I write the following because I’m just as guilty.
Reformed believers are quite happy to be staunch defenders of the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone, and particularly of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness on the sinning believer. But I’ve come to believe that there’s another kind of imputation that many Reformed believers hold to just as tenaciously: the imputation of evil on anyone who disagrees with them.
It goes something like this. We’ll take the infamous “L” as an example. If someone disagrees with the “L” in TULIP, it is not simply the fact that the person has examined the Scriptures in question, applied the same hermeneutical principles, and come up with a different answer, a different interpretation. No, that person has “denied the effectiveness of the cross,” “abandoned the true gospel,” “preached a different Christ,” or any other number of harsh implications. In reality, they want to “trust in their own works,” “disparage the cross and Christ’s sacrifice,” and “disregard the plain teaching of Scripture.”
In other words, if you don’t line up on your theological points, you’re either seriously deluded, or you’re ignoring Scripture deliberately. You’re a teacher of a false gospel.
Let’s take another touchy issue. The regulative principle of worship. Sounds like a nice principle, right? Only do in worship what God has commanded. It gets sticky, of course, when Reformed folks reading the same Scriptures disagree on exactly what God has commanded in worship. Does God permit modern hymns, or are only psalms to be sung? Instruments or no? We disagree on these issues.
But the rhetoric gets ridiculous. “Anyone who is against exclusive psalmody denies the regulative principle. They just want liturgical anarchy.” *sigh  Can you say reductio ad absurdum? In reality, of course, there are tons of good biblical arguments for the writing of new covenant songs for worship, but we can’t admit that, can we? We must impute selfish motives: “You just want to worship God according to the imaginations of your own heart.” Nevermind the fact that there are a good number of faithful believers in Christ who don’t even think the regulative principle is a right reading of New Covenant worship.
One wonders where humility exists in all of this. I’ll take a personal example. I happen to agree with the Reformed/Puritan belief about the prohibition of images in worship, particularly images of God. And yes, I believe that applies to pictures of Jesus. In my only year as a part-time pastor, I took down all the pictures of Jesus that hung in the church I served, including the gigantic one right behind me in the sanctuary.
But a little humility has got to kick in here somewhere. I could, of course, impute all sorts of evil motives to those who worship with images. “They just want to worship God according to their own imaginations.” Or how about, “They don’t have enough of a heart religion to worship in Spirit, so they need assistance from pictures.”
But this would be arrogant folly. Second Nicea is against me (yeah, that’s an ecumenical council). A long tradition of church history is against me. Many steadfast Christians whose worship was more devout that my own and their devotion to Christ more complete have worshiped in churches with images. Better, in my opinion, not to impute evil nor assume that God does not accept their worship. Indeed, better to worship as I believe the Bible tells me to, but maintain humility concerning my brothers and sisters. I may be wrong. I may have a lot to learn from them, in fact.
I’ve changed theological positions on various issues enough times to know I’ve been wrong a lot, and will certainly be wrong again.
Back when Michael Spencer wrote “I Hate Theology,” I was a little rattled by the essay. I’ve always loved theology, and I’ve always engaged in all the rhetoric about how, if we just had our theology right and believed it, right actions would follow. I illustrated it well, and I convinced others of it. But now, his words hold a lot of weight with me. When theology gets it the way of obedience to Christ, of humility, of love, and of real ministry, I hate theology, too.
Jesus, of course, gives us the right model to follow. Take a look at Jesus’ ministry. Seriously, look at it. Read through the gospel accounts, and tell me this about the three and a half years we have recorded: Is Jesus concerned with going around and correcting the systematic theology of the day? Or is He calling the poor, the downtrodden, the demon-possessed, the prostitutes, and the tax collectors to gather around Him and have a meal?
You may say that’s a false dichotomy. Maybe it is. But I’ve spent a lot of time around a lot of different types of Christians. Want to know what I’ve found? There are a lot of Arminians, Emergents, and “liberal” type Christians who follow Jesus a lot closer than I do when it comes to the stuff that separates the sheep from the goats. What am I supposed to do? Go tell them that if they just fixed their theology, got Reformed, and started confessing Westminster, they’d be more gracious people, better followers of Jesus? And give them what as an example? Myself? No way! Would that I had the heart for the poor found in many of them! Various Reformed churches that spend all their time on the finer points of theology while battered women can’t find shelter? Certainly not! Would that we were more like some of our brothers and sisters, to whom we impute all sorts of evil, in following Jesus!
