John H Armstrong

Doing Reformed Theology

I am sometimes asked, “Are you a Reformed theologian?” This post is a brief attempt to give an honest (and simple) answer to this question.

First, this question infers that I am a theologian. The answer to this part of the question is both yes and no. Every Christian is a theologian in some sense, either a good one or a bad one. If you think about your faith, in this case the Christian faith, then you are a Christian theologian. There are trained and untrained theologians. There are lay theologians, teaching theologians, writing theologians, etc. I do formally teach theology but I am not a professional writing theologian who has been highly trained an academic doctoral context for this noble purpose. I have limitations and freely admit it.

The great danger I see here is twofold. Untrained theologians can become rather self-confident because they have read a few “old” books, listened to their favorite teachers, and then strongly adopted what they believe to be true Christian theology. When they do this to the exclusion of all other Christian thought it then divides and creates real harm inside the church. It even impacts our mission before the world as well. In my estimation both Calvinists and Arminians, to use one evangelical example, are guilty of this problem. It is so easy, if you have adopted one side or the other in this centuries old debate, to read only your side favorably and then label the other side negatively. When this is done serious reflection and continued growth is often the great loser.

Trained theologians are sometimes guilty of a very different problem. They sometimes show an almost complete disdain for non-professional theologians. (There are wonderful exceptions to this tendency!) What we all need to keep in mind here is the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Pastors and professional teachers of theology should be especially careful to see their theological work as “service to the whole body.” They are not engaging in a profession apart from the catholic church.

Second, the question I’ve put to myself (because others have done it for me as well) is this: “Am I truly Reformed?” The answer to this is again a qualified yes and no. This will require a careful answer.

If being Reformed means that I accept one or more of the great confession(s) from the 16th century, say the Westminster or the Belgic, as the final word on biblical theology then the answer is a strong no. While I have affirmed the “Three Forms of Unity,” and serve as an ordained minister of Word and Sacrament in the Reformed Church in America, this does not mean that I agree with every word of these fallible human confessions. I find a broad agreement with them for sure but I am not required to hold them without exception. Even the most conservative Reformed denominations allow “exceptions” for elders and ministers.

The problem I am getting is best stated by a friend who left an independent church many years ago and said to me, upon joining a very conservative Reformed church, “In the Westminster Confession I have found the most nearly perfect expression of faith ever penned. I need no more theology than what I have found here.” That is not only a wrong way to use a creed but it is not truly Reformed.

If being Reformed means that I am “young and restless” then I am neither. I am 62 and no longer restless about life or theology. I find this recent emphasis, which has grown in some conservative circles, to be unhelpful to the greater goal of missional-ecumenism. It puts up old barriers and thereby destroys relationships with people who are deemed “wrong” about a wide range of ways to frame the faith. I believe a more ancient-future faith paradigm is faithful to the overall witness of Scripture. In such a paradigm we can use and respect ancient creeds but we can also look to the future with faith and hope as we continue to think and confess the Christian faith in every unique circumstance.

Yes, I am a Reformed Protestant Christian. But I am first, above all else, a Christ follower who loves the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. This means that Reformed, at least for me, is a modifier of my Protestantism, informing my view of the church and its faith in my own context. It seems to me that the proper priority of these commitments is both missional and ecumenical. Some think this type of confession is ludicrous. I believe their confidence is too deeply rooted in their presuppositions about creeds and traditions. I also believe that their personal sense of how certain they are about their own theological system and tradition is a sign of their overconfidence in human systematizing. I love this tradition but I do not hold it in this way. I follow the post-Reformation statement, which no one is sure where it came from originally: “Reformed and always reforming.” I hold this view because this is how I believe we can and do perceive truth in our present state.

My own denomination (Reformed Church in America) recently began the process of adding a fourth doctrinal statement to the three major creeds/catechisms from the Reformation era. I refer to The Belhar Confession. This modern confession comes from South Africa. It deals with modern concerns about racism and systemic forms of sin in the church and culture. The consideration of adoption created a huge stir in Reformed Church settings. It barely passed after a long process of adoption. A few other groups have looked at it, but chosen not to take action. Many conservative Reformed Christians simply do not like Belhar. The two primary arguments made against it, so far as I can tell, go as follows: (1) It does not rise to the same level of doctrinal maturity and wholeness as our past standards and thus it is not, strictly speaking, a creed. (2) It implicitly opens the door to approving homosexual practice since the principal South African author of Belhar now approves homosexual practice. It is argued that by approving it we are adopting a creed that will in itself make it easier to embrace this change too. Without a long explanation about these two points I find the first argument seriously worth consideration while I find the second weak and deeply rooted in fear and false logic.

My point in bringing up The Belhar Confession is that the oldest Reformed denomination in America is now in the process of formally adding this twentieth century creed to its historic standards. This says something important about what the word Reformed really means, at least to one family of Reformed Christians with whom I share fellowship. A Reformed church and theologian is thus never to become static. Let me express this more fully.

