Pages

Friday, July 25, 2008

Evangelical & Reformed

Lee Irons has done a post on Reformed identity that’s getting a bit of a buzz:

http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=207

I’m of two minds about his post. Up to a point, I appreciate what he’s trying to say. However, when he says something I’m inclined to agree with, he justifies that statement with a supporting argument I can’t agree with. So even when he says something which might be true in its own right, what makes the statement true is, according to him, a reason which I think is either false or misleading.

So his post leaves me ambivalent. He makes it hard for me to agree with him even when I’d like to go along with him.

Speaking for myself, I feel free to use the “evangelical” label. That’s for two reasons:

i) We do need a general designation to denote Bible-believing Christians.

ii) Not every issue is distinctive to a particular theological tradition. So there are many times when we should frame the issue in broader terms.

That said, the very fact that “evangelical” is a general designation is also part of the problem. It’s a rather rubbery term. How far to the left of the theological spectrum can someone go and still be an “evangelical”?

There is no automatic cut-off point since “evangelical” is, by definition, a fairly flexible and fluid designation, subject to an evolving consensus of opinion.

Moving along:

Lee says that he considers himself to be “a Christian first, then a Protestant, then an evangelical, and only then Reformed.”

The pattern here is that he’s moving from a higher classification to a lower classification. Calvinists are a subset of evangelicals, who are a subset of Protestants, who are a subset of Christians.

But is the highest classification our central identity? Suppose I said that I consider myself an animal first, then a mammal, then a male mammal, then a man.

Would animality be central my identity? No. Animality tells you very little about my personal identity, or even my corporate identity.

My actual identity is my concrete identity. Yes, you can say I’m an animal, but I’m not a generic animal. There’s no such thing as a generic animal. My animality is exemplified in a very specific form.

Upper taxa are abstractions. The higher up you go, the less they define you.

Take Lee’s statement that he’s not a Calvinist who happens to be a Christian, but a Christian who happens to be a Calvinist (my paraphrase). It’s not the general properties that define us, but the specific properties—for even the general properties are exemplified in a specific set of properties. There’s no animal that isn’t a particular kind of animal, with other individuating traits, like gender.

Suppose I were to say I’m an animal that happens to be a man—rather than, say, a millipede. Is the difference between a man and a millipede incidental to my identity?

What if I’m an animal that happens to be an aardvark? Is animality central to my identity? Is the difference between a man and an aardvark an incidental property? At the risk of offending PETA, my human identity isn’t secondary to my personal identity.

So there’s a deceptive degree of continuity to Lee’s classification scheme.

Of course, there’s a sense in which a Christian is a Christian first and foremost. But that’s ambiguous. What does it mean to be a Christian?

Here some tension surface in Lee’s definition. One the one hand, he downplays the Reformed confessions in favor of “the primary NT confession.” On the other hand, he plays up the “historic ecumenical creeds.”

But, in that case, which is primary—the scriptures or the creeds? He still seems to focus on credal identity. It’s just a choice of which creed supplies the point of reference.

Is he going to say it comes down to which creed is more Biblical? Okay. But since he seems to identify himself as a Calvinist, does he regard Reformed confessions as less Biblical than the “historical ecumenical creeds”?

And when he gets around to defining his terms, they’re a good deal narrower than his opening statement.

Consider his classification scheme:

Christian>Protestant>Evangelical>Reformed

Then consider some of his specific criteria: sola fide, substitutionary atonement, adherence to Nicene Orthodoxy and Chalcedonian Christology.

How do these criteria match up with his theological taxonomy?

Commitment to sola fide would fall somewhere between Evangelical and Reformed. So that’s about two and a steps below what he said was central to his spiritual identity.

He’s clearly moving within the tight little orbit of the Magisterial Reformation at this juncture.

What about Chalcedon? Does he mean that the Oriental Orthodox (e.g. the Copts) are not even Christians?

What does he mean by “substitutionary atonement”? Is this a synonym for penal substitution?

He seems to be using forensic categories. Where does that leave the Eastern Orthodox or the Anabaptists?

His actual position appears to be a good deal more exclusive than it looked like at first blush. He talks about what we have in common, but his draws the boundaries of common ground quite narrowly when you eye the landmarks.

Incidentally, there’s nothing “ecumenical” about Nicea or Chalcedon. They were meant to be exclusionary.

Moving along:

There’s a failure to distinguish between what makes a man a Christian and what makes Christianity true. Do you need to be a Calvinist to be a Christian? No. That’s incidental to your personal Christian identity.

But could you be a Christian if Calvinism were false? Could you be a Christian if the Father had not unconditionally elected you? Could you be a Christian if the Holy Spirit hadn’t monergistically renewed you?

It isn’t necessary to believe in predestination to be necessarily saved by predestination. The belief may be secondary, but the fact is primary.

What are we to make of Lee’s utilitarian yardstick? In what sense is predestination (to take one example) merely useful? “Useful” in relation to what? Is the Incarnation useful? Is the Incarnation useless? Is predestination more useful than the Incarnation? Less useful than the Incarnation?

Shouldn’t we judge Reformed distinctives by whether or not they’re true, rather than whether or not they’re useful?

Does the Bible itself compartmentalize doctrine in this fashion? Are Reformed distinctives theological accessories?

