Tim Keller Responds to Greg Thompson, "Renewing Ethos"

On February 26, 2008, Greg Thompson opened the Denominational Renewal (DR) conference with his talk, "Renewing Ethos." You may listen to Greg's talk by clicking (here).

This is the first week of a five week forum scrutinizing the five talks given at DR. For more on the structure of the five week forum at CGO on this conference, click (here).

During the week of September 15-18 we will host essays from Tim Keller, Ligon Duncan, Rebecca Jones, and Dan Doriani in response to Greg Thompson's talk.  On Friday, Sept. 19,  Greg will respond to his respondents.

We welcome discussion that is both robust and gracious. I [Glenn] will moderate all comments and those comments that exemplify graciousness and love for one's brothers and sisters will be approved. First and last name, and one's current, valid email address are required for comments. Also, please focus on Greg's talk and/or the response essay.
----------

Tim Keller is the Senior Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City,  and a pioneering leader in missional ministry, particularly urban ministry. Keller is the author of  Ministries of Mercy: The Call of the Jericho Road and most recently the New York Times bestseller, The Reason for God.
---------

This is another excellent piece of thinking and preaching by a great young pastor, Greg Thompson.

 Greg argues that ‘ethos’ is the character of a people, and that it is more foundational than our theology, since Jesus in Matthew 7 speaks of people who are theologically orthodox but bearing bad fruit in their lives. Spiritual formation he says, does not happen simply by apprehending ideas but by encountering beauty. Here Greg follows in the footsteps of Jonathan Edwards, who argued that the ultimate purpose of the doctrine of the holiness of God is a sense on the heart of the loveliness of that holiness. That is what changes us. Maybe Greg could have added a sentence (as Edwards does) that assured us there can be no beauty in the soul without sound doctrine in the mind (though there can be sound doctrine in the mind without beauty in the soul.) Whether he says that in so many words or not, the entire talk bears witness to it. Because the ethos, the changed character he wants for his church, is based on seven high and exalted doctrines—covenant, incarnation, cross, resurrection, ascension, Pentecost, and parousia. With great skill Greg goes immediately from the lofty doctrine to the impact it can and must have on the most practical ways we live. It reminds me of the best of the Puritans, like Flavel’s The Fountain of Life Opened Up.

As I read this terrific piece, however, it made me think about how we actually will have to do denominational renewal. The PCA is the great and tense place that it is because it is perhaps the only Presbyterian denomination that hasn’t purged or lost one or two of its historic wings. George Marsden says that Reformed churches have always had what he called ‘doctrinalist’, ‘pietist,’ and ‘cultural-transformationist’ wings. Weirdly, they all grow out of aspects of Reformed theology. Historically, they’ve produced some major splits--Old Side (doctrinalist) from New Side (pietist) in the 18^th century, Old School (doctrinalist/pietist) from New School (reformist) in the 19^th century. The OPC, though a doctrinalist church, grew and then shed a pietist wing (New Life Churches.) The CRC, though basically a cultural-transformationist denomination, had a doctrinalist split off (the URC.) In God’s providence, the PCA has significant numbers in all three wings.

There have been very few times in Presbyterian history that these groups have really ‘owned’ one another as legitimate parts of the Reformed family or really listened to one another long enough to learn to speak the other’s language when they argue. Greg’s paper is masterful, but if it was re-purposed for dialogue, it would have to be different. If you’ve read John Owen a whole lot more than you’ve read Lesslie Newbigin, some of the things Greg says about beauty over ideas will sound murky and suspicious. There are ways, I believe, to make the same points with arguments and vocabulary that would stretch but also appeal to the other wings. Again, that was not necessary for this paper and this gathering, but if we are going to really break through into denominational renewal, we are going to have to do that. We will have to directly address people who will see themselves described in this essay as suspicious (#4) sectarian (#6) and provincial (#7) and show them we know and appreciate the reasons why they don’t see themselves that way. Only after we’ve described their view and position sympathetically and more articulately, perhaps, than then can themselves, can we proceed with any hope of persuasion.

This hasn’t happened very often, of course. Recently I’ve come to realize that the Old School Presbyterians of the 19^th century like Alexander and Hodge did pull something like this off. They were neither as anti-ecclesial as the original New Side revivalists nor as anti-experiential as the original Old Side doctrinalists of the 18^th century. How did that happen? I’m not a historian, so I can’t be sure. I would love to see something like that happen again in the PCA. Greg’s paper beautifully shows us what kind of souls we will have to have if we are going to be part of this project.