I believe we do need new creeds. We don’t need them every few years, or decades, but now and then history calls for new ways of expressing the faith in the context the church confesses the faith and serves the gospel. The Christian faith can never be adequately captured by, or expressed in, one creed for all time. This means that even the ancient creeds, which are given prominence by the whole church, are not infallible. We can and should continue to think, grow and reflect upon biblical truth within our own culture and context. This requires good theology, not a rote recitation of a human creed as an infallible instrument that defines the faith once for all time.

We must remember that confessing the faith is always an ongoing process, one that must be carefully related to the missional situation in which we find ourselves at the moment. I can think of many illustrations of this point but none is more relevant to the last century than the German Church situation in the 1930s and the need for The Barmen Declaration. This short and impressive doctrinal statement challenged Nazism through the simple power of the gospel of Jesus in a very challenging context. This statement of simple faith, written when dark clouds of judgment loomed, was a masterful Reformed response to the times.

Thus I conclude: I am a Reformed theologian in the truest and best sense of this word. I believe the historical creeds and confessions have given us great and important insights that should be preserved going forward. But I also believe that the precise form of our confession and apologetic for the faith must continue to change. This is not relativism. It is most assuredly not liberal or conservative in the way we often carelessly use these terms to undermine real discussion and growth. What this is, in my humble view, is an expression of true confidence in both Word and Spirit. God alone will lead us forward in faith, hope and love. My Reformed faith can embrace deep mystery, engage with all parts of the Christian church and thereby seek the unity of the whole church in love. It can do this because this Reformed faith can engage in continuing dialog with the goal of unity in mission kept before us as we move into a future under God’s providence. This kind of Reformed theology is being done the world over by great minds and hearts. But many conservatives in America fear this kind of Reformed theology very deeply. In my understanding this fear is rooted in cultural constructs that create profound emotional discomfort. This is never in the best interest of Reformed theology or true faith, hope and love—the marks of the type of Christian faith that serves Jesus and his mission holistically.

Wes Granberg-Michaelson’s Faithful Missional-Ecumenism and the Reformed Church in America

For seventeen years Wes Granberg-Michaelson has served the Reformed Church of America (RCA) as general secretary. I not only count Wes as my friend but admire his leadership skills and the job he has done to make the RCA one of the few mainline denominations that remains focused on missional-ecumenism in a vital and Christ-centered way. One of the reasons I am a minister of Word and Sacrament in the RCA is because of leaders like Wes. I believe the vision he has pursued is one of the most biblically faithful in North America. It is not perfect. No leader casts a perfect vision for those he or she serves. But Wes has led with incredible faithfulness.

A few weeks ago Wes gave his last report to the General Synod. He stepped down following this annual gathering to pursue a new phase of mission in his life. When I asked Wes what this new phase would be the answer he offered, in short, was missional-ecumenism. I then asked him if we could find ways to work together in coming years. Time will tell how the Lord leads us both but I am praying that Wes will continue to be a leader in the global church. He has so much to give to other leaders and to the whole church, both of which he knows extensively from travel and friendships that he has made all over the world.

In his final address to the representatives of our church body Wes began with a look at progress related to Our Call, the Reformed Church's 10-year goal to start new churches, revitalize existing congregations, and become more multicultural and freed from racism. It is this very Call that attracted me into ministry in the Reformed Church. I weighed several church families when I concluded that I was no longer a Baptist. The RCA Call made my choice compelling to be honest.

"Our Call has prioritized what is most critical and is changing the RCA," Wes said. "We are seeing new fruitful and faithful ministries emerge. Over the last three years, official RCA new church starts are emerging at a faster rate than at any time in the history of the RCA -- in other words, since 1628."

Granberg-Michaelson highlighted some of the developments in the RCA since Our Call was adopted by General Synod in 2003:

• 185 RCA congregations have been planted and had New Congregation Plans approved.
• An additional 45 new congregations are underway.
• 55 percent of the new RCA churches planted over the past three years involve people of color, and several have been multiracial churches since their beginning.
• Several female church planters have emerged as part of the church planting movement.
• 77 pastors network groups nurture and support 478 RCA pastors.
• 220 church leaders have been trained as "coaches," people who come alongside pastors to encourage and support them.

He also offered a glimpse of the challenges he believes the RCA must recognize and to which the church must react:

• The deep alienation of young people from traditional religious institutions.
• Understanding the nature of the church in a time of rapid organizational change.
• The urgent need for proclaiming and living a whole gospel radically centered on following Jesus.

Granberg-Michaelson then posed a question to the church. "These three challenges can be summarized by one question--a question I'd like to leave with you as you seek to discover God's desired future: 'How do we develop a creative and transforming witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ in ways that can be seen and heard by those outside the doors of our congregations?'

"Answering that question will keep the RCA on a journey of deep change. That's where we need to be."

