Evangelicalism and Ma Bell
Alasdair Macintyre, the astute Roman Catholic philosopher, got off one of the better quips about the difficulty of feeling loyalty for the modern nation-state when he wrote that being asked to die for one’s country is like “being asked to die for the telephone company.” Whether it’s AT&T or Verizon, it’s just too big, too abstract, too bureaucratic for people to be willing to sacrifice anything meaningful. It’s even hard to imagine wearing a phone company t-shirt.
This is the way contemporary evangelicalism feels and it confounds me that so many Reformed Christians continue to show allegiance to a religious phenomenon that is as big, remote, and weightless as the phone company. A number of blogs recently have taken up the subject, Lee Irons’, Scott Clark’s, Ref 21, and the Confessional Outhouse among them. Also at Greenbaggins the posting of recent statements from administrators at Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia) on the schools relationship to evangelicalism was the occasion for reflections on the relations between evangelical and Reformed Protestantism.
Typically, Reformed types will concede that evangelicalism has its problems – theological especially – but the garden variety evangelical’s devotion to the Bible, sincere religious experience, belief in Christ as savior, and general zeal are all worthy of Reformed respect. So deep is this respect that many Reformed believers will speak of the fellowship they have with evangelicals.
Fellowship? How exactly is such fellowship manifest? Is it like being listed in the Yellow Pages? Where does this fellowship happen other than when American Protestants answer pollsters questions a certain way, when journalists lump everyone from Rick Warren to James Dobson under the heading of evangelical, or when a university press releases yet another book about evangelicalism in the United States?
The way Christians are supposed to consider fellowship is through the prism of the church – not the warm and fuzzy invisible church that incorporates believers the way Verizon sends out direct mail. It is rather the visible church that sets the terms of fellowship and these bodies have definite views about doctrine, worship, and polity. That’s why Orthodox Presbyterians may have great respect for Missouri Synod Lutherans but don’t exchange pulpits with Lutheran pastors. And yet, certain Reformed Protestants, who are supposed to know better because they have actually taken vows that circumscribe their ministry and membership within a specific communion, will speak of the fellowship and unity they have with Christians who are in communions not even within the Rolodex of the chairmen of their denomination’s committee on ecumenicity.
To speak of fellowship with evangelicals is really like speaking of oneness with fellow Americans who favor marriage. I do support marriage and am glad for as many citizens of this republic who value it as we can find. But what I share with pro-marriage Americans is hardly the same as the real fellowship I have, by virtue of marriage, with my wife. I wonder when Reformed Protestants will consider that their membership and ordination vows may be as serious as their marriage vows, and may even trump their identity as evangelicals.
W.H. Chellis
August 20th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Steve Zrimec trouble signing on to comment- he asked me to post the following:
What’s a Rolodex?
Speaking of “fellowship,” something tells me the same befuddled looks
questions like this likely receive amongst more Reformed than not might
have something in common with the ones I get when it comes to the names
of certain quarters in the church building. (Of course, mine always
sounds picky, while yours sounds like it really wants to know. But,
while no better sounding, I’d rather think of mine as a sneaky way to
get real answers I never seem to get when I ask seriously.)
But if we are as breezy about calling the All-Purpose Room “Fellowship
Hall”-where one gathers after worship over coffee, cookies and the
general banter about life one can enjoy with any Christ-denying pagan,
as well as play basketball, interview ministerial candidates, put on art
shows, tutor after-school kids or any array of common activity-what is
keeping us from thinking we can’t have fellowship with those quite
outside the boundaries of Reformed Protestantism? I mean, isn’t “The
Sanctuary” where only the activities of belief can take place more
synonymous with “Fellowship Hall” since fellowship is taking place
there? Shouldn’t the room that quarters all manner of common activity be
called something like the “All-Purpose Room”?
Moreover, I for one also don’t get why, if fellowship is so breezy, such
warm relational phrases aren’t also extended to Roman Catholics. Ever
notice how evangelicals are “brethren,” (another meaningful term) while
Roman Catholics are Roman Catholics?
W.H. Chellis
August 20th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Maybe this is a weakness of our Protestantism. We long for catholicity and broader unity and so we create it out of abstraction. Don’t look to close or the unity will show itself an illusion… but if you get just the right angle…. the church invisible.
Caleb Stegall
August 20th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Does that make the Reformation kind of an ecclesial Sherman Act?
I bet if prots started bundling DSL and SatTV with membership they could poach some Catholics.
Darryl Hart: “Evangelicalism” and Ma Bell « Heidelblog
August 21st, 2008 at 9:38 am
[...] August 21, 2008 in Friends of the Heidelblog | Tags: evangelicalism reformed christianity | After a brief hiatus, De Regno Christi is back and so Darryl Hart and he wonders why so many Reformed folk seem bent on identifying with “evangelicalism.” [...]
