other ministers wanted them to act in regard to removing Steve Wilkins so now they will appeal to the General Assembly (GA) to remove this entire presbytery by an act of discipline and thus force churches to leave and or to stay by joining another presbytery or forming a new one that is "correct" in doctrine. In any normal context this would be seen as a kind of "takeover" move, carefully thought out and clearly political. Yet the proponents all argue that they are simply doing God's will and protecting the integrity of the PCA. (I do not doubt their sincerity for one moment. What I doubt is their wisdom and hermeneutic.)

I do not have a horse in this race. Steve Wilkins is my friend, as many of you know already. I love him very deeply. I have preached at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church on three occasions. I find it to be a Spirit-filled congregation, a body of well-taught Christians, and a healthy worshiping and witnessing church. I find Steve Wilkins to be one of the most courageous, patient and faithful Christian ministers that I know. I do not agree with Steve on some points but this is not relevant to my friendship. What is relevant is that he preaches Christ, the good news, and the great doctrines of the system of faith he has openly embraced his entire adult lifetime. His theological views, many friends like me are quite convinced, are not outside the bounds of the confession and clearly not as problematic as a few persistent men make them out to be. If you want to debate this then have at it. Meanwhile I assure you Steve Wilkins continues to pastor his flock faithfully, preach the grace of God clearly and pursue godly peace in Christian love. And his friendship with me doesn't help him any with these same critics since they also dislike me for different reasons. The major difference here is that they cannot directly harm me since I am not a PCA minister, but rather an RCA minister. At the same time I have more friends in the gospel ministry in the PCA than any other denomination. Most of them dislike this "seek and destroy" business just as much as I do. Some are leaving the PCA for these, and other, compelling reasons. This, in itself, makes the whole business extremely sad to me.  I have no desire to see the PCA torn asunder but so long as these Web debates exist, and pastors spend inordinate amounts of time discussing these issues among themselves and on their blogs (Question: When do these guys pastor their flocks?), this will remain a fractious and contentious issue. (By the way, as long as I was in the pastorate I never found the time to engage in all of this stuff on the Internet, or in person since the Internet was not as big then. I was too busy doing my calling with my flock. This is why I left the pastorate in 1992, out of conscience, so I could be sent to write and counsel ministers and churches at-large!)

God will, quite obviously, decide the right and wrong here. My concern is that the PCA is once again roiling in a controversy that a few men simply do not want to let go away until they get rid of Wilkins, even though a proper process has been followed and he was exonerated. These brothers want to go to the next step, one almost unknown and unheard of in the 20th or 21st centuries, and disband an entire presbytery. They now want to remove this Louisiana presbytery as an act of national discipline. They have the right to do this, at least according to their polity. However, having the right and doing it are not the same thing. The question I have is quite simple: "What will this do to expand the mission of Jesus and to make the good news known to a perishing generation of young people that think the whole business is about power and control by a few?"