Granberg-Michaelson recognized a number of individuals and instances that have enriched and blessed him in his time as general secretary. He also emphasized that he is eagerly looking forward to the continued opportunities God has in store. "The end of an era is not the completion of a destiny," he said. "Every end is an opportunity for God to do a new thing.

"In the end, the purpose of all we do as a denomination, through our committees, commissions, classes, consistories, choirs, and callings; in workbooks and worship liturgies; in benefits programs and church loan funds; in seminaries and seminars--in all of this, we desire to make disciples of Jesus Christ.

"That's why we have to recover who Jesus is, and ask again and again, 'What do we do about Jesus?'

"So that is the question that you and I, and all in the Reformed Church in America, must continue to courageously answer. In so doing, we will become the vessels used by God's love to transform the world."

I cannot think of more fitting words for any church or denomination in 2011. “We have to recover who Jesus is, and ask again and again, ‘What do we do about Jesus?’” Amen Wes. Every church and church family ought to ask this question. Our mission is nothing less than transforming the world by God’s love!

And thank you Wes for serving so faithfully for seventeen years. The RCA is much stronger because of your leadership. You led with courage and deep thoughtfulness. You did not settle for filling an office, putting in your time. You gave yourself to something bigger than you could ever have imagined and Christ, I am persuaded, is pleased. May your successor follow in these steps and do even more by the grace of God.

The Supreme Authority of Scripture and Interpretation

Yesterday, I wrote about the authority of Scripture. I am often asked what has kept me from embracing the Catholic Church in its present state? I have many friends who’ve converted to Roman Catholicism. I have many supporters of this mission who are Catholic. This happens because these friends and donors know I am serving the whole church in a unique and ecumenical context. The fact is that I have great love for the Catholic Church. And I am clearly not an anti-Catholic. Further, I have no desire to become a polemicist who engages in anti-Catholic evangelicalism. I am a serious ecumenist and as such I love all Christians – Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. I long to see full communion between the great ancient churches of the Christian faith. Because of this love and longing I will continue to engage with these kinds of issues for the rest of my life. It is because I love Christ and all his people that I do so.

But I am sometimes asked, What keeps you from becoming a Catholic? There are several reasons I remain a Reformed Protestant but a major one is related to this issue of authority. Over time I believe the Catholic Church developed a two-source view of authority. I believe this view is wrong. I believe this view was correctly challenged by the magisterial Reformers of the sixteenth century because the errors it had produced were harmful to the health of the church. I also believe, as I began to show yesterday, that this two-source view is in conflict with the teaching of the early church fathers as well. This point will be strongly opposed by good Catholic friends. The danger in this debate is that we will simply trade quotes and throw verbal bombs. Good ecumenism will not do this. It will listen respectfully and keep the discussion moving forward. In the end a person has to be persuaded in their own conscience by the facts they read and seek to understand. I have wrestled with these facts deeply. I remain persuaded that the Catholic claim that final authority residing in two-sources is wrong.

For my Catholic friends I urge you to respect me even if you disagree with my reading of this important issue. I know most of you do. Catholic academics clearly engage in this dialog without the heated rhetorical devices of many untrained apologists. For my Protestant friends, I urge you to not give up this precious truth in the midst of the modern polemics used against it by popular Catholic authors and speakers who often rail against it by using stereotypes and misrepresentations. What is at stake here is very important, so important that at least for now it hinders the union of our respective Christian churches. (It should not hinder unity even while we cannot attain union with this disagreement on the table!)

Yesterday, I cited some sayings from early church theologians. Here are a few more that I find extremely helpful:

What the Scriptures have not declared, you will never find.
(St. Athanasius, De S. Trin. Dial.)

It is a mockery to ask questions, or to make discourses, on that which is not written. (St. Athanasius, Epist. Ad. Serap.)

In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced—to which let no man add, from which let no man detract—which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth. (St. Athanasius, adv. Gentes init.)

Do not believe me simply, unless you receive the proof of what I say from Holy Scripture. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. A.D. 348)

Keep that faith only which the Church is now giving to you and which is certificated out of the whole of Scripture. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech.)

Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, even the most casual remark ought not to be delivered without the sacred Scriptures. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. IV.12)

It is evidently a falling away from the faith, and a proof of great presumption, to neglect any part of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not written. (St. Basil c. 329-379, bishop of Caesarea, de Vera Fide)

How can we use those things, which we find not in the Scriptures!
(St. Ambrose c. 339-397, Offic. Lib. 1, c. 23)

When we receive money, we do not trust to those who give it to us; we wish to count it ourselves: and when there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures. (St. John Chrysostom c. 347-407, Homil. xiii. in 2 Cor.)

