I like to contemplate on what it means to be ‘Reformed,’ because that’s where I find myself, theologically. I reflected on this a few posts ago, a bit; I was communicating how being ‘Reformed’ has certain connotations associated with it, usually negative (well, if you’re ecclesially situated, as I am). My friend is reading I. John Hesselink’s classic little book On Being Reformed: Distinctive Characteristics and Common Misunderstandings, he encouraged me to pick it up, so I have (I have intended to get to him, at some point anyway, so now is the point). In his first chapter he deals with the misunderstanding “That the word “Reformed” refers primarily to those denominations which bear that name, especially those of Dutch origin (this is his title for chapter 1). He underscores how his understanding of being ‘Reformed’ developed over time. He grew up the son of a Dutch Reformed pastor in Michigan, and so this is all he knew. Later, he did his doctoral work under Karl Barth, and he also studied with Emil Brunner. Anyway, he came to appreciate something that I have been trying to trumpet here often (and we do in our book as well), and that is that being ‘Reformed’ represents a spirit more than a letter or a particular cluster of denominations. You see, I grew up the son of a Baptist preacher-man, and currently we happily attend a Calvary Chapel (which by constitution are against the ‘Reformed’ tradition — of course that’s only because folk in Calvary Chapel have a very limited view of what being ‘Reformed’ means and what it entails [and this is not limited to Calvary Chapel folk] — if they understood what it meant, I think many of them would realize that in fact they fit within the ‘spirit’ of what it means to be Reformed both formally and materially); both of my ecclesial situations are in the ‘Free-church’ tradition, and both are congregational (somewhat) in format. Here is what Hesselink has to say about what it means to be ‘Reformed’, beyond the common misconception that this is dictatedΒ by, by being associated with certain “Reformed-denominations” (like the Pressies):
[I]n the United States and the British Commonwealth there are numerous ministers and theologians who serve Baptist, Congregational, and Anglican (Episcopelian) Churches but who consider themselves basically “Reformed” in their theology. I find it intriguing, for example, that for many years the standard text in systematic theology at Western Seminary [Holland, Michigan] was not that by the famous Presbyterian Charles Hodge or by Christian Reformed scholar Louis Berkhof, but the three volume work of Augustus Hopkins Strong, a Baptist theologian from Rochester Seminary. One of the leading Calvin scholars in the United States, the late Ford Lewis Battles, was of Congregational background, and many of the finest Calvin scholars in the English-speaking world are Anglicans: Philip Hughes, James I. Packer, and T.H.L. Parker.
In conclusion, then, Reformed comprehends a large, international group of churches as well as countless individuals who belong to denominations that are called neither Reformed nor Presbyterian. Hence, any time we who belong to the Dutch Churches (RCA or CRC) here in the United States imagine that we are the principal representatives of the Reformed tradition, we are both presumptuous and in egregious error. On the other hand, there is no need to be shy or defensive about the name simply because in the Anglo-Saxon world the term Presbyterian is better known. Few ecclesiastical theological terms are more respected and honored that that of Reformed.Β
We can be justly proud as long as we remember that the word denotes a task more than an accomplishment. Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est! “A Reformed church must ever be reforming itself”—in accordance with the Word of God. [I. John Hesselink, On Being Reformed, 7-8]
I am one of those Congregationalist ‘Reformed’ guys, and of course I walk and breath in the ‘spirit’ of what that means, and in the ethos of the Reformed mantra that Hesselink ends with. In fact our forthcoming book entitled: Evangelical Calvinism: Essays Resourcing the Continuing Reformation of the Church, is squarely situated in the very place thatΒ Hesselink sketches above. And of course what it means to be ‘Reformed’ also has a multi-faceted conceptual/material range; there is not a monolithic voice when it comes to every duck in the ‘Reformed’ row. And that is what I continue to hope to clarify for so many folks who seem to think that being Reformed equals being a 5 point Calvinist. It doesn’t.