Caleb Stegall
August 21st, 2008 at 9:59 am
I think fellowship is like blogging …
Caleb Stegall
August 21st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
On a more serious note, DH will, I hope, forgive me for being less than fully sympathetic with this quandry which is brought on, I have speculated, by certain anthropological, theological, and ecclesial committments of Calvinism.
(See here: http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/19/does-reformed-christianity-have-a-common-law/ where I discuss the constitutional church)
The most recent Evangelical Manifesto signed by Mark Noll among others again makes clear the constitutional committments of most American Christians as they self-fashion in terms of abstract textual-legal committments.
This is likewise confirmed by a recent long conversation I had with a president of a prominent reformed seminary wherein I questioned his institution’s relationship with evangelicalism and out came the venn diagrams!
Can any Calvinist truly say they are saved by friendship and membership? Until they can, I think we are truly stuck with Ma Bell.
D Hart
August 24th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Steve, it’s been so long since I’ve been in a church with a fellowship hall that I forgot about this phenomenon or what it says about real communion.
Caleb, I’m comfortable with affirming the saving benefits of membership in the way the Confession does in chap. 25, as in there is no salvation “ordinarily” outside the visible church. But I’d rather put the membership of friendship in a different category. Don’t make me get out my own venn diagrams.
Caleb Stegall
August 25th, 2008 at 10:38 am
A story about Radbod, Duke of the Frisians, is appended to the Life of St. Wulfhramn, and dated c.720. The pagan Radbod, on his way into the baptismal tank, stopped: and asked of the holy Bishop Wulfhramn, binding him by oaths on the name of the Lord, whether he could guarantee that the number of Kings and Princes and nobles of the Frisian race would be greater in heaven, if he [Radbod] believed and was baptized, than in Tartarean damnation. To which Bishop Wulfhramn replied Noli errare, inclyte Princeps, “make no mistake, famous prince. The number of his elect is known to the Lord. For your predecessors as princes of the Frisian race, who died without the sacrament of baptism, are certain to have received the sentence of damnation. But he who shall believe from now on and be baptized, will live happily ever after with Christ.” Haec audiens Dux incredulus (he had reached the font by then, so they say) took his foot out of the holy font and said he could not do without the society of his predecessors, the princes of the Frisians, to live in heaven with a scattering of wretches; for he found it harder to offer assent to the new teachings than to remain with those which he had followed for a long time with the whole Frisian race.
From a noted essay among anglo-saxonists/old style english and germanic philologists, by Tom Shippey, holder of the Tolkien chair at Leeds
W.H. Chellis
August 25th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Caleb- that story was fantastic. Thanks.
Caleb Stegall
August 26th, 2008 at 9:49 am
You are welcome.
Another:
Elegy for Father Jape, Along Old Route 24
In particular soil, dark Kansas soil,
a man and his wife will husband Jape’s corpse,
layer it low among husks and cobs. Oils
from his reddened face will, in their due course,
become a part of the fall mud. His head
amidst a field of rotted pumpkin shells
will find its home at last. The happy dead
he always preferred to the happy hells
of the living and the glib. “Te Deum
Laudamus” the crows will sing as they pluck
out his hair and leave his eyes. Like Adam,
he gets to see the fall and all its muck.
To save the world, he learns, at last, he must
conserve one fertile place, become its dust.
- David Wright
There is something pre-Christian (Solomonic), of course, about the desire to sleep with one’s fathers. The question is, is it anti-Christian? Has anyone given thought or treatment to the way Paul’s doctrine of the ressurection of the body would have been profoundly upsetting to ancient death-rites and notions of peace after death, etc. Think Theodin or King David sleeping with their fathers or the Elysian Fields. Even Hebrews’ invocation of the “great cloud of witnesses” seems vaguely pagan or pre-Christian. This great shift must have a lot to teach us about “fellowship” and “identity,” etc., for the living and the dead. I need to re-read the Gorgias, but I bet there is some interesting insight there as well.
D Hart
August 26th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Caleb, have you been part of some bad session meetings lately? Way too morbid are these comments. Also unsettling. But I keep falling back on the paradoxical relationship between the created and redeemed orders. What works in the one, doesn’t in the other. So here the first really are first. There, they’re last.
Caleb Stegall
August 27th, 2008 at 9:52 am
C’mon! Morbidity is stock in trade for good Calvinists.
D Hart
August 28th, 2008 at 5:50 am
So a good Calvinist is a dead Calvinist?
