.JPG)
(In order to understand this post, you need to know that the theological category called Ecclesiology includes not only church government, but all the spiritual doctrines concerning the efficacy of Word and Sacraments).
Please pardon the rambling nature of this post. I just wanted to say this as an expression of concern.
The Reformation began with Luther and Lutheranism, then, simultaneously to slightly later, the Reformed and Anabaptist movements began.
The Reformed movement became Puritanism and the "Second Reformation," the latter term often used among the Dutch.
The Baptists arose, influenced somewhat from Anabaptism, but mainly from Continental Arminianism (General Baptists) or from English Calvinism (Particular Baptists).
Then came the Great Awakenings and Evangelical Revival.
It seems to me that all these stages form a sort of sequence, such that those from later stages, more or less in the sequence that I've enumerated them here, regard themselves as more thoroughly and Biblically reformed than the stages that have gone before. Of course, there are still those whose convictions place them in "older" stages, but they can't help being influenced by the later stages either.
As I write this blog entry to my friends who are Calvinistic Baptist, Calvinistic Bible Church, and "Evangelical" Presbyterian in habit and conviction, I would like to suggest the following points to help sort things out:
1) The modern publishing movement for Puritan and Calvinistic literature (and the kind of Lutheran literature read by us) still tends to play down the ecclesiological questions that loomed large in those older generations. This is in harmony with the spirit of our evangelical and revivalistic age which plays down ecclesiology.
An example of the consequence of this is the ecclesiological history of Dallas Theological Seminary. That DTS was, and in some ways still recognizably is, a Presbyterian institution would be surprising and shocking to many of its graduates and those influenced by them. Lewis Sperry Chafer was a Congregational and Presbyterian minister. He intended to found the seminary along with Griffith Thomas, an Anglican. Rev. Thomas died before the seminary was in operation. However, I presume that the seminary was founded to prepare ministers of the word of all denominations in Dispensationalism and the "literal hermeneutic," and thus the heavy -- and wonderful -- emphasis on the original languages of Scripture. One consequence of this, whether intentional or not, was to downplay ecclesiological distinctives, possibly in order to teach students from all denominations the new ways. This was also in harmony with the spirit of the evangelicalism of that age. But, the consequence of downplaying ecclesiology was the conversion of the seminary, sacramentally, into a "baptist" institution -- a consequence probably not envisioned by her founders, and a consequence certainly not in harmony with their original Presbyterianism and Anglicanism. During the year that I studied there, I remember that I was amazed that the student insurance company was Presbyterian Ministers Fund, and also that one of my fellow students was a Lutheran. How incongruous, I thought, even way back in '67-8. The consequence was that DTS created its own "denomination," which was probably NOT the purpose of her founders.
2. The decline of ecclesiology under the evangelical and revivalistic spirit of the late 19th and 20th centuries was actually the replacement of older ecclesiologies with a new one that might be described as "zwinglian," because of its deemphasis on church membership, corporate worship and especially the sacraments as means of grace (and a parallel development of parachurch ministries as specialized ministries of grace). As a result, the older Reformation ecclesiologies are not understood by most "evangelicals" today, and many Reformational doctrines, particularly on the sacraments, are regarded nowadays as remnants of Roman Catholicism. It probably comes as a shock to many that the word "evangelical" originally referred to Lutheranism -- baptismal regeneration and all! Some Reformed sentiments at the Westminster Assembly weren't far behind, though the final doctrinal statement from that Assembly made the efficacy of baptism come to apply not necessarily at the moment of administration, but potentially later in life (for those who turn out to have been unconverted at the time of administration.)
In any case, this shows the cleavage between the today's doctrinal stance and that of the Reformation. We only imagine that we are in harmony with the Reformers on ecclesiology. Generally speaking, in our day we are not. The illusion of harmony is maintained by omitting ecclesiology from the world of discourse. The consequence of this is a "zwinglian" ecclesiology that has no conception of the ecclesiology of Lutheran and Reformed origins. Among those who are self-consciously "reformed" in our day, people think that Reformed Theology is "evangelicalism" plus the Five Points of Calvinism.
3. One consequence of the "evangelical" and revivalistic spirit today is the replacement of the doctrine of the gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone with the experience of conversion. This is something the Reformers would never do. They had their experiences, but they never made the replacement I speak of. Experiences are subjective, personal, and often unreliable. My conversion experience, though real, is for me. My doctrine -- provided it is the doctrine of Scripture -- is for you. The result nowadays is that sudden outward conversion is regarded as the norm, rather than quiet inward conversion sitting in the pew under the steady Gospel ministry of Word and Sacrament.
4. There is a revival of the old ways. It began in the 20th century, but not among "fundamentalists," even though this revival may be practiced perfectly compatibly with the high doctrine of Scripture and the doctrine of justification by faith alone which is held to by all fundamentalists and real evangelicals. As the ecclesiological revival feels its way along, it takes more and more "flak" from other evangelicals. Nothing has been stranger in this experiment than to be disfellowshipped by old evangelical friends over this movement back to Reformational (and early church) origins. Whereas in the old days there was a necessary schism carried out over the doctrine of justification, and whereas there was a questionable schism carried out between the Lutherans and Calvinists over nature of the "real presence" in the Lord's Supper, it now appears that the fundamental active schism outside Romanism is over the "high" vs. the "low" ecclesiology. The fight between the Lutherans and the Reformed has never been resolved, and the "Reformed" have reformed themselves so far away from Reformational ecclesiology that it is not recognizable to them any more.
5. My guess is that the cleavage between the "zwinglians" and those of that more traditional ecclesiology being revived from Scripture will continue, and possibly in some ways harden, if attitudes do not change. Perhaps we will just accumulate a new set of Christian friends, and life will go on. I do not know what the future holds.