“Reformed” is an ecclesiastical term in its origin, and the churches that claim this title have, in my opinion, the best claim to what the term means. So, the Reformed churches in the 16th and especially 17th centuries put doctrinal limits on what it is to be Reformed: these limits (confessions) were the public witness of the church’s faith and the subordinate standards of ordained ministry. This confessional tradition, with few minor differences, agrees with what we’ve come to call “the five points.” So, the term Reformed does rightly claim pride of place to this confessional tradition that governed Reformed churches until the 20th century. Even the congregationalists and the particular Baptists of the 17th-19th centuries agreed with Dordt and Westminster on the controversies relating to divine election. In the 20th century, we have an expansion and modification of what Reformed doctrinal theology entails. Regardless of whether this modification has roots in an alternative trajectory in the centuries past (as with Torrance’s reading of certain Scottish divines), we cannot rightly label this as Reformed until the Reformed ecclesiastical structures have included it within their Reformed confessional identity. This has indeed happened in nearly all the mainline Reformed churches in Europe and North America (e.g., the neo-orthodox “Confession of 1967” of the PCUSA). So, we have two Reformed traditions: the orthodoxy of Dordrecht and Westminster, which still governs the more conservative Reformed denominations, and the newer expanded tradition of Barth and Torrance (et al.), with their modifications of the older orthodoxy. The term, “Reformed,” can thus rightly describe both of these traditions.
As you can see, I don’t really agree with Hesselink, in what you quote, since I think “Reformed” is clearly and obviously a term which originated with, and continued to be defined by, certain ecclesiastical bodies, which other ecclesiastical bodies recognized as Reformed. It made a hell of a lot of difference that Brunner and Barth were Swiss Reformed ministers and were allowed to work beyond the confessional borders of their church, likewise for Torrance and his Reformed church, the Church of Scotland — their work, along with countless others, led these Reformed churches to officially expand their doctrinal borders, forging a newer, modified Reformed tradition (which, e.g., Princeton Seminary currently represents).
[I know you know all of this, Bobby…I’m just giving contextual information for any other readers.]
As for individuals, they can claim the Reformed label insofar as their theology is working within these traditions described above — even if this individual is not part of a Reformed denomination — but that does not diminish the fact that “Reformed” is defined by the ecclesiastical bodies that are recognized as Reformed through usage and predication.
Kevin,
Just cause you’re going to go to RTS doesn’t mean you have to get all “Reformed” on me π hehe. Seriously, I don’t think Hesselink would disagree with what you said. The Confessions (all of them) give the “Reformed” churches, and those that embody those, historically, there shape. But of course the reality is that the “Reformed” faith is not necessarily tied into a particular ecclesial polity or gvt.
Hey, at least I’m willing to say that a place like Princeton is currently just as “Reformed” as RTS, just different forms. And, of course, I think these two Reformed traditions can achieve a greater rapprochement than currently exists — Douglas Kelly at RTS-Charlotte does some of this in his ST.
βReformedβ faith is not necessarily tied into a particular ecclesial polity or gvt.
True, in the sense that you can be Reformed and not be part of a Reformed church, yet Reformed theology is defined by its origins and expansion in those churches that identify (themselves and by others) as Reformed. The expansion/modification of Reformed theology in the past century could not have occurred if H. R. Mackintosh, James Denney, Otto Weber, Emil Brunner, Karl Barth, and the Torrances were not all Reformed churchmen.
Kevin,
I hear ya. I listened to Kelly once, and he sounds like someone to bring rapprochement to the Reformed in some of these areas.
Absolutely, the Reformed faith is a living one, if not its not a Christian one. I agree that w/o people like HR Mac. Torrances Barth et al we wouldn’t be where we are in the Reformed faith, but we are; and yet for many this goes unrecognized or is denigrated, unfortunately!
Bobby, you’ve hit the nail square on the head with this one (i.e. particularly the problem with CC and the “Reformed” stigma that some within the movement project)!
