Time to Graduate

Eric has posted a provocative article on the current state of theological education among the Reformed and Presbyterians in the American South.  Having recently graduated myself, I can say that, barring a few exceptions, his analysis is accurate.  Particularly distressing is the “robotic” confessionalism that he laments, for it often succeeds in poisoning the well of actual Reformed tradition for others.  “If that’s what it means to be a traditionalist,” one might complain, “then who needs it?”  The problem with this reaction is that it opens up a maelstrom of uncertainty, creating some rather shallow and reactionary theological movements.

What we need is a Reformed, or perhaps more broadly, an Evangelical Resourcement.

This will require, above all else, maturity.  We need a more truthful historical consciouness.  We need to be interdisciplinary.  One cannot really understand Reformed theology without knowing something about Augustine, Humanism, Biblical studies, Conciliarism, and the political landscapes of the 14th-18th centuries.  We also need to have a proper view of “catholicity.”  This does mean an appreciation for the past- early church included, as well as later writers from outside of our tradition, but it does not mean an uncritical appropriation of any of these, nor does it in any way mean being less than authentically Reformed.  It is precisely because we are settled on our foundational concepts that we have the ability to read broadly.  We are not afraid.  We are confident.

We also need an academic community that converses with the worshiping community.  As it stands now, “church publishing houses” are wholly unreliable in conservative Reformed circles.  One is much better served skipping the P&R and instead buying the books that the P&R author is citing, typically from Cambridge, Oxford, Eerdmans, or some other broadly academic publisher.  The downside with these superior academic works, however, is that they rarely seem to have a faith investment in their subject matter.  The conversation quickly becomes “professional,” in the worst sense of that term.  We have to bridge this gap, through both faith and truth.

To do any of this we need leaders.  There seem to be two sorts of leaders as of now.  There are the museum-keeping and dynasty preserving conservatives on the one side, typically resistant to change and critical analytic thought.  The other side, however, are rarely an improvement.  They tend to swing in the opposite direction, despising tradition (and reason!), looking to innovate and criticize at every opportunity.  These rarely maintain their movements, thus giving away the institutions to their opponents, who in turn manage to dull the shine.  And while all this happens, too many young thinkers decide to jump ship, to any number of options: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and even mainline Liberalism.  This is tragic for several reasons, not the least of which being that they are actually leaving a tradition that was founded on academic and intellectual integrity in the face of repression.  Reformed theology should be the best in the world, and it is our own fault that it is not.

So who shall we look to?  The best men I know are clearly transition men.  They are men of war, bloodied from endless battle, and even these tend to have some modern baggage that prevents them from fully espousing the Reformed position on faith and reason (Van Til’s legacy will prove to be an obstacle rather than a help), nature and grace, and church and state.  I want to applaud them, honor them, work with them, but move beyond them, yet in doing so I feel somewhat unanchored  and adrift, not to mention ambitious and naive.

One of the best assets for those in this (my) position has to be the internet.  I’ve found some truly amazing people online, and I am encouraged to see genuine theological masters, even if they are not recognized professionals.  The internet also allows for these personalities to converse and work together, all the while remaining in their various locations.  We do not need any sort of “movement” other than doing what we do in our normal callings.  Of course, a few books from David, Peter, and Thomas would be a nice.

This needs to be pastoral as well, and so I say take comfort.  Even amidst challenges and disappointments there is hope.  Greater things are yet to come.  But along the journey let us also remember, that the greatest virtue is love.  Temper your ambition with kindness.  Season your speech with empathy.  Innovate with thanksgiving.

Seek ye first the kingdom, and the universe will be yours.

About these ads

13 thoughts on “Time to Graduate

  1. Eric is spot-on. Part of the reason I was attracted strongly to Russian Orthodoxy was the wasteland that is current Reformed thought.

    I am past that now, except I would probably support Russian Orthodoxy politically.

  2. Could you recommend a couple of good books on ‘the Reformed position on faith and reason . . ., nature and grace, and church and state’, if such exist? I must confess too that I know nothing of Van Til – couldn’t even tell you when he lived. (I know, I know, I could Google the guy, but that’s too much work.)

    Thanks.

  3. I’ll take the older stuff. That’s just how I am. As for Frame, I think I’ve actually heard a hint of an intimation of a whisper of the guy from time to time – see, I’m on top of things, really I am…

    Thanks and peace out.

  4. Hmm, lemme see here.

    Eric has some good summaries on his blog: http://epistole.wordpress.com/category/philosophytheology/reasonrevelation/

    Richard Hooker’s Laws are also sterling, and I’ve summed up one point here: http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/richard-hookers-biblical-defense-of-reason/

    Of course, one may have to defend Hooker’s status as Reformed in our day and age, so I have to also point to this book: http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Hooker-Reformer-Platonist-Torrance/dp/0754652882/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243957788&sr=8-6

    And also: http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Hooker-Authority-Scripture-Tradition/dp/1573833347/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243958387&sr=1-1

    And even: http://www.amazon.com/Two-Faces-Elizabethan-Anglican-Theology/dp/0810836777/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243958010&sr=1-19

    I would also suspect that Karl Barth provides a good overview of things in his Church Dogmatics, though he will, of course, go on to reject the older position.

  5. Thanks for the references. Speaking of having to defend Hooker as a Reformed fellow, I found on the shelf hard by Kirby’s book a study entitled Richard Hooker and Reformed Theology: A Study of Reason, Will, and Grace, by one Nigel Voak. I don’t know what the position of this monograph is, but from a cursory glance I suspect it stakes out a somewhat different one from Kirby’s. I also found while rummaging about the stacks up there a volume by Harro Hopfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin. Again, I don’t know anything about it, but it looks interesting at least.