------

For further reading, Tim Keller recommends George Marsden's Introduction in Reformed Theology in America, edited by David Wells, 1997.

Comments

[Darryl Hart]

Tim Keller writes that theculturalist, pietist, and doctrinalist wings of Reformed Protestantism have never owned each other as legitimate parts of the Reformed family. That's likely true. But the assertion seems to assume that denominational renewal should involve accepting these groups as legitimate parts of Reformed Christianity. The problem is that real tensions exist among these groups about what it means to be a Reformed church. Simply asserting that we all need to accept each other will lead to sentimental beauty (we overlook the unwelcome stuff) and anti-intellectualism (we ignore serious intellectual differences). The last time I looked, the creedal, liturgical and polity aspects of Presbyterianism say very little about either the culturalist or the pietist understanding of being Reformed. Could it be that the pietists and culturalists have an agenda that is unwilling to live within the constraints of Reformed Christianity?

[Tim Keller]

The Puritans combined doctrinalist with pietist and cultural-transformationist emphases. I don't think we should consider them anti-intellectual, nor anti-confessional.

[Darryl Hart]

But the Puritans weren't Presbyterian. Plus, New England was the source of most problems in the PCUSA. Taylor, Finney, and even Edwardsians come to mind.

[GL]

Weren't many of the Westminster Divines Puritans? Am I wrong in thinking of the Westminster Standards as being significantly shaped by Puritan thought? When Keller mentions the Puritans, I assume he means on both sides of the Atlantic, not restricting the use to those who colonized New England.

[Andy Jones]

I concur with the diagnosis offered, "There have been very few times in Presbyterian history that these groups have...really listened to one another long enough to learn to speak the other’s language when they argue." Moreover, Keller is right to point out that it is the Princeton theologians who come closest to providing us a model within the reformed tradition in America, particularly Charles Hodge. I'd encourage people to read "Piety and the Princeton Theologians" by Andrew Hoffecker as well as John Stewart's "Introducing Charles Hodge to Postmoderns". If anything, Hodge teaches us the art of charitably engaging people with whom we disagree, a skill not as well refined among southern presbyterians.

[Al Tysinger]

Darryl, your question of how the culturalist approach fits with reformed theology without being delineated as such in the confessional/liturgical documents is a fair one. One response would be that a concern for cultural transformation isn't what defines being Reformed, but something that flows out of Reformed convictions. The pietist emphasis as well seems a response to the Reformed foundation. Both of those approaches have at times attempted to claim that the Reformed tradition should be seen as means to their ends. Could we fairly resolve this by agreeing that exploring and extending the Reformed tradition through such emphases is fair game, but making the Reformed tradition subservient to those responses isn't?

You might question whether such responses as pietism and culturalism are inherently subversive of the Reformed tradition. But if that's the case, isn't the landscape well nigh bare of those who could be considered true to the tradition?

Another response is that perhaps the culturalist impulse was assumed by the Westminster Divines, and only comes out in places where the specific outworkings of that were then in controversy (e.g. WCF 23 and 31), which sections tend to be glossed over as historical relics today.

As part of that, I wonder about how being a confessional tradition affects debates like these. I love our confessions (and even as a PCA-er, I include the continental confessions in that "our"). But does that confessional emphasis rig the game here a little bit? How far off track, for example, might a high school art club or new parents get if they used encyclopedia entries for "art" or "parent" as primary guides to working out their respective roles?

[Nathan Reddick]

"Maybe Greg could have added a sentence (as Edwards does) that assured us there can be no beauty in the soul without sound doctrine in the mind (though there can be sound doctrine in the mind without beauty in the soul.)"

Tim, you took the words right out of my mouth. If Greg really wants those of us in the PCA whom he considers "doctrinalists" to carefully consider his argument, he should really try to represent our position more accurately. I'm assuming he would acknowledge, along with Edwards, that there can be no beauty in the soul without sound doctrine in the mind, but he certainly didn't affirm that in his sermon. Instead, it sounded like he was suggesting that you can live correctly without first understanding correctly.

Also, describing the ethos of those who care deeply about right doctrine "schismatic" doesn't really help get the conversation off on a positive foot.

What do you think about the following quote, Tim? Phil's not Presbyterian, but I think this statement represents the way a lot of PCA folks feel.

“In a climate where error runs rampant and the church is desperately sick, we might do well to be a little less concerned about guarding our tone and a lot more concerned about guarding the truth.”