When you shall see the wicked heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the church, then let those who are in Judea head for the mountains, that is, those who are Christians should head for the Scriptures. For the true Judea is
Christendom, and the mountains are the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, as it is written: “Her foundations are in the holy mountains.” But why should all Christians at this time head for the Scriptures? Because in this period in which heresy has taken
possession of the churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who want to know the truth of the faith except the divine Scriptures. Earlier we showed in many ways which is the church of Christ, and which heathenism. But now there is for those who want to know which is the true church of Christ no way to know it except only the through the Scriptures. Why? Because heresy has everything just like the church. How, then, will anyone who wants to know which is the true church of Christ know it in the midst of this great confusion resulting from this similarity, except only through the Scriptures? The Lord, therefore, knowing that there would be such a great confusion of things in the last days, commands that Christians who…want to gain steadfastness in the true faith should take refuge in nothing else but the Scriptures.

Otherwise, if they look to other things, they will be offended and will perish, because they will not know which is the true church, and as a result they will fall into the abomination of desolation which stands in the holy places of the church. (Traditionally ascribed to St. John Chrysostom, glossa ordinaria 49th Homily, on Mat. 24)

We deny not those things which are written, so we refuse those which are not written. That God was born of a Virgin, we believe, because we read; that Mary married after she gave birth to him, we believe not, because we read not. (St. Jerome c. 347-c. 420, adv. Helvidium juxta finem, Tom. IV. Part II)

In those things, which are plainly laid down in Scripture, all things are found, which embrace faith and morals. (St. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana A.D. 427, Lib. II, c. 9)

The canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and in itself suffices to the full, and more, for all demands. (St. Vincent of Lérins, Adversus profanes omnium novitates haereticorum commonitorium A.D.434)

Bring me not human reasonings and syllogisms, for I rely on the divine Scripture alone. (Theodoret of Cyrus c. 393-466, Dial. I. Atrept.)

I have provided only a small sample of hundreds of such early church texts. When I began to wrestle with this issue of biblical authority some years ago, and then re-engage it through my deep love for the whole Christian church over the last fifteen years or so, I came to a deeper appreciation for a sound and balanced understanding of the truth of sola scriptura. Often Protestants hold very bad views of sola scriptura. This does not disprove the true doctrine but it should make us careful about how we state it and teach it.

But this pursuit has also caused me to see many of the more common errors taught by Protestants who hold to this principle. Some Protestant evangelicals make amazing claims about the Bible, especially when it comes to interpreting Scripture. In their desire to avoid various forms of interpretation (allegory comes to mind) embraced by the whole church throughout her history they sometimes fall into grievous errors. One such egregious error was made by a now deceased professor of mine who also became a personal friend. He once lectured for our ministerial meeting here in the Chicago area. In his lecture on Scripture he said:

We don’t criticize the apostolic use of the Old Testament in the New because the apostles were inspired but we cannot follow it because  they were wrong.

I am not misquoting my departed friend. So amazing was this claim that I have discussed it now and again with friends. (This professor actually wrote a book on the Old Testament in the New!) When my dear friend, Fr,. Wilbur Ellsworth, once a Baptist and now an Orthodox priest, brought his up to me a few days ago I was mortified by its conclusion once again. I asked myself, “What made a brilliant man make such a statement?” What my friend was seeking to uphold was a particularly evangelical view of how to interpret the Bible literally. I believe in this case his view of Scripture had gone wrong.

I am again reminded that Catholic and Orthodox Christians read the Bible as the Word of God. This is why I am especially delighted when I see all of us reading and discussing Holy Scripture. For now we disagree about the nature of biblical authority but we can agree on far more than we realized not too long ago. This will remain true so long as we keep talking and listening. By talking and listening we can still learn and so long as we are learning there is room to grow in knowledge and the grace of God. A true ecumenist doesn’t have all the answers but knows the way forward. After all the central message of Holy Scripture is the same for us all – God is love and Christ died for our sins, was raised on the third day, and ascended to the Father from where he will come again at the end of this age. He thus came to redeem all who trust in Him!

The Supreme Authority of Scripture

A major tenet of Protestant theology is the authority and finality of the biblical revelation. This principle is often poorly stated but the essential point is that Scripture serves as the supreme court in all matters of faith and practice.

For some all one needs to do is quote a verse and the issue is settled. For others they are aware of the difficulty of some questions and realize Scripture does not directly address some doctrinal and ethical issues with complete clarity. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts this principle rather clearly:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Here, and elsewhere, the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura reflects a nuanced tension between the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture necessary for final authority, and the occasional need for its meaning to be revealed by careful exposition (Hebrews 5:12).

The errors made by many Protestants regarding this truth are too numerous to engage in through one post. They are legion and they are often extreme.

Sola scriptura teaches that the only doctrines which should be admitted or confessed are found directly within Scripture or indirectly therein by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning discovered within scripture. But, and this is vitally important, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion! This is the error large numbers of modern evangelicals have made by appealing wrongly to sola scriptura. What the principle simply says is that all other authorities are subordinate to, and to be corrected by, the written word of God.

