Oct 11, 2010
Rightly Dividing What It Means to Be “Reformed”: Reformed or Calvinist?
Posted by Pastor Todd Murphy in | Comments (25)
Charlie Robbins sent me this article from the Economist about the neo-calvinism sweeping through the Southern Baptist convention. I had to blog on it. Here is the link. Comments follow.
http://www.economist.com/node/17204934?story_id=17204934
This movement is not limited to the SBC however, but is sweeping through a great deal of evangelicalism in general. Evangelical luminaries such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, Al Mohler and a host of Calvinist evangelicals are among those who now refer to themselves as “Reformed.” I want to first say with sincerity that I deeply appreciate this movement as a pastor in the Continental Reformed Church tradition (CRC). These men are dear brothers in Christ and many of them my spiritual superiors. However by and large the followers of these men refer to themselves as “Reformed Baptists.” Again I cannot reiterate enough how supportive I am of the new wave of Calvinism in mainstream evangelical and baptist circles and how much I love partnering in the Gospel with such brothers. Myself and Sacred Journey Church are passionate members of the Acts 29 Church Planting network which the lion’s share of men in this organization would describe themselves as “Reformed Baptist.” Just this week I had a visit with Calvinist Baptist brother with the New England Theological Seminary come down to look at Providence as he plans to launch a Church Plant here in 2011 (http://www.netsem.org/index.php). I am excited about his work and look forward to supporting this brother in any way possible. On the other hand I need to point out a couple of minor concerns.
First, within this surge of neo-calvinism the terminology has been used too loosely and so the term “Reformed” has been adopted as almost the new surrogate term for “orthodoxy” in evangelical circles. In this way, the term Reformed has become almost a cheapened slogan for correct doctrine. There are a couple reasons why I think this is dangerous. 1. While I passionately embrace the entire doctrinal system of the Reformed tradition, what is often missed is that you can have all the right furniture in the room, but have it arranged horribly. What I mean is that you can have the right doctrinal beliefs, but fail to have them balanced by the right priorities. This is particularly visible in the case of five point calvinism. I have participated in and visited many Reformed/Presbyterian and Calvinist Baptist Churches where Christian charity was lost through a an angry and judgmental overemphasis on the five points. Branding self “Reformed” or “Calvinist” does not make you a gentle and obedient Christian. 2. The five points are a latecomer to the the theological landscape. Don’t get me wrong, I am a five point Calvinist, but the crystallization of these five points did not come until the Synod of Dort in the 17th century. Orthodoxy was established in the first three centuries of the Church. While I am ready to go to the matt on the doctrine of election, at the same time I am unwilling to raise it to the level of the Nicene and Athanasian creeds and alienate brothers who are not doctrinally on board with it yet, but are still well within the bounds of historic credal orthodoxy. Many within the new calvinism seem unaware that the Reforemd tradition has always elevated the ecumenical creeds above our our own Reformation confessions and catechisms.
So in sum, being Reformed is not an automatic formula for being orthodox. I know of many Reformed Churches I agree with on the whole doctrinally, but I feel their priorities are out of line and I would actually not recommend them to somebody looking for a healthy Church. Many so called Reformed Churches are so idolatrously in love with being “Reformed” that they are failing to be missional and make disciples. Many are inbred and overly secure in a doctrinaire self-righteousness rather than the humility that comes through the Gospel. Being Reformed or calvinist cannot always be equated with being “faithful.” It is for this reason that I refer to the Reformed Tradition and not the “Reformed Faith” as many do because our only faith is the Christian faith. I happen to embrace a Reformed expression of it.
My second concern and honestly the less important but much more irksome to myself and other pastors in the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions, is the co-opting of the term Reformed as a badge of orthodoxy when it is being grossly misused. I will quote page 11. of Michael Horton’s useful primmer called Introduction to Covenant Theology where he emphatically states that “Reformed Theology is synonymous with covenant theology.” This is a very important distinction which is why early calvinistic Baptists in England chose the name “Particular Baptists” to describe themselves. They seemed to understand what many modern calvinist Baptists do not, that the term “Reformed” implies a very specific and technical theological usage that is contrary to the theology of believer’s baptism. In fact the writer of Economist article even makes this distinction with amazing clarity:
“Baptists, by definition, believe that baptism must be an informed choice by the individual, therefore limited to adults; Calvinists believe infants may be baptised.”
Reformed Theology implies the inclusion of covenant children in the Church as members from birth through the waters of baptism. Thus to a pastor in the Reformed or Presbyterian tradition, the phrase “Reformed Baptist is as equally oxymoronic as “Communist American” and “moral prostitute.” Do not get me wrong. This in no way implies a negative sentiment toward my Baptist brothers and sisters. I love them and will continue to partner with them in the Gospel. However I do feel that our tradition’s name is being molested and diluted of its rich heritage.
Think about it this way for a moment. How do you think someone from Thailand or Cambodia when someone asks them, “Where you from, China?” The indiscriminate labeling of all Asians as “Chinese” is disrespectful to both because they each have a discrete culture with their own set of traditions and values.
The third problem is that as I pointed out in the quote by Horton, Reformed Theology is covenant theology and so that is the starting point for doing theological reflection in the actual Reformed Tradition. This is critical because the new wave of neo-Calvinist Baptists do not place covenant theology at the center of their theological reflection. To the contrary, it is the five points of calvinism itself which is the starting point. This is a radically different beginning that leads to a radically different end. For the Reformed tradition, the five points are a planet in our solar system, but the progress of the covenant is the sun. But for the calvinistic Baptist, the five points are the sun in that solar system.
So in summary I would leave you with these things to think about. First I do not believe and wearing the term “Reformed” as a cheap theological label so I can stick my chest out. I am afraid that is how it is being used a lot. I don’t think Jesus cares whether we call ourselves or Calvinists or Reformed if we are not walking before him in humility. Second, the term Reformed refers to a a discrete theological understanding and a covenantal ecclesiology that is not the same as typical evangelical ecclesiology. So if you are going to use the term “Reformed” I would implore you to think deeply about how you are using it so that you can do justice to it.
Posted by Pastor Todd Murphy in | Comments (25)
Before you post that comment, give it a ponder.