Phil Johnson

[Tommy Myrick]

Logic.

WSC Professor of Church History R. Scott Clark, notes in his forthcoming book "Recovering the Reformed Confessions" (P&R, 2008) how many within the Presbyterian and Reformed community follow a similar logical argument:

(a) I believe X,
(b) I am Reformed,
(s) ergo X = Reformed

When Greg speaks of "ethos" not as apprehending ideas (theology) but as "beholding beauty," it seems that out appreciation of that beauty should come, not from observing the "beauty of brothers and sisters," but a denomination looks to and appreciates her historical distinctives. We look to the Westminster Standards. It seems that the Westminster Divines should be the ones to whom we afford the privilege of defining the word "Reformed."

Those who have listened to Greg's message, with me, might argue that this post bumps up against his "philosophical" or "theological" abstractions. Greg argues that an ethos derivative from these aspects is schismatic (eg."tragic necessities of our history"). Really?

Darryl Hart nails the argument. I'll stop typing and gladly yield space to his.

-TKM

[Tony Stiff]

As I listened to Greg's lecture and read Dr. Keller's sympathetic response what I heard Keller saying is that we not only need a well articulated description of the varied ethos's of our denomination but we also need to learn how to discourse in the vernacular of these varied ethos's. That there is a way to speak intelligible by embodiment of the 'others' ethos values, and that if we don't do this we will not be heard the way we could and need to for renewal's sake.

This makes me wonder how the presence of a Denominational Renewal Conference contributes or takes away from that varied vernacular discourse. I think the idea of such a conference is more fitting to cultural-transformationalist like myself rather than doctrinalist who may see a non-authorized conference as a fragmentation or afront to the doctrinal vision of Presbyterian polity. Nevertheless for my part I think that such a Renewal conference is needed and Greg's lecture offers those of a more cultural-transformationalist strip a 'way of being' in their current denominational setting. I think Greg has done a tremendous job in that regard.

The real labor for listeners isn't deciding whether or not they should or should not be critical of the lectures content but rather where and in what manner repentance and faith must take place in their life and the life of their community. I think Greg's lecture is less a call for diagnosis and more so a prescription of medication for our churches. Other doctors of our communion may want to prescribe additional points or different dose levels but such is normal.

Thank you Greg and Dr. Keller for a stimulating, yet painful, look at the ethos of our churches.

[Al Tysinger]

Tommy, do you think that an equal and opposite error ever takes the following form?

I don't believe X.
I am Reformed.
Ergo, X is against the Reformed faith.

As to schism, I think it's a live topic for the whole PCA, not just doctrinalists. The PCA has demonstrated an incredible capacity for growth, much of it out of other protestant denominations. A lot of us left where we were and came to the PCA because we wanted to, not (in the mold of Luther and Calvin) because we had to. And perhaps many with PCUSA or CRC roots lament not purging the subversive elements before it was too late. Those experiences have huge implications for efforts to maintain integrity as a Reformed denomination in the coming years. It's at least worth discussing whether some of us are too ready to leave, or too ready to kick others out.

Nathan, that quotation is certainly worth chewing on. I get the mindset behind it, having seen the effects of false teaching firsthand.

It's interesting in this discussion because I'd say a key part of ethos is character, personal credibility. Thus as a counterpoint to that quotation, failing to guard our words may undermine our credibility in guarding the truth (because an uncontrolled use of the tongue is inconsistent with a humble receipt of Christ's atoning work). Yet (as you might say in reply) treating some errors with any respect at all is an insult to the truth.

[Lois Westerlund]

I did not know that the familiar description of the tripartite fragmentation of the PCA came from George Marsden. I suppose one cannot argue with a historian of Marsden's stature, but, insofar as it is true, it is sad, even tragic. It is also a little baffling. When by faith, through God's grace, we are made new, we have enlightened minds which rejoice in God's revealed truth and guard it zealously. We have new hearts that love to behold the beauty of our Savior. The outworking of enlightened minds and loving hearts transforms all our relationships, beginning with the family and extending to neighbors and beyond, as the Spirit leads. I am not sure about "renewing denominations." Denominations wax and wane, for good and bad reasons. I am sure about the needed renewal of our hearts, which are immortal. The God Who reveals Truth will have first place in our hearts, or none. And the evidence will be transformed relationships with others. Beginning, perhaps, with fellow Christians in our denomination.