Remember, Lee seems to retain his Reformed commitments. So he agrees with the Reformed interpretation of various passages in Scripture.

Are Reformed distinctives secondary to the gospel in Jn 6 or Rom 9-11 or Eph 1-2? Are they not, in fact, integral to the way in which John and Paul explicate the gospel?

Speaking for myself, we should welcome anyone who can make a credible profession of faith into God’s family, and—hence—into our own family of faith.

So we should avoid cliquishness and clannishness. We should move freely from Christian to Christian. At that level, I agree with Lee.

8 comments:

  1. I classify myself in the same order as Lee Irons has in his post: Christian > Protestant > Evangelical > Reformed. But not for the same reasons he asserts. Each label is equally important to who I am as a believer in the Gospel. As my distinctions progress as noted, each further refines what it is I believe doctrinally to be true from the Word of God. I do not consider being Reformed an accessory as you explained, but as essential, the quintessential point that explains the Gospel in the clearest manner. Regardless, in distinguishing myself as such, I am making distinctions over against other streams of theological thought within each one of these groupings.

    There are 2 billion-ish people in the world who consider themselves "Christian". Someone I know is a Mormon and considers himself a Christian. So I must go further than this because that label, unfortunately, does not go far enough in our culture in explaining what it is I believe to be the truth.

    Many theological liberals ("practical Christian atheists" and such) consider themselves Protestant. This label also has been hijacked. So I must go further.

    Many Oneness Pentecostals consider themselves evangelical yet they deny core tenets of historic Christianity itself. So again I must go further than this even, unfortunately.

    That is when I say that I am Reformed. And this is the pinacle of what I believe to be the faith once for all delivered to the saints. It is the doctrinal point of view through which I view all the other distinctions as noted above. However, this does not negate the fact that there are believers with whom I am tied through faith alone in Christ alone that are not Reformed. And I join hands with them in unity to the glory of God. I take these labels not as a badge of pride (excluding those with whom I disagree), but I take them to distinguish, in our modern day, what it is I believe to be the truth of the Scriptures, as applying to all believers, whether they believe it or not.

    So I guess my question is this: do you feel the order of my classification along with the explanation of it is different than that of Irons? I believe that it is, but wanted your input.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Steve,

    I read Lee's article yesterday via Justin Taylor's blog, and I thought, "Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. I'm cool with it."

    But having read your constructive critical analysis of Lee's article, I'm not so fond of Lee's article, nor fond of my original take on it.

    Your "fisk" was more instructive than Lee's article! At least to me it was.

    Thanks. It's a good thoughtful post that was better than my quick-scan shallow unreflective take.

    Pax.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That is when I say that I am Reformed. And this is the pinacle of what I believe to be the faith once for all delivered to the saints. It is the doctrinal point of view through which I view all the other distinctions as noted above. However, this does not negate the fact that there are believers with whom I am tied through faith alone in Christ alone that are not Reformed. And I join hands with them in unity to the glory of God. I take these labels not as a badge of pride (excluding those with whom I disagree), but I take them to distinguish, in our modern day, what it is I believe to be the truth of the Scriptures, as applying to all believers, whether they believe it or not.

    And for me, I add "Baptist," because there are folks out there who insist that one cannot be both Baptist and Reformed, since they view Paedobaptism (or Presbyterian polity) as essential to being part of the Reformed family.
    In that regard, being "Baptist" qualifies what I affirm about baptism and polity. From there, I could distinguish myself further. For example, I could add "amillenial" and "plural elder" polity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is "Reformed" simply a synonym for "Calvinist"? That seems to be the way it's used, but I've heard that the term refers to those who adhere to creeds or confessions of the Reformation (Westminster, LBC, etc.) I suppose there could've been Arminian creeds at the time of the reformation, but it seems that whenever you see Reformed Baptist, Reformed Anglican, or Reformed Methodist, the thing that distinguishes them is their Calvinistic leanings.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm using "Reformed" and "Calvinist" synonymously. Adherence to Reformation and post-Reformation theology would simply make one a classic Protestant.

    ReplyDelete
  6. David,

    Your classification scheme is fine, given how you interpret and relate the terms.

    The problem is that Lee Irons sets these in potential opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  7. David Wells, author of "The Courage To Be Protestant", suggests using the label “Historic Protestant”, in an effort to distinguish his beliefs from the “Liberal Evangelical“.

    I agree with David, this is probably close to saying “Reformed”, but with our heritage attached to it. I am a “Historic Protestant”. Any thoughts on this?

    To God be the Glory!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Upper taxa are abstractions. The higher up you go, the less they define you."

    I think it depends on who you are comparing yourself to. If I were living in Saudi Arabia, the "Christian" designation is definitional--there is no need to become more refined in my classification. But if I attend the Southern Baptist Convention (which I have never done--I'm a PCA member), the fact that I am reformed theologically is definitional, at least it is the more interesting of the definitions .

    Therefore, all levels of Irons classification levels are important, but in different ways and in different contexts. I know that I define myself at different levels of the classification levels based upon who I am speaking with. (When I was in Oakland speaking with non-theists recently, I just defined myself as Christian, albeit conservative theologically. They would have no idea what difference it makes that I am Reformed).

    ReplyDelete