Another major error is to believe that sola scriptura ignores Christian history and tradition when interpreting the Bible. In principle the doctrine sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice but not the only authority. Martin Luther thus said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.

One of the more important aspects of this doctrine is the idea of efficacy of Scripture. Scripture, united with the power of the Holy Spirit, not only demands, but creates the acceptance of its clear teaching. Thus a proper teaching of Scripture produces faith and obedience. The Holy Scripture is not a dead letter, an academic tool box. By the power of the Holy Spirit inherent in its witness it is powerful and living in the human soul. Put more clearly, Scripture compels more than intellectual assent to its doctrine. By the power of the Spirit it works to create the living agreement of faith. The Smalcald Articles affirm, "in those things which concern the spoken, outward Word, we must firmly hold that God grants His Spirit or grace to no one, except through or with the preceding outward Word.” This statement does not deny that divine revelation comes through other means (e.g., in nature, etc.) but simply affirms that the spoken teaching of the Christian faith must firmly hold to the canon of the written Scriptures and then proceed in the power of the Spirit.

I do not write these things to debate with Catholic apologists, though they any are welcome to disagree and post their response. What I write these things to establish a basic principle, one I believe taught by the Reformers and the early church Fathers as well. While Luther’s doctrine of faith, at least as he put it, is not clearly found in the writings of the earliest Christian theologians (Alister McGrath has established this beyond any reasonable doubt in his magnum opus, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification), the doctrine of the authority and finality of the Holy Scripture is abundantly evident in the writing of early church fathers. Consider these few quotations:

We have received the disposition of our salvation by no others, but those by whom the Gospel came to us; which they then preached, and afterwards by God's will delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith. (St. Irenaeus, Lib. III. c. 1)

Let the shop of Hermogenes prove that what it advances is written; or if it be not written, let it fear the malediction uttered against those who dare to add or to retrench. (Tertullian c. 160-240, adv. Hermog.)

There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Sacred Scriptures. For as he, who would profess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain it, unless he read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever will
exercise piety towards God, can learn it no where but from the Holy Scriptures. (St. Hippolytus c. 170-c.235, adv. Noetum, c. IX)

In the two testaments every word that pertaineth unto God may be sought and discussed, and out of them all knowledge of things may be understood. And if anything remains which Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third scripture ought to be received to authorize any knowledge, but we must “commit to the fire” what remains, that is, reserve it unto God. (Origen c. 185-c.254, Hom. in Lev.)

When I arrived in the district of Arsinoe, when as you know this notion had long been widely held, so that schisms and secessions of entire churches had taken place, I called a meeting of the presbyters and teachers of the village congregations, with any laymen who wished to attend, and urged them to thrash out the question in public. So they brought me this book as positive and irrefutable proof, and I sat with them for three days on end from
dawn to dusk, criticizing its contents point by point. In the process I was immensely impressed by the essential soundness, complete sincerity, logical grasp, and mental clarity shown by these good people, as we methodically and good-temperedly dealt with questions, objections, and points of agreement. We refused to cling with pig-headed determination to opinions once held even if proved wrong. There was no shirking of difficulties, but to the limit of our powers we tried to grapple with the problems and master them; nor were we too proud, if worsted in argument, to abandon our position and admit defeat; conscientiously, honestly, and with simple-minded trust in God, we accepted the conclusions to be drawn from the proofs and teachings of Holy Writ. (Eusebius, in The History of the Church, quoting Dionysius c. 200-c. 265, bishop of Alexandria)

The holy and divinely inspired writings are sufficient of themselves alone to make known the truth. (St. Athanasius 296-373, Orat. Contr. Gent. Tom. I)

If you desire a new quotation, if you pretend to affirm anything besides what is written, why do you dispute with us, who are resolved to hear nothing, and to say nothing, besides what is written? (St. Athanasius, De Incarn. Chr.)

A Reformed Liturgy for Communion

I am often amazed at just how little some Christians understand their own church and the theology that church affirms. This is particularly true with regard to the understanding many in the Reformed churches have of communion.

Very few Reformed Christians realize that John Calvin actually held this meal in very high regard. He believed it was more than a memorial of Christ. It was the “real presence” of Jesus with his church. He also hoped weekly communion would become the norm.

For some years I have longed to receive the Eucharist often. Minimally, I want to come to the Table once a week. Ideally, even more often.

I recently looked at the Liturgy of the Reformed Church in America regarding the communion service and found the following words:

Together we proclaim the mystery of the faith:

Christ has died!

Christ is risen!

Christ will come again!

This affirmation is followed by this prayer:

Send your Holy Spirit upon us, we pray, that the bread which we break and the cup which we bless may be to us the communion of the body and blood of Christ. Grant that, being joined together in him, we may attain to the unity of the faith and grow up in all things into Christ our Lord.

And as this grain has been gathered from many fields into one loaf, and these grapes from many hills into one cup, grant, O Lord, that your whole Church may soon be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!