    As you can see, I’ve let slip what I half-jokingly call my ‘inner Calvin’, and have no idea where all this will lead me. If only I could find a Reformed church around here that wasn’t so mired in ‘vibrant, contemporary worship’ and ‘practical messages’ and the like. Of course, given my bent, I would find it truly cool to find a congregation where they sung the Psalms in plainchant, but even I don’t believe in that Xanadu…

  6. Steven,

    Thank you for your thoughts. As an older brother I would like to say “Yes, but …”

    Yes, it can be discouraging to deal with the “robotic” approach to theology. I attended RTS in Jackson from ’89-’91 and was appalled to hear people in chapel quote from the Westminster Confession in the same way we might quote from the Gospel of John. There were also students who would preface questions with the phrase: “What do we believe about this?”. I have great respect for men like Doug Kelly – but I don’t believe that God ordained him to decide what I believe on my behalf. I also saw men, who were quite incompetent theologically, get ordained upon graduation – because they were willing to toe the official party line no matter what. Let me give an example of this to make clear what I have in mind. One student, whom I was rooming with, asked to talk with me about his eschatology – because he was a little confused. This was during the week before he graduated with his M.Div. In fifteen minutes he laid out an entirely dispensational view of Scripture. The remarkably thing was, not only didn’t he know what that his view was dispensational – he didn’t even know what dispensationalism was. Yet, a few weeks later he was ordained in the PCA! So, let me say clearly: There is a lot to bemoan in the contemporary Reformed world.

    But … , yes there is a but, it can be helpful to realize that the Church has pretty much always been a mess. Measured against where we should be – our situation will look pretty pathetic; but measured against the last 2000 years of the church, this isn’t such a bad time at all. You mentioned P&R by name, so let me say that P&R was just a tiny publisher 30 years ago. The volume of Reformed literature has exploded to the point where it would be difficult to keep up with just the good stuff that is being printed. For example, I would be happy to commend John Frame’s “Salvation Belongs to the LORD” and “The Doctrine of the Christian Life” which have both been published in the last three years by P&R. In historical theology, Muether’s biography of Van Til and Hart’s biography of Nevin are both worth reading. Those of us who don’t read Dutch should also be grateful for the fresh English translation of Bavinck’s 4 volume systematic theology (published by Baker).

    O.k, but is any fresh thinking going on – or are we simply servants of the Church historians? Actually, I think that there has been quite a bit of fresh thinking within the Reformed world. That doesn’t mean that you will like or agree with it – but it is difficult to see how the Reformed world could be considered to be stagnating. Let me offer just five witnesses, who are admittedly all over the map:
    1. Bahnsen: “Theonomy in Christian Ethics”. Love it or hate it, Bahnsen was not afraid to stand by what he thought the Bible teaches and apply it to contemporary life. While I disagree with parts of his exegesis, only those who haven’t read Bahnsen imagine that he wasn’t a formidable thinker.
    2. The development of Classical Christian Education under the leadership of Doug Wilson.
    3. A.T.B. McGowan’s extensive work in Systematic Theology.
    4. N. T. Wright. To pretend that Wright isn’t reformed is just bizarre. Yes, I think Wright badly muddles the doctrine of Justification; but the vast majority of his work fits quite well within the Reformed orbit.
    5. Dick Gaffin’s work, while self-consciously following Calvin, Vos, and Ridderbos; also breaks new ground in quite academically rigorous ways.

    Best wishes,

    David

  7. Thomas,

    You and I are on the same page here when it comes to church. I’d like what you describe as well, and Lord willing, I will try to contribute to the construction of something like it in the future.

    As for Voak, I understand him to be the arch-nemesis of Kirby, but from what (little) I’ve read of him, he’s working with some wooden definitions of Reformation “solas.” He points to Hooker’s use of “tradition” as a proof that he was not an advocate of sola scriptura. Of course, by that methodology, neither was Davenant or Baxter, nor even Bucer, Vermigli, Ursinus, et al ad nauseum and anon.

  8. David,

    You are much nicer than I. I hope the Lord blesses your ministry to the Warpath listers of the world, but I don’t think I can stomach such a burden.

    From your five points, four of the men are routinely demonized as deniers of the holy and apostolic faith by leaders of the PCA, OPC, and URC, and the last has done some pretty disappointing things in an attempt to avoid being thrown under the same bus. I can’t say that I’m rejuvenated and ready to now join the party.

    Something’s gotta happen, and I think it will.

  9. Steven,

    Here’s to hoping that I’m not the one thrown under the bus!

    Best wishes,

    David

  10. David,

    To pull myself out of the borderline melancholy here, I do think that there is a legit problem of historical awareness and philosophical forming that even those men you listed lack. I very much like them, for the most part, but even they are disconnected from the kind of vision I’d like to see in the future.

    I don’t think this is the end of the world or anything, but I do think we have to start admitting that a cord has been cut somewhere in the last century. It probably had to do with the two world wars and the loss of Princeton and “the mainline,” but we are currently ghettoized in a way that need not be the case. The Reformed should make their peace with modernity and own the best of their tradition. Perhaps I’m a sentimentalist after all…

  11. Schmemann has a good entry on this in his journals. Except it’s dealing with Orthodoxy. He is rebuking those who either want to be super-hard core, or go back to a mythical past, or just ignore history in order to maintain “purity.” Scary thing is that if you replace his examples with the current scene (or my own theological development at times) he could be talking about many American Calvinists, myself included.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s