A little perspective on the development of that stigma (much of which you may be familiar with): I first began serving in a CC congregation in the early 1990’s, just as certain anti-TULIP lines were being drawn, or re-drawn. There had been some overzealous TULIP proselytizing taking place at the CC Bible College, as well as the movement towards that theological bent by a handful of CC pastors. Around 1991 or 1992, the issue was addressed at the Senior Pastor’s Conference (SPC), with a no-guess approach being taken on where CC would stand on the issue. Those who were convinced of or wanted to proclaim “Reformed” teaching were kindly asked to find another ecclesiastical association to align themselves with.
The problem, as you’ve noted, is with the TULIP=”Reformed” association that’s assumed. It’s not fair or accurate to make that exact parallel. It also leads to much confusion. You see, after that Conference, then you had a number of pastors going out and seeking to rid the congregations they pastor of anything “Reformed”. Those who take that approach also model that (if not teach it) to their respective congregations. Thus, you end up with a stigma towards anything “Reformed” for years to come.
Thankfully, that stigma has and is changing within CC as a whole (at least from my perspective). I would venture to say that at least 65% of the books sold at the last SPC were from scholars/pastors who would be self-labeled “Reformed.” There is definitely a growing class of well and continuing educated pastors who understand and value their historical link to the “Reformers,” while at the same time recognizing the historical-socio-political parameters that may lead them to different conclusions or understandings of Scripture, and, ultimately, theology. Not saying that CC is “becoming Reformed” – only that the unfair stigma towards such is beginning to wane. In that sense, CC is, actually, “Reforming”!
Hey Pastor Daniel,
[For anyone reading not in know, Daniel is my pastor at Calvary Chapel, Vancouver — as his comment reflects, he is a very insightful and knowledgeable guy … and a great pastor to boot! π ]
I knew of this “house-cleaning” at CC, in fact it happened just prior to me starting my time at CCBC (in 96). There were still guys at CCBC, when I was there, trying to convert folks to the TULIP (I mean fellow students of mine); I remember debating them, then, and the debate continues π (not really, I just like to let them think so hehe). I also knew of the subsequent “witch-hunt” that took place after the initial house-cleaning happened. I actually don’t have a problem with CC’s not wanting the TULIP taught at their churches (of course they need to own up to the fact that they are in fact a “denomination” then that is defined by a certain set of core doctrines or at least contours π ). It is good to know, Pastor, that there is more of a critical openness with CC, as you note; I think the best thing that could happen in CC (as far as depth and growth), is that folks would become more open to the history of the church, and more knowledgeable of how the history of interpretation impinges upon how we read the Bible in concert with the body of Christ throughout the centuries. I think this is a real weakness of CC, in general, and so, often, this sets folks up to think in polarizing ways instead of critical ways. Clearly there are always going to be folks who are satisfied with the status quo (i.e. open their Bibles on Sundays, and that’s it), but for those who are not; I think there should be room for these folks to grow deeper into Christ (and a part of that is definitely becoming aware of the past). And as folks grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ, there will be less of a tendency to polarizing (or even sectarian).
I’m glad you saw this post, Pastor; and I am encouraged by your assessment of CC. Ironically, this post (and the one I posted a little prior to this one Calvinism/ARminian Abyss) was motivated by a tiny discussion I had with someone from church. I realized from what they were saying (and they not knowing my own background and approach), that there are still some (even in leadership, not at our church) who operate with the same mode that was engaged when those TULIP pastors were ejected from CC. I know, also, though, that THE LEADERSHIP π of Calvary Chapel is still staunchly opposed to anything “Reformed”. Anyway, this is a stereotype that is not helpful, I think, and needs to be corrected (and I don’t just mean for Calvary Chapel folks π ). Btw, my intention is not to go around and preach this as the Gospel at church or anything; just to be clear π . Although, I like to talk about with folks who are interested. I’m glad you are Pastor!! π Thanks for the insight and feedback.