This is a magnificent expression of the church’s faith at the Table. It is a catholic expression too. One that seeks to proclaim the mystery of Christ’s presence at the table without engaging in speculation rooted in concepts of philosophy that are not biblical or helpful.

Heaven, Hell and Rob Bell

The evangelical world was rocked a bit last week by a debate created by Rob Bell's forthcoming book, Love Wins (Harper/Collins, 2011). I read the posts attacking the book, written by Reformed writers who speak with deep certitude about everything they seem to talk about in opinion pieces. Some even went so far as to condemn Bell as a heretic. (Where have I heard this before?)

Into the fray came Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today. Galli offers a reasoned, well-written critique of the whole debate, a well as a measured response to Rob Bell’s book. Galli actually read an advance copy and expresses some doubts about Bell’s real views on hell. (This leads me to think the critics should have read the book before they began their attacks. I will withhold judgment until I have read the book, something that just seems obvious to any honest expression of agreement or disagreement!) What Galli makes very clear is that believing in conscious, eternal torment for all who are condemned in the final judgment may still be the majority evangelical view but that does not make it the only evangelical view. And it clearly doesn’t make it the only view in the mainstream of the whole, historic Christian Church.

Scholars Richard Bauckham and Scot McKnight have both noted that the ground on this topic has been shifting for several decades. Galli writes: “The traditional view may well be grounded ever more deeply and solidly as a result of re-engaging this topic. Or it may be altered, as have many doctrines, by rigorous theological discussion. But we won't be able to discern where the Spirit is leading if we don't listen and respond respectfully to one another. God once used a donkey to make his will known, so surely he is able to speak through both traditionalists and gadflies.” Amen!

Read Galli’s review carefully. It runs to five pages and is worth your time. Gather all the comments and interaction you can before you leap off the building and start attacking Rob Bell, a favorite target for the neo-Reformed truth squad. I make this statement with deep and sincere sadness since I am a Reformed minister. The truth is I often find myself standing outside the “young, restless and Reformed” movement. What I long for is more civility and real historical honesty. If you read the Mark Galli article, and I hope that you will, please take note of the conservative Reformed theologians and teachers who insisted that this doctrinal issue was still open for differing perspectives and thus it was not a test for confessional agreement in every case; e.g. John Stott and Roger Nicole, etc.

What Does “Reformed” Really Mean?

I am often asked if the name “Reformed” is a good designation for one’s own theological position in the present era. I believe that it is but I am well aware that there are a myriad of ways this term is used and many of these uses I find unacceptable. This is true of all such historical labels. When I read how some people refer to me and my views on social and theological issues I often wonder how they possibly could have chosen a particular label for me? One blogger, for instance, recently referred to me as a proponent of what is called the Federal Vision. (He meant this in a terribly negative way!) Now I think I know what the Federal Vision is, and while I have a certain sympathy for some of what I hear proponents of the vision saying, I would not consider myself an advocate of something that I have never once written about or ever embraced in print.

So of what value is the label Reformed?

Sam Logan, the president of the World Reformed Fellowship (WRF) and a great personal friend, asked several members of WRF to respond to the question of what value the name Reformed had in our organizational name? I wrote the following:

I have pondered this question for almost my entire adult life of more than forty years. Like all terms I have looked for meaningful alternatives and modifiers. In the end, I prefer to say that I am a catholic first and then Reformed. The reason should be obvious. This is what the Reformers themselves confessed. Evangelical has a useful role but the 21st century calls it into question more than ever.

Reformed does refer to a historical moment, in the 16th century, in Western Europe. And, of course, it refers to important doctrines recovered/found there. But it doesn't stay there. In time it spreads globally. Though there are Reformed voices that deny classical Christian truths, thus truly catholic truths, in the end I prefer the term without the modifiers. Thus I refer to myself as a catholic and Reformed Christian. By this, I mean that I am rooted in ancient faith, impacted deeply in how I have been formed by the Reformed side of the Protestant Reformation movement. I live in the 21st century but I remain rooted in these historical times confessionally. At the same time this does not lock me into a "single way" of living and confessing the faith. [This is why I am not opposed to new confessions and thus to the addition of one like “The Confession of Belhar,” which was added by the RCA this year to our confessional statements.] One can be Reformed and be in many denominations, as we all know. I think the word Reformed refers to a way of thinking about the centrality and sovereignty of God while it never forgets that there is much more to the faith than this great affirmation that must be preserved for the health of all Christianity. (When Calvinism becomes preoccupied with five-points, so-called, it very quickly loses its soul and becomes a sectarian movement with a small agenda, namely challenging other Christians continually about their view of how salvation is accomplished!) We Reformed Christians contribute to the whole catholic church a way of life, an emphasis, a world and life paradigm. This is very good so long as we do not think we represent the whole church in some sectarian (unique) way.

Indeed, after decades in a non-Reformed denomination I became an ordained minister in the Reformed Church (RCA) precisely because I saw real value in self-identifying as a Reformed minister and in being under the discipline of my church.

Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Opportunity for a Dialogue

Jamie Smith is answering questions on the Brazos Press facebook page this week regarding his new book Letters to a Young Calvinist, which I recently reviewed here. People (who are fans of Brazos Press as I am) can post questions. Brazos will choose the best for Jamie to answer. Those who have their question chosen will not only get an answer from Jamie himself, but a free copy of the book. That’s a good deal. Check it out.

The Importance of T. F. Torrance

Thomas Forsyth Torrance (1913 – 2007) was one of the greatest of all 20th century Christian theologians. Torrance’s diverse writing is often dense, not the easiest to grasp by simple reading and yet tremendously important. As I work away on a book on the Trinity I find myself going back to Torrance time and time again.

Tom Torrance, as his friends called him, was born in China to Scottish missionary parents. He studied classics at Edinburgh and Oxford before he studied under the famous Karl Barth at Basel. After a brief stint in New York as a teacher at Auburn Seminary World War II broke out and Torrance became a chaplain. He later served a parish in Scotland for ten more years. His best known work came by lecturing for 27 years as Professor of Christian Dogmatics at New College in the University of Edinburgh. While he wrote many books and articles advancing his own study of theology, he also translated several hundred theological writings into English from other languages. Torrance edited the English translation of the thirteen-volume, six-million-word Church Dogmatics (Germ. Die Kirchliche Dogmatik) of celebrated Swiss theologian Karl Barth. Torrance may have understood Barth as well as any other person in the last fifty years or so. If you have not read Barth and want to get into his thought through a primer to his huge body of work then the book for you is his Dogmatics in Outline.

Torrance's work has been influential in what is called the paleo-orthodox movement, a movement which I freely admit has had a profound impact on my life and thought. He is considered one of the most important Reformed theologians of our era and his work has also influenced many other Christian theologians in a number of vitally important ways. This is especially true with regards to certain aspects of the theology of Alister McGrath, a very influential evangelical Anglican theologian.

There is so much of Torrance’s work online that it would be pointless to list it all. Check out some of the list at the end of the Wikipedia article on his life and then do a general Google search and you will find a lot more. There are audios, articles, studies of his work, etc. For those who are deeply interested you might want to check out the T. F. Torrance Theological Fellowship, of which I am a member. The fellowship maintains an online journal on the work of Torrance called Particpatio. It is free and really an excellent source for serious theological reflection. I spent a good bit of time reading this journal last week and found it immensely helpful.

Letters to a Young Calvinist, Part II,

James K. A. Smith’s little book, Letters to a Young Calvinist, is a nuanced and relational book. It avoids the sweeping polemical tone of so much modern neo-Calvinism. And it takes the reader into what Western Theological Seminary’s (Reformed Church in America) theologian J. Todd Billings calls “a wider and deeper Reformed tradition.” This is why it is a small book filled with incredible value for both pastors and faithful Christians without formal training in theology at all.

On Smith’s own blog site he writes of his new book:

Now my hope is that it finds its audience: there are all sorts of folks who I hope will read it, but I'm especially hoping it might be received by a younger generation who, like my younger self, were awakened to thoughtful Christianity by a certain stream of Reformed theology. Letters to a Young Calvinist is an invitation to see other streams of the Reformed tradition--to value the complex richness of the Reformed voices across the spectrum.

Sometimes I describe this little book as "Kuyper for Piper." The goal is to build on the young, restless, Reformed interest in the doctrines of grace by also celebrating other core themes of the Reformed tradition: creation, culture, covenant, and catholicity, with a special concern for appreciating the ecclesiology of the Reformers. In the process, however, there's also some internal critique of Kuyperianism as well.

Smith explains that justification “was the powder-keg issue that made the Reformation explode across Europe” (101). But he is right to argue that this is not the heart of Reformed theology. Abraham Kuyper wrote: “Luther’s starting-point was the special-soteriological principle of justifying faith; while Calvin’s [starting point], extending far wider, lay in the general cosmological principle of divine sovereignty of God” (cited on 101-02). Kuyper argued that the “dominating principle” of Calvinism “was not, soteriologically, justification by faith, but, in the widest sense cosmologically, the Sovereignty of the Triune God over the whole Cosmos, in all spheres and kingdoms, visible and invisible” (cited on 102). I have argued for well over fifteen years that what Smith concludes is right: “Indeed, I wonder how many people who describe themselves as ‘Calvinists’ today are actually more ‘Lutheran’” (102).

God is concerned for our personal salvation for sure. But he is concerned about so much more than me. His redemptive work “is bigger and wider than the rescue of individual souls” (102). Lest we forget the clear teaching of the New Testament even the doctrine of election is united with Christ. We are chosen in Him, not simply as individuals.