W.H. Chellis
August 28th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Total depravity would suggest so-
Zrim
August 28th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Wouldn’t that be *utter* depravity? Besides, how can a good Calvinist transform anything being dead and all?
Caleb Stegall
August 28th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Back to WC 25. Doesn’t this beg the question in light of the context of the original post as to what constitutes the “visible church”?
Ok, so you don’t appreciate my anglo-saxon philologist or my death-rite speculations vis-a-vis communal identity, etc. But I have yet to see why/how the only other compelling alternative (aside from the one I am gesturing toward) to Hart’s complaint is not the claim that one’s own ecclessial fellowship is the only true church going. And I doubt anyone here is willing to go that far. Are they?
And am I the only one with expressed sympathy for the Frisian expression of generational continuity extending beyond, or properly, into the grave? I doubt it. No fair raising serious questions and then joshing at the serious answers and/or implications of the question.
The fact remains that Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity, is a universalizing faith and relativizes all other social markers and commitments. For those of us who are uncomfortable with this as Darryl obviously is, it remains to grope towards some satisfactory resolution of this tension.
W.H. Chellis
August 28th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Caleb- have you read Kirk’s ghost stories? I think especially of those delightfully spectral tales in which Kirk plays with the idea of the time-less moment and the mystical body of Christ.
Frankly, Kirk’s ghosts stories impacted my thinking about union with Christ far more than any tract by Dick Gaffin precisely because Kirk so aptly weaves in just the things you are talking about.
Caleb Stegall
August 28th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Bill, no I haven’t read those, but should. I think ghost stories give us a lot to consider, however, as I wrote about re: Irving and Psalmody in the last Covie Review.
A few other bits as food for thought on this topic:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JG29Aa02.html
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=21-07-013-v
Caleb
D Hart
August 28th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Caleb: I want to understand you correctly. You write, “. . . Protestant Christianity, is a universalizing faith and relativizes all other social markers and commitments. For those of us who are uncomfortable with this as Darryl obviously is, it remains to grope towards some satisfactory resolution of this tension.” If its universal and a relativizer of social and human commitments, which I concede, why would it relativize the visible expression of such Christianity, namely, the church. Christianity’s claims to higher loyalty over family would seem to indicate a higher stature for the church. But the most serious Christians these days put family at the top, maybe Little League and Focus on the Family, in between, and the church at the bottom.
Depending on how you answer this may affect my attempt to address the OPC as the Only Pure Church.
Caleb Stegall
August 29th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Darryl, your original post was decrying the fellowship some reformed folk seem to have with other evangelicals. You wrote:
“So deep is this respect that many Reformed believers will speak of the fellowship they have with evangelicals. Fellowship? How exactly is such fellowship manifest? Is it like being listed in the Yellow Pages? … The way Christians are supposed to consider fellowship is through the prism of the church – not the warm and fuzzy invisible church that incorporates believers the way Verizon sends out direct mail.”
Honesty compells us to admit that this simply does not square with WC25:
“The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. … This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. … The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.”
This is a very clear statement of what I have been calling the “constitutional church.” So, the structural elements of the reformed faith, created out of a political necessity during a time of vast unrest and ecclesial uncertainty, have really boxed in those of us who are wary of the constitutional church.
Within these confines, to say that you cannot have fellowship with other evangelicals necessitates that you also say that they belong to the “synagogue of Satan.” Otherwise, they really are your “family” and your marriage analogy is ripe for plucking.
The alternative is to explore the deficits in our own tradition and how we may have brought this on ourselves; and to explore more deeply the “sociology of religion” and the underpinnings of human identity, salvation, etc. I prefer the later tack, at least in discussions like this one.
But I recognize how hard this is to do, especially when one has already pledged allegiance to the constitution.
D Hart
August 30th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Caleb, I see your point and I’ll raise you one. Evangelicalism is not a church and since 1945 has not thought of itself as one. It is a parachurch phenomenon, hence the analogy to the Yellow Pages. I do not deny that people who consider themselves to be evangelical are members of congregations. And those people are welcome to have table fellowship in my congregation as long as they are baptized and are indeed members of a church that proclaims the gospel. But that is a different kind of fellowship from the one involved in ecumenical relations. The latter involves being in fellowship with communions of like faith and practice.
So what I’m trying to say is that the church matters as in there is no ordinary possibility of salvation apart from it. Evangelicalism has been saying the reverse for a quarter of a millennium.
Caleb Stegall
September 1st, 2008 at 6:44 am
Darryl, I don’t think you get off so easily!
