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.
---------
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 18th
century, Old School (doctrinalist/pietist) from
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 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. 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.
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?
Posted by: Darryl Hart | September 15, 2008 at 06:48 AM
The Puritans combined doctrinalist with pietist and cultural-transformationist emphases. I don't think we should consider them anti-intellectual, nor anti-confessional.
Posted by: Tim Keller | September 15, 2008 at 07:04 AM
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.
Posted by: Darryl Hart | September 15, 2008 at 08:12 AM
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.
Posted by: GL | September 15, 2008 at 08:30 AM
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.
Posted by: Andy Jones | September 15, 2008 at 10:27 AM
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?
Posted by: Al Tysinger | September 15, 2008 at 11:03 AM
"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
Posted by: Nathan Reddick | September 15, 2008 at 01:26 PM
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
Posted by: Tommy Myrick | September 15, 2008 at 01:39 PM
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.
Posted by: Tony Stiff | September 15, 2008 at 01:58 PM
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.
Posted by: Al Tysinger | September 15, 2008 at 02:49 PM