Scott Clark does it again!

[DMcFadden]

Whether you agree with him or disagree with him, you really must admire Dr. Scott Clark. His Heidelblog often raises some of the most interesting issues in an engaging way. This is certainly true of his reprinting of a classic blog from 2008: Three Ways of Relating to American Religion | The Heidelblog.

Most of us think in terms of a polarity in American Christianity between "liberal" and "conservative." In his blog, also citing the words of Darryl Hart, he advances the thesis that these are not ALWAYS the most applicable or serviceable filters for evaluating the American church scene.

In the case of the struggle between Machen and Modernism in the 1920s and 30s, the the “fundamentalists” had as much or more in common with the “Modernists” than than they had in common with Machen.

Hart describes the controversy at WTS as a seeming conflict between two ways of relating to American evangelicalism.

Apparently what we have here are rival ways of being open to evangelicals, of not being narrowly or parochially Reformed. In effect, WTS is now torn between Scott McKnight, Tim Keller and Richard Mouw's sort of broad evangelicalism and Al Mohler, D. A. Carson and John Piper's sort of Reformed evangelicalism.

The first group wants to align with the progressive neo-evangelicalism typical of the Fuller of 2013; the second wants to identify with the type of neo-evangelicalism proffered by Carl F.H. Henry in the late 40s and emblematic of the Fuller of that day.

What makes Clark's (and Hart's) comments so interesting is a third way: confessionalism. His proposed modus vivendi maintains that "there is a third way to relate to American religion, however, and that is confessionalism, which is neither liberal nor conservative, but it is what the Reformed Churches have always confessed to be the theology, piety, and practice revealed in the Word of God."

Five years have not dimmed the luminosity of Clark's insights nor the applicability to the current scene. Blessedly, he has put some of these ideas into print in more permanent form for our edification.

 

[MW]

His proposed modus vivendi maintains that "there is a third way to relate to American religion, however, and that is confessionalism, which is neither liberal nor conservative, but it is what the Reformed Churches have always confessed to be the theology, piety, and practice revealed in the Word of God."

Which confession? and which confessionalism? The liberals were quite forthright in espousing a whole range of confessions. It was one of those situations where they could commit themselves to nothing by saying everything. The conservatives were for maintaining the old confessions with their exclusive view of truth as opposed to error. If I remember rightly Prof. Clark's book on the subject proposes the writing of new confessions. This is a progressive, as distinct from a conservative, approach to confessionalism. And, sorry to state the obvious, but it is in the interests of progressivism to persuade conservatives that the progressive-conservative divide is irrelevant. Conservatism, by definition, seeks to maintain old lines of division. Progressivism, by definition, seeks to redraw those lines.

 

[lynnie]

Last time I read about RSC at any length he was trying to rescue us from Jonathan Edwards, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Iain Murray...maybe George Whitfield also If I recall correctly.....

.....as somebody who has spent a lot of time sorting through in my mind the role of confessions and statements of faith, and the emphasis John Murray placed on teaching people from scripture, and not even being sure right this minute what exactly I think as I am still in flux........I find RSC to be the last person I'd want to read to help me, given my love for Iain Murray's books in particular.

And at this point in time, I think any comments about WTS from WSC people should be eliminated here, as should any comments about Frame on WSC. None of them can claim to be unbiased considering the feuds of the past. Their observations about each other probably have some truth in them, but they have lost all claims to objectivity if you ask me.

Just my opinion.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

His proposed modus vivendi maintains that "there is a third way to relate to American religion, however, and that is confessionalism, which is neither liberal nor conservative, but it is what the Reformed Churches have always confessed to be the theology, piety, and practice revealed in the Word of God."

Which confession? and which confessionalism? The liberals were quite forthright in espousing a whole range of confessions. It was one of those situations where they could commit themselves to nothing by saying everything. The conservatives were for maintaining the old confessions with their exclusive view of truth as opposed to error. If I remember rightly Prof. Clark's book on the subject proposes the writing of new confessions. This is a progressive, as distinct from a conservative, approach to confessionalism. And, sorry to state the obvious, but it is in the interests of progressivism to persuade conservatives that the progressive-conservative divide is irrelevant. Conservatism, by definition, seeks to maintain old lines of division. Progressivism, by definition, seeks to redraw those lines.

Thanks Dennis for your encouragement.

Rev Winzer,

Your response is a little surprising. If you have read my book you would know that I treat the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards as being in substantial harmony. Certainly the Westminster Divines thought so. If you have read the book then you know that I use the word there in two senses, broadly and narrowly. The broad sense refers to the theology, piety, and practice that constituted the matrix within which the confessions were written. Narrowly, it refers to the documents themselves. I see a great deal of harmony among most of the confessions written in the classical period. This is not some liberal newfangled approach. It was the approach of Theodore Beza and others who put together the Harmony of Reformed Confessions in response to the Lutheran Book of Concord. Thus, the premise of your question, "which confessions?" is misleading as it assumes more diversity than existed or than those who wrote them thought to exist.

Second, yes, I do advocate the composition of a new confession but that is hardly evidence that I am a "progressive." That no more makes me a progressive than it made Guy de Bres in 1559, who, even though the French Confession had just been written and adopted by the French Synod, nevertheless persisted in writing another--even though it evidently displeased Calvin!--and even made liberal use of the French Confession for his own purpose. Evidently multiple Dutch Reformed synods did not find him "progressive" or "liberal" since his confession was adopted by several regional synods and finally by the Great Synod of Dort in 1619, unless they too are to be tarred as "progressives."

If you had actually read the book that you malign you know that I argued for a new confession for the very same reasons we wrote in the first place, to fulfill our duty to confess the Word of God to the world and to the false church (Rome) and the sects (Anabapists), to preserve what we confess presently and to speak to those issues that have arisen since we last gathered to confess the faith. The doctrine of Scripture has come under assault and though the Chicago 1968 statement is very helpful to define and defend inerrancy, the churches have not spoken as such. The doctrine of God has come under assault via process theology, open theism, and social trinitarianism to name but three. The church in the classical period would confess against such errors and we should too. Soteriology has come under attack in the FV and NPP movements. Our forefathers wouldn't have hesitated to confess against these things.

Further, on the rationale that any new confessional document constitutes liberalism then the Synod Dort would be considered liberal because they added to the Heidelberg and the Belgic. Yes, that's manifestly absurd since they were confessed against the Remonstrants in the interests of preserving the faith. Now, they did give the Dutch Reformed Churches three documents, is that too many? Were the Westminster Divines (the British crown and church had delegates at Dort who approved the canons) liberals for adding yet another confession and two catechisms to the pile of 60 some Reformed confessions before them? I think not.

Brother, there is more than one way to advocate for a new confession. Such a call is not ipso facto evidence of liberalism. This history of the Reformed confessions makes that clear. We've never said in principle that we cannot confess again. That we haven't done so since 1647/48 doesn't mean that we cannot. It just means that events (e.g., the Enlightenment, post-war ennui and other things) overtook us and derailed us from doing what we had been doing about every three years or so on average to the mid-17th century.

 

[MW]

Prof. Clark,

I can assure you I have read your book, and I observe your post simply repeats the type of anecdotal evidence you have provided in