[Darryl Hart]

GL: the relationship of Puritanism and Presbyterianism is complicated. In England, Puritan could include folks who were independents or folks who favored Presbyterianism. The Assembly could be said to represent 17th c. Reformed orthodoxy. But the independents in England -- also known as Congregationalists -- could be quite hostile to Presbyterians. With regrets for Carl Trueman's hero, Oliver Cromwell, the Commonwealth era in England was none too healthy for Presbyterians in Scotland or Northern Ireland. In fact, the anscestors of the Hodges and Alexanders likely decided to migrate to Philadelphia to escape the burden of being Presbyterian around "Puritans." (read: Cromwell persecuted Presbyterians.)

On this side of the Atlantic, Puritanism was also not so compatible with confessional Presbyterianism. One of the ironies in this discussion is that Greg Thompson was (maybe still is) a fan of John Williamson Nevin, and Nevin believed New England Puritanism was responsible for the individualistic, biblicistic, and low church mindset of American Protestantism (which finds expression today in many parachurch endeavors).

Al T.: I tend to think that pietism and culturalism are at odds with confessionalism, though not intentionally or explicitly all the time. Both don't take the visible church seriously, whether because of personal experience or because of an expansive reading of what the church's "ministry." If my reading of confessionalism means that not many TR's exist, it wouldn't be the first time. Reformed numbers have always been much smaller than we Reformed tend to think. I mean, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is the Lutheran equivalent of the OPC -- the runt of the litter. And they have 100,000 more members than the PCA.

[Nicholas T. Batzig]

Dr. Keller,

You conclude your assessment of Pastor Thompson's talk with this statement:

"Recently I’ve come to realize that the Old School Presbyterians of the 19th century like Alexander and Hodge did pull something like this off. They were neither as anti-ecclesial as the original New Side revivalists nor as anti-experiential as the original Old Side doctrinalists of the 18th century. How did that happen? I’m not a historian, so I can’t be sure. I would love to see something like that happen again in the PCA."

Could you be more specific as to what Old School doctrinalists were "anti-experimental?" I have always been under the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that the Old school Presbyterians were saturated with "experimental Calvinism." I assume you were referring to some who were against "revivalism," but that does not necessarily mean they were anti-experimental. If you read Archibald Alexander's biography you find that the Old School was full of Gospel loving, experimental ministers. This is the example that Alexander followed.

[Tim Keller]

Hi, Nick--

I said the Old SIDE Presbyterians tended to be anti-experimental, not Old SCHOOL. My point was that the Old School was a nice merger of Old Side concern for ecclesial authority and the New Side concern for experimental piety, without the anti-confessionalism (of the New Side) or the anti-experientialism (of the Old Side).

[Nicholas T. Batzig]

Dr. Keller,

My apologies about confusing the two. I realized what I had done after posting. Could you still offer some examples of how the "Old Side" doctrinalists were anti-experimental? If it was with regard to Gilbert Tennet's itinerant preaching, isn't it the case that it was anti-revivalism, not anti-experietialism? I guess I am trying to sort through the use of the term "experiential" in this context. Tennet essentially preached his sermons 'the danger of an unconverted ministry" at some of the men who opposed his intinerant preaching. This does not mean, however, that these men were either anti-experiential or unconverted.

[Nicholas T. Batzig]

Even Marsden, in his book Fundamentalism and American Culture, makes the following statement without giving examples of Old Side anti-experientialists (or experimentalists):

"Calvinists tended to stress the intellect, the importance of right doctrine, the cognitive aspects of faith, and higher education. On the other hand, more pietistically and emotionally oriented groups such as the Methodists tended to shun intellectual rigor and to stress the practical and experimental-practical aspects. Many Congregationalists and Presbyterians, especially those of the revivalistic branches, known in the 19th Century as "New School," combined educational and doctrinal emphases with intense emotion. Jonathan Edwards was their model. (44-45)"

I guess I am trying to avoid making a blanket statement about an entire branch of the 18th Century Presbyterian Church. It seems that by doing so we can make set up a false dichotomy between doctrinal confessional subscription and evangelistic fervor.