Evangelicalism doesn’t think of itself as a denomination, true. But in the terms set forth by WC25, it does, and evangelicals do, think of itself/themselves as members of the visible church. I.e., they “profess the true religion.” If you want to now limit the discussion to ecumenical relations between denominational affiliations, fine, but that was not the gist of the original post, was it? Where do you get “fellowship with communions of like faith and practice” from the WC? When evangelicals talk about fellowship, they are talking about fellowship with fellow believers; not with a phone book.
Don’t get me wrong, I share your concerns. However, I think your problem is more directly with WC25 and the whole “visible church” invention of the Reformation than it is with the poor Evangelicals who are merely putting the invention to its intended use.
D Hart
September 1st, 2008 at 10:46 am
Caleb, I’m not trying to play dumb but I still don’t understand your objections. First, I’m not sure what you mean by “constitutional church.” Are you saying that this is what WCF teaches or are you saying the WCF fails to consider the “constitutional church”? Second, I’m not sure that the Reformation invented visible church. I thought if anything Protestantism was guilty of inventing the invisible church, which is generally the body to which many evangelicals think they belong. It was Rome’s visibility and insistence on tangible fellowship with the Bishop of Rome that pushed Protestants over to a spiritual and invisible conception of church. Third, I wonder if you think professing the true religion is something different from what the Westminster Standards teach. I know plenty of evangelicals who think they profess the true religion and would never countenance vast sections of the Westminster Standards.
Caleb Stegall
September 1st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Darryl, I should have said the “visible/invisible church structure invented during the Reformation.” The “church” meant/means being in communion with and under the authority of Rome, to the RCC. It means something very different under the WC.
What do you think professing the true religion means? See, this is the rub. Anyone who professes fidelity to the proper “theology” or “ideas” about the faith (or “confession”) is IN. You can’t not have fellowship with them. This is what I mean by the constitutional church. People are in or out based on their profession. You can’t deny fellowship without denying that they are believers. They are either members of God’s family, or of the synagogue of Satan. This is why I said the only logical option here is to affirm that your communion is the only true church.
I don’t think the WC leaves you any middle ground. The logical outworking of the Reformation (esp. the anti-Catholic reformation) are the various post-church (or supra-congregational) phenomena, one of which we call Evangelicalism.
D Hart
September 1st, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Caleb, you may be right that the Divines meant by professing the true religion — that is, holding to the right theology or ideas (though I actually think that is much more of the affliction of 20th-century Reformed). But I don’t see why professing the true religion doesn’t also mean believing that anyone outside the church is ordinarily not saved. That’s an idea and the foundation of a communion. I’m actually inclined to think on the basis of what I know about the 16th and 17th centuries holding right ideas was not what it took to be in a true church — it’s worse, it meant being born with the state sponsoring the true church. (All the more reason why I think your reading of the WCF is more 20th c. than 17th.
Plus, I don’t see why a middle position between Rome and evangelical invisible churchism is denominationalism, where Protestants recognize the pluriformity of the Protestant churches, and see that some are more or less right. But that does in evangelicalism at least conceptually. I actually think that most evangelicals are members of a particular congregation or communion. My gripe is that they take their identity less from being a member at Willow Creek (Yes, I’d even concede that a megachurch is a church), than some guy who belongs to First Baptist but is a fan of Hybels and so thinks he and Bill are one because they are evangelical. Maybe my point has less to do with the reality of church life than with the way most people conceive of Protestantism — a conception that ignores life on the ground in the church.
Visitor
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Caleb said, “You can’t not have fellowship with them…You can’t deny fellowship without denying that they are believers. They are either members of God’s family, or of the synagogue of Satan. This is why I said the only logical option here is to affirm that your communion is the only true church.”
Not really. I am not sure why those who make Hart’s point are so easily read to have no counting for middle ground. Where exactly that comes from I’ll leave to better minds. But I don’t see anything in so-called high church Calvinism that means a denial of fellowship in the visible church implies denying a safe eternal status; historical understanding of the in/visible church never seems to be much afraid of what Caleb is pointing out.
I think all it means is that the visible/militant church is important as the triumphant/invisible one this side of glory. A high view (set against either a low [evangelical] or infallible [Romanist] one) of the visible church is similar to what it means to belong to a human family: a birth certificate or marriage license are generally recognized and accepted as pretty vital markers to true familial membership. If what Hart is saying is as Caleb implies, we all make too much fuss over these things since to say them could imply my daughter isn’t really mine if it slipped the nurse’s mind to have me sign the certificate, which is silly. A logistical lapse, though, is one thing. It’s another to let it go because either because it really doesn’t mean much or because to do so might imply too much. Who really thinks like that, Caleb? I for one would go racing back to the hospital to make official what I know is already true, as would most guys I know. That only makes common sense.
Methinks you doth protest too much.