Let’s abandon the imputation of evil on anyone who disagrees with us, and lovingly embrace (without an air of condescension!) and be willing to learn from those with whom we disagree. We’ve all been wrong before, and we’ll all be wrong again.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Very well said, Travis. I think there is great irony in the fact that many Reformed hair-splitters (and I tend to be one far often than I’d like) don’t really seem to appreciate the implications of “T”otal Depravity. If all of my capacities have been damaged by the Fall, and complete restoration will not become reality in this lifetime, then I should expect my theologizing to be chock-full of errors and mistakes. If I can’t always master my wrong behavior, shouldn’t I expect a similar struggle with my wrong thinking?
I know for a fact that those pictures of Christ that you had taken down were, in fact, stored in closets. I wonder those folks pulled them out again!
Good points, Travis. My family certainly knows the meaning of theological change. With theological change is the admission of error that should cause us great humility in our dealings with others.
ECCLESIA REFORMATA ET SEMPER REFORMANDA—THE CHURCH REFORMED AND ALWAYS REFORMING–Translation: keep an open mind to the truth!
I would have to say that agreeing to disagree is the mark of a mature Christian. In my own experience I have always had a problem with reformed theologians on this issue. I know that theologians in general have a problem with the whole “if you don’t agree with me your wrong syndrome” but as I have read and studied, it seems that a much larger number of reformed theologians hold to this view than others. I am definitely willing to admit that I am wrong on this, but when I was in college one of my professors used to talk about the difference between Reformed and Arminiean teaching this way. “An Arminean teacher will lay out the passages and tell you to discover the truth, and a reformed teacher will tell you what the truth is and tell you that when you come around to his way of thinking then you will be right.” So I am not the only one who has noticed this trend. Thanks for your thoughtful article.
Thanks for posting this. You’ve got a great perspective I wish more people had.
You got it wrong from the start. Not agreeing with the L in TULIP is not on a par with what a Wright writes about justification. Nor is the regulative principle. Here’s what you’re seeing: Calvinists tend to be hardcore for defending the faith because we value biblical doctrine, and we can see when it’s being attacked. If you don’t value doctrine at the hardcore biblical level you not only won’t be able to see when it’s being attacked, but you won’t care. We counsel others who don’t agree with the L in TULIP, but we call a spade a spade when we see somebody sophistically or otherwise attempting to defile or distort a foundational doctrine like justification. It’s a matter of discernment. The Spirit of Truth is needed. It all confounds people who have yet to get to a point where they value doctrine at the level a real Calvinist values doctrine. You think we overreact, etc. But it’s like the difference of a person telling an off-color joke in the presence of your child (you may note it but not say anything or do anything very confrontational) and a person molesting your child (you get very confrontational very quickly and needfully so). Calvinists value pure doctrine like we value the innocence and safety of children. We defend it similarly.
It appears that Rob has made your point quite succinctly.
Great article Travis. I’ve bookmarked it.
Rob, believe me, man, I used to talk exactly like that. Same lines, same reasoning, etc. Can you see at all the condescension in it? The lack of humility? Do you really, I mean really, believe that NT Wright is destroying the faith because of his different formulation of the doctrine of justification? Do you really think Wright doesn’t value biblical doctrine as much as a Calvinist?
You see the assumptions in your post? Calvinist value doctrine more. Calvinists are the true defenders of pure doctrine. Calvinists need to “counsel” people who don’t believe in Limited Atonement. Why are these things assumed? Why don’t Arminians value doctrine? Because they disagree with Calvinists?
“The Spirit of Truth is needed.” Fine. But how is that defined? You put yourself in a big circle when you say, “Reformed doctrine is right,” then say that the Spirit of Truth backs you up, and then accuse others of sophistry and not listening to the Spirit (all the while being adamant cessationists, I might add!).
Thank you for saying this. I’m an “arminian” but have been struggling with the “reformed” teachers, trying to challenge myself to make sure I truly believe what I belive. But I keep running into one troubling sticking point: most of the reformed teachers I listen to and read are people that I just don’t seem to like very much. They aren’t gracious; in fact, they’re more like legalistic attack dogs.
I’ve not given up; I’m still reading and listening. However, I examine the two camps and think, out of these two doctrinal systems, who looks and sounds more like Jesus? As you say, you’d figure that right doctrine would start creating a picture of Jesus at some point. How long must we wait? I’ve got to tell you, based on that measure, my vote rarely goes to the reformed watchdogs.
I know that we all are imperfect pictures of Him, so I keep reading and listening to the “truly reformed” camp. I know that these folks aren’t stupid, so I want to find out why everyone feels so “graced” about Limited Atonement. But I probably have more patience that most. I wonder how many people have been driven from Christ entirely because they simply walked off from this whole argument in disgust?
bs
Rob: Jesus died because of people like you.