[Tim Keller]

Nick—Again, I’m not a church historian. But here’s how I read it. The 18th century revivalists saw many people in churches who subscribed to sound doctrine and were generally ethical but whose lives did not show the marks of Spirit-regenerated character. They began to preach to church members that they should not rely on ‘outward ordinances’ but be sure they were converted. Many in the Old Side took great offense at this. They said, if someone was a church member and participating in the sacraments, they were Christians, by definition. But the revivalists said there had to be a vital connection between sound theology and life-changing experience. Hodge and Alexander agreed with the revivalists on this concern for ‘experimental knowledge’ but rejected the New Side’s methodology—its disdain for church order and the authority of church courts. The Old School created what I think was a good synthesis. Nevin and the German Reformed, however, continued the Old Side’s rejection of this emphasis on spiritual experience. Nevin contradicted Hodge and Jonathan Edwards and grounded assurance and profession not in spiritual experience but in church membership and the sacraments. I think that Alexander and Hodge had a much better balance than Nevin and his forbears in the Old Side. Again, when it comes to church history, I’m a ‘lay person’, but this is the way I understand things.

[Nicholas T. Batzig]

Thank you Dr. Keller. Very helpful!

[Mike Farley]

Pastor Keller,

You wrote:
"Nevin and the German Reformed, however, continued the Old Side’s rejection of this emphasis on spiritual experience. Nevin contradicted Hodge and Jonathan Edwards and grounded assurance and profession not in spiritual experience but in church membership and the sacraments."

As a young historical theologian, I have done a lot of work on Nevin for my doctoral dissertation and also for some published articles on Nevin's liturgical theology. On the basis of that work, I would say that Nevin did not disparage spiritual experience. He did believe that the Old School's synthesis had an insufficiently objective view of the church and its concrete embodiments in liturgy and sacrament. (And most historians now believe that Nevin's was the one who was the more faithful and accurate expositor of John Calvin's theology of the Lord's Supper.) The reason for his objection, however, was not to disparage or downplay the importance of spiritual experience. As a careful student of Calvin, he strongly the standard Calvinian consensus that the we only receive Christ and the benefits of his redemptive work in the sacraments by personal faith. Nevin's controlling category for soteriology (along with Calvin) was his emphasis on mystical union with Christ, a doctrine that is hardly at odds with an emphasis on spiritual life. Read Nevin's sermons and his pastoral exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, and you'll see a man who was in no way trying to oppose the necessity of personal, living faith in Christ.

What Nevin was attempting to critique was a set of beliefs about the objective means through which God works to form and shape our spiritual experience and the form that our spiritual experience takes. He adamantly opposed the idea that an outwardly dramatic conversion experience was a necessary mark of regeneration (as did Hodge), and, just like Edwards and various Old Schoolers, criticized the excesses of revivalism for confusing mere emotionalism with genuine spiritual renewal. Nevin was too polemical and pugnacious at times, and he sometimes painted with too broad of a brush (e.g., his dismissal of everything he opposed with the category "Puritan"). However, the dividing line between Nevin and his Presbyterian opponents was not a disagreement about the necessity of genuine, living faith in Christ that expresses itself in acts of loving obedience to Christ. The disagreement was more specifically about the way to understand, articulate, and emphasize the way that God uses the objective means of the church community, liturgy, and sacrament to give himself to us and to shape our spiritual life. Nevin stressed the sacramental union of Christ with the church more than some of his Old School opponents did. On these points, I think that Nevin is actually closer to Calvin's own views and practice on this issue than Hodge was.

[Sam Wheatley]

The categories of Doctrine, Piety and Culture-transformation seem to correspond to the trinitarian character of God. That in the Father we are confronted with Truth, in the Son with Grace and through the Spirit with Mission. All three (members of the Trinity and components of a healthy church) are essential, and to deny the necessity of one or to elevate one above the other begins problematic consequences.

[Darryl Hart]

Mike Finley: I concur and your comment only peels back one more layer of the onion of life-changing spiritual experience. For revivalists and pietists since the 18th century in North America at least, the marks of that "real" experience is some sort of outward display. And beneath it is an assumption about churchly forms of outward display. I'm not sure what would be more life-changing than to submit one's child for baptism in the local church. That's not chopped liver for someone born in sin and at enmity with God. But for Tennent and others who have gone a long way with the slender hook of "dead orthodoxy," simply going to church and attending the means of grace is not good enough.

It's like saying that to be a "true" driver, you need to run around in a red Beemer, when a gray 4-door Escort also gets you on the road and around the block. The important point here is whether piety needs to be flashily visible. It seems Scripture is filled with counsel about Christian devotion not being showy, from Christ's teaching about praying in public to Paul's criticism of the Corinthians' theology of glory.