Paul says that God, through the cross of Christ, reconciles all things to himself, “whether things on earth or things in heaven” (Col. 1:20). This means that God’s grace and salvation reaffirms the goodness of creation and is “big, expansive, complex” (102). This kind of theology challenges the rampant gnosticism of American evangelicalism and puts an end to the small, privatized views of redemption that abound in conservative churches and pulpits. Smith says the signal, prophetic contribution of Reformed theology to the American church is to remind us that God says all of creation is “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Does your understanding of the unfolding of God’s purpose underscore this central truth? Thus Calvinism, rightly understood, is what Nicholas Wolterstorff calls “world-formative” Christianity (103). This is why it looks and feels unlike much of modern evangelicalism which is so consistently “world-rejecting” (103). Reformed theology labors for shalom and seeks to undo the curse in every way possible. All of this comes in only one letter titled: “Far As the Curse is Found.” It gives you an idea of what is in store for you if you read this wonderful little book.

Smith mentions N. T. Wright, quite favorably, and says Wright’s view of justification (so hotly debated among many neo-Calvinists) is very consistent with covenant theology! I could not agree more. And Smith adds that Tom Wright is correct when he says “the great emphasis [in Calvinism] is on the single plan of God, the fact that God has not changed his mind” (105). Yet, many neo-Calvinists still insist Wright doesn’t understand justification or Calvinism. The opposite is much closer to the truth of the matter but the limited perspective of some Calvinists leads them to miss these vital (core) points.

Reformed theology says God created humanity to “rule” over the earth (Gen. 1:26) thus he made male and female in his own image (1:27). This ruling, adds Smith, “takes the form of being fruitful, filling the earth, and taking care of creation” (108). The Message puts it this way: “Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge! Be responsible . . .” That says it very well.

The final letter, Letter XXIII, is titled: “Enjoying God by Enjoying Creation.” This letter combines the insights of Smith’s Reformed theology with the popular idea of John Piper, who says the chief end of man is “to glorify God by enjoying him forever.” Smith notes that Jonathan Edwards, to whom Piper owes so much, as well as St. Augustine, spoke of enjoying God as central to living the Christian life to the glory of God. Smith thus applies what he calls his own Augustinian/Kuyperian gloss on Piper’s thesis and says the chief end of man might better be understood this way: “To glorify God and enjoy him by enjoying his creation forever” (119). I like that a lot!

Smith goes on to show why his answer is not “too worldly.” It is intentionally rooted in St. Augustine, to whom Smith appeals as the initial Calvinist, and affirms ancient Christian faith. (Some might say St. Paul, or even Jesus, were original Calvinists but then if they couldn’t see the smile on my face as I write this they might stop reading at this point!)

Augustine shows that what God desires for his creatures is a “right order of love.” Says Smith, “This simply means that we are created and called to be creatures who ultimately love the Triune God, and thus find our identity and delight in that rightly ordered love” (121-22). We cannot help but love. The problem is that our love is not rightly ordered because of sin. But by God’s grace we find what we were created for: God. Thus our love is always God-directed if it is centered in Christ. Augustine argues that we were created to love God and what we truly love is what we “enjoy.” Thus if you want to know what you ultimately love find out what you ultimately enjoy because the terms are virtually synonymous (St. Augustine). Smith rightly adds, “Augustine, unlike many Calvinists, is not afraid to say that God wants us to be happy” (122)! Amen and amen.

What then happens to creation in this understanding? For Augustine the “things of this world [do not] become strangely dim” when we fall in love with Jesus. “Rather, he [Augustine] would say that while I am called to enjoy God, God’s good creation can then be received as a gift to be used. In other words, I use the creation as a means of enjoying God” (123). This also explains what is wrong with the world. We love creation more than the Creator, thus we make an idol of the world. But if we are redeemed we do not hate the creation, rather we embrace it as a means to enjoy God. Simply put, “It’s as if, once your love is rightly ordered, you get all of creation back again, a gift given by God to enjoy him” (123).

The genius of this book is that Smith offers such helpful insight at the precise intersection of faith and culture at a time when it is so lacking in the church. He sees Reformed Christianity as an Augustinian renewal movement in the catholic church. His creative use of the letter form engages young Calvinists, and older ones as well, in a rich conversation that takes the reader from Paul to Augustine through Calvin and Edwards to Kuyper and Wolterstorff. This is a generous and well-written book that might even show the non-Calvinist how Reformed Christianity can actually help to foster renewal and reform without becoming a divisive (sectarian) force in the church.

Smith ends his last letter by saying that he would take Augustine’s Teaching Christianity and Confessions to a “desert island” even before Calvin’s Institutes. Smith’s thought is really the kind of healthy, well-balanced, Reformed theology that can engage the ecumenical conversation happily and foster a genuinely missional vision of the church, something missing in so much neo-Calvinism. The danger for the young and restless Calvinists is that they often sound more like Calvinistic fundamentalists than robust Reformed Christians. There is a world of difference. Smith will help a new generation understand this if they read his excellent book. (You can buy it here and benefit ACT 3 in the process.)