Reformed Rhetoric

When you have a movement that people feel strongly about and one that is increasing in popularity, you often run into rhetoric replacing reason. This is approaching a pandemic in Reformed circles. We say things like “means of grace”, “covenant theology”, “expository preaching” with little thought as to why we believe in those doctrines and practices. They become mere slogans that we say in response to a line of questioning.

Because we so freely regurgitate Reformed rhetoric and many of us are not as informed as we should be as to why we believe as we do and what others who don’t agree believe as they do, we end up resorting to caricatures to argue our point. That is not to say that this is true of all Reformed folks nor is it to imply that people who are Reformed are not well-read. We are by and large very well-read but often it is only in a narrow, approved spectrum of books. There are lots of men I know who have bothered to read stuff outside of the approved literature, but there seems to be a lot of men who don’t. It seems especially true of more recent converts to reformed theology who want to absorb as much as they can and devour book after book by Reformed authors. All well and good, there is a virtually unlimited supply of good books by Reformed giants, past and present. My concern is that in keeping our circle of influence so tightly closed, it becomes difficult to have an impact on the church at large.

I think that, much as I hate to admit it, this problem has as its source the enormous resources available to study Reformed theology. From the hundreds of blogs to webpages like Monergism to conferences like Together for the Gospel to radio programs like The White Horse Inn, we who are Reformed in theology do an awful lot of talking to each other. In other words preaching Calvinism to the Calvinist choir. We have developed Reformed tunnel-vision, unable or unwilling to see the rest of the church around us. I am finding that there are people who are not Reformed who have some pretty useful stuff to say and sometimes are right on issues where the Reformed consensus might just be wrong.

We should read great Reformed authors of yesterday and today. Men like Spurgeon and Edwards and Calvin, men like Piper and Mohler and Sproul, have much to teach us and help us refine our thinking. Better to read a book by John MacArthur with some meat than the latest fluffy book du jour from one of the authors who write 100 page pamphlets for Family Christian Stores. But if we desire to see reformation spread in the church, we need to get beyond our own circle and we certainly need to stop trying to carve people out of our “Truly Reformed” circles. If we are going to complain about N.T. Wright, we had better read what he has to say instead of reading about what others have to say about him. If we are going to rail against the “emergent: church”, we better read what they have to say instead of forming an opinion based on snippets. If we are going to make stands and draw lines in the sand, it behooves us to know what is on the other side of the line. I find it distressing that there are many people, including me, who have not gone much past the Reformed rhetoric. As long as a doctrine/book/speaker/conference is labeled “Reformed” we are good to go.

For example, read the comments section of a new post by Tim Challies , All About Endorsements,and see how many people accept books as "good books" based on who endorses them. There is a Roman Catholic practice of putting a stamp of approval on certain works called an imprimatur and we have adopted that very same practice in much of Protestantism.

Take for example Frank Viola. In reading Frank Viola’s Reimagining Church, what struck me is that here is a book written by a man that I probably would disagree with on a great many things. If we were sitting in a Starbucks, drinking coffee and chatting about doctrine and theology, once we strayed from the topic of the church we would probably find ourselves at odds pretty quickly. Even when it comes to the church, we would certainly differ strenuously on issues like women as elders and teachers. (In the spirit of disclosure, I read about half of Reimagining Church before I got frustrated with the repetitiveness of the book. Seriously can you find a different word than “organic”?). Even so, I learned a lot in what I did read and it sparked contemplation and study on my part. How can that be wrong? As I try to learn, what I have found is that it is OK, it really is, to go beyond my circle of “approved authors” to see what other people have written and not just reading them with an agenda to prove them wrong. There was a time in the not so recent past where certain authors were OK and others were very much not OK.

I guess my point is this. If Reformed theology wants to be more than a bunch of stodgy Dutch people in Grand Rapids or the newest, latest fad in theology for younger Christians, we need to engage with the church around us. These are our brothers in Christ that we will spend eternity with and we shouldn’t cordon them off in the corner until they affirm the Three Forms of Unity. We need to see the value in what some other folks have to say, even if we don’t agree with all or any of what they have to say. Rattling off all of the Reformed theologians past and present who agree with us is not going to influence anyone. Being able to engage the rest of the church in conversation certainly is.