[Tim Keller]

Mike Farley –

I don’t think it is right to say Hodge believed in the necessity of a ‘dramatic’ conversion experience. In The Way of Life he was very clear that conviction of sin and apprehension of gospel grace did not have to be especially dramatic or emotional. Nevin was not against spiritual experience per se, but he was against Princeton theologians’ insistence that baptized, catechized church members still needed a conversion experience. Alexander and Hodge insisted that it was possible to mentally subscribe to the doctrines of sin and grace without actually putting your heart’s trust in them. When you did that, there should be some heart experience of conviction of sin and enjoyment of grace. That is what they called ‘justifying faith’ and ‘conversion.’ When Nevin was at Princeton as a student, he appreciated the confessional, doctrinal emphasis, but he felt it was inconsistent with the equal emphasis on conversion and experience. He saw this as subjectivizing Christianity and undermining the better approach to spiritual formation that was based on the sacraments. I think that Alexander and Hodge had a better balance. Hodge criticized both the subjectivism of the Second Great Awakening and the ‘over-objectivism’ (forgive the awkward phrase) of Nevin.

[Darryl Hart]

Mike Farley: Sorry for getting your last name wrong.

[Chuck DeGroat]

DH: You say, "The last time I looked, the creedal, liturgical and polity aspects of Presbyterianism say very little about either the culturalist or the pietist understanding of being Reformed. Could it be that the pietists and culturalists have an agenda that is unwilling to live within the constraints of Reformed Christianity?" My question is this: Do the "constraints" you speak of prohibit us from benefiting as a denomination from the wise and time-tested thinking on piety from John Calvin? Should we not consider the passionate and pietistic letters (which benefit from the tradition of bridal mysticism) of Samuel Rutherford, who labored for years at the Assembly while his children died? And shall we ignore Owen on communion, Edwards on affection, or Kuyper on cultural engagement? And did these men have some agenda?

And if not...if these constraints really do mean that the Westminster Fathers failed to engage piety or culture...should we not consider Scripture itself (which does not fail to address piety or culture) and tradition (which, in its fuller form, considers Calvin, Rutherford, Owen, Edwards, and others) toward the end of revision and renewal? And if we don't, do we not grieve our Westminster Fathers by failing to elevate Scripture over any human construct? My sense is that we diminish Scripture's authority by elevating, as the so-called "Papists" did, any human tradition (which can lead to idolatry...confessionalISM), especially traditions which may not emphasize or embrace the whole of Scripture.

[Darryl Hart]

Chuck DeGroat: I would hope the PCA could benefit from Calvin on Reformed piety. The problem is that many in the PCA and OPC think that Edwards and Calvin were the same on piety. In point of fact, Edwards moved in a more individualistic direction through his understanding of Religous Affections, while Calvin was much more churchly and sacramental. In fact, the very idea of conversion as Edwards understood it was foreign to the Reformers. Conversion in the 16th c. was synonymous with sanctification -- a life long dying to sin and living to Christ. After the Great Awakening conversion became synonymous with an experience that was the beginning of the believers entrance into life in Christ. As for culture, the picture is more complicated because of the state church setting. But the kind of triumphalism that runs within the logic of taking every square inch captive was also not characteristic of Calvin whose views on the Christian life as one of suffering and living on a sentry post watching for Christ's return would send many American Protestants running to the medicine cabinet in search of Prozac.

Tim: I'm curious what you mean by the over-objectivism of Nevin. Nevin was reared a Presbyterian and nurtured in the faith. The means of grace were ministered to bring him to make a profession of faith and a participant in communion. When he experienced a revival as a college student he was struck how the revivalists treated his non-communicant standing as if it were a trifle. He was either out or in. The ministry of the church in which he had been reared, his baptism, his going to church, his being catechized, did not count. He had either accepted Jesus or he hadn't. This is where a subjective-objective dynamic is too individualistic and abstract and doesn't really address what's going in on in Reformed Christianity. The subjective-objective dichotomy doesn't take into account the objective and subjective aspects of the church's ministry. These are outward elements that are given to yield internal growth in grace. At the same time, the desire for a conversion experience as Whitefield and Edwards wanted, made the ministry of the church, its ordinances and sacraments, matters that were indifferent. Forms didn't matter. The experience did. And this is why revivalism takes no regard of denominations or theological traditions. These are merely outward elements. What matters is what is internal. I for the life of me cannot understand how such a view of the Christian life would lead to the renewal of Presbyterianism. Evangelical Christianity that is indifferent to church structures and forms, yes. But not Reformed Christianity where creeds, liturgy and polity are supposed to count for something.