Calvinism assaults your vanity and worldly pride and self-will because the Bible itself assaults your vanity and pride and self-will. You get indignant and resentful because you’re man-centered. You have to be God-centered, which is what the Bible and biblical doctrine is trying to re-orientate you internally towards.
You feel Calvinism – i.e. pure, apostolic biblical doctrine – is not ‘right’ or ‘logical’ because God’s wisdom is foolishness to man. You resent people who are bold in defending the truth because the very notion of there being truth to defend assaults your sense of what is ‘right.’
And the assumption that Calvinists defend the truth unaware of how people see us or think about us is silly. Of course we know the world – including Christians who can’t currently see or accept the doctrines of grace – thinks we’re stuck in some “un-self-aware” box not knowing how funny or disgusting (or pick your adjective) we sound to the world. Of course we see all the self-justifying that goes on (”I used to be right where you are, guy, believe me, been there done that…”); and of course we see how the world does things like choosing to judge biblical doctrine by the behaviour of human beings (”I think you’re mean therefore I will never believe biblical doctrine as it’s presented in the Bible – what you call “Calvinism” – because if you believe that then it’s not worth believing…”)
You just need to see that we Calvinists don’t fight indiscrimately. We confront vigorously people, groups, influences that are assaulting critical points of Reformed Doctrine – by however sophistic or roundabout manner – simply because we know they know when they attack Reformed Doctrine they are attacking the truth.
Notice our response to Arminians is very different from our response to a Norman Shepherd/NPP/FV/Wright et al. Our response to the former is debate and counsel. Our response to the latter is give no quarter. Jesus won’t either. God will have vengeance on false teachers; meanwhile those who can see and accept biblical doctrine defend it so that others can come into it…
Rob, I can see where this is going to go. A few things, I guess.
Dude, I’m a Calvinist.
Just out of curiosity, who are the “we” in the Reformed world that give “no quarter” to Wright, etc? Your definition of true Christianity narrows and narrows when you realize there are solid Reformed folks entirely willing to give Wright an ear.
I’m not exactly sure how you can criticize the “world” for judging doctrine based on the behavior it produces. Surely Jesus taught that as well. Wouldn’t want to group Jesus in with “the world,” now, would we?
Finally, it’s really entirely absurd to take your form of doctrine, apply all the warnings against false teaching to anyone who doesn’t agree, and think you’ve proven your point. Once again, is it your version of Calvinism that makes you so arrogant?
Brad, I understand your dilemma. Look up the White Horse Inn. For a grace-centered Reformed Baptist, see Alistair Begg. Those are some guys worth learning Reformed Theology from.
John, I meet with the current pastor of that church on a semi-regular basis. I’m quite certain the pictures remain down.
>Rob: Jesus died because of people like you.
Amen. But I hope you aren’t setting up a dichotomy between “people like you” and “people like us.”
When the Mamas and the Papas named their last album People Like Us even the self-indulgent 60s generation were embarassed and the album tanked. That was the direct reason, they were collectively embarassed by the title. “That’s not cool,” even they said…
>Travis: “Dude, I’m a Calvinist.
I was speaking to a general audience. But just saying you’re a Calvinist, these days, doesn’t hold the same amount of water as it used to. Doug Wilson and confederates claim to be Calvinists. If I called myself a Democrat I’d expect someone to call me on it.
>Just out of curiosity, who are the “we” in the Reformed world that give “no quarter” to Wright, etc?
Oh, how about all the Reformed/Calvinist theologians that have written articles and books refuting NPP, FV, and AAT, all of which movements draw on or claim Wright as an influence. For church documents check out the recent document put out by the OPC.
Or just read the Westminster Standards or Three Forms of Unity, or Calvin himself and the defining Reformed theology throughout the 17th century.
>I’m not exactly sure how you can criticize the “world” for judging doctrine based on the behavior it produces.
No, my point was one should make the Word of God the standard for doctrine, not your perceived goodness or badness of human beings. There are many pitfalls in making human beings your standard for what is biblical doctrine not the least of which is if you refuse to accept said biblical doctrine you can always find something to criticize in a fellow human being to justify that. Make the Bible your standard. The Westminster Confession of Faith was accompanied by biblical texts, not notes from people attesting to the good behaviour of the divines that drew that document up.
Travis: Thanks. I’ll look at them. Looks like a lot of good audio (I exercise while listening to my ipod). I’ve been listening to alot of Piper, trying to figure this out.
Rob: I’m not impressed.