Please pardon the rambling nature of this post. I just wanted to say this as an expression of concern.
The Reformation began with Luther and Lutheranism, then, simultaneously to slightly later, the Reformed and Anabaptist movements began.
The Reformed movement became Puritanism and the "Second Reformation," the latter term often used among the Dutch.
The Baptists arose, influenced somewhat from Anabaptism, but mainly from Continental Arminianism (General Baptists) or from English Calvinism (Particular Baptists).
Then came the Great Awakenings and Evangelical Revival.
It seems to me that all these stages form a sort of sequence, such that those from later stages, more or less in the sequence that I've enumerated them here, regard themselves as more thoroughly and Biblically reformed than the stages that have gone before. Of course, there are still those whose convictions place them in "older" stages, but they can't help being influenced by the later stages either.
As I write this blog entry to my friends who are Calvinistic Baptist, Calvinistic Bible Church, and "Evangelical" Presbyterian in habit and conviction, I would like to suggest the following points to help sort things out:
1) The modern publishing movement for Puritan and Calvinistic literature (and the kind of Lutheran literature read by us) still tends to play down the ecclesiological questions that loomed large in those older generations. This is in harmony with the spirit of our evangelical and revivalistic age which plays down ecclesiology.
An example of the consequence of this is the ecclesiological history of Dallas Theological Seminary. That DTS was, and in some ways still recognizably is, a Presbyterian institution would be surprising and shocking to many of its graduates and those influenced by them. Lewis Sperry Chafer was a Congregational and Presbyterian minister. He intended to found the seminary along with Griffith Thomas, an Anglican. Rev. Thomas died before the seminary was in operation. However, I presume that the seminary was founded to prepare ministers of the word of all denominations in Dispensationalism and the "literal hermeneutic," and thus the heavy -- and wonderful -- emphasis on the original languages of Scripture. One consequence of this, whether intentional or not, was to downplay ecclesiological distinctives, possibly in order to teach students from all denominations the new ways. This was also in harmony with the spirit of the evangelicalism of that age. But, the consequence of downplaying ecclesiology was the conversion of the seminary, sacramentally, into a "baptist" institution -- a consequence probably not envisioned by her founders, and a consequence certainly not in harmony with their original Presbyterianism and Anglicanism. During the year that I studied there, I remember that I was amazed that the student insurance company was Presbyterian Ministers Fund, and also that one of my fellow students was a Lutheran. How incongruous, I thought, even way back in '67-8. The consequence was that DTS created its own "denomination," which was probably NOT the purpose of her founders.
2. The decline of ecclesiology under the evangelical and revivalistic spirit of the late 19th and 20th centuries was actually the replacement of older ecclesiologies with a new one that might be described as "zwinglian," because of its deemphasis on church membership, corporate worship and especially the sacraments as means of grace (and a parallel development of parachurch ministries as specialized ministries of grace). As a result, the older Reformation ecclesiologies are not understood by most "evangelicals" today, and many Reformational doctrines, particularly on the sacraments, are regarded nowadays as remnants of Roman Catholicism. It probably comes as a shock to many that the word "evangelical" originally referred to Lutheranism -- baptismal regeneration and all! Some Reformed sentiments at the Westminster Assembly weren't far behind, though the final doctrinal statement from that Assembly made the efficacy of baptism come to apply not necessarily at the moment of administration, but potentially later in life (for those who turn out to have been unconverted at the time of administration.)
In any case, this shows the cleavage between the today's doctrinal stance and that of the Reformation. We only imagine that we are in harmony with the Reformers on ecclesiology. Generally speaking, in our day we are not. The illusion of harmony is maintained by omitting ecclesiology from the world of discourse. The consequence of this is a "zwinglian" ecclesiology that has no conception of the ecclesiology of Lutheran and Reformed origins. Among those who are self-consciously "reformed" in our day, people think that Reformed Theology is "evangelicalism" plus the Five Points of Calvinism.
3. One consequence of the "evangelical" and revivalistic spirit today is the replacement of the doctrine of the gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone with the experience of conversion. This is something the Reformers would never do. They had their experiences, but they never made the replacement I speak of. Experiences are subjective, personal, and often unreliable. My conversion experience, though real, is for me. My doctrine -- provided it is the doctrine of Scripture -- is for you. The result nowadays is that sudden outward conversion is regarded as the norm, rather than quiet inward conversion sitting in the pew under the steady Gospel ministry of Word and Sacrament.
4. There is a revival of the old ways. It began in the 20th century, but not among "fundamentalists," even though this revival may be practiced perfectly compatibly with the high doctrine of Scripture and the doctrine of justification by faith alone which is held to by all fundamentalists and real evangelicals. As the ecclesiological revival feels its way along, it takes more and more "flak" from other evangelicals. Nothing has been stranger in this experiment than to be disfellowshipped by old evangelical friends over this movement back to Reformational (and early church) origins. Whereas in the old days there was a necessary schism carried out over the doctrine of justification, and whereas there was a questionable schism carried out between the Lutherans and Calvinists over nature of the "real presence" in the Lord's Supper, it now appears that the fundamental active schism outside Romanism is over the "high" vs. the "low" ecclesiology. The fight between the Lutherans and the Reformed has never been resolved, and the "Reformed" have reformed themselves so far away from Reformational ecclesiology that it is not recognizable to them any more.
5. My guess is that the cleavage between the "zwinglians" and those of that more traditional ecclesiology being revived from Scripture will continue, and possibly in some ways harden, if attitudes do not change. Perhaps we will just accumulate a new set of Christian friends, and life will go on. I do not know what the future holds.
Reviewed and retained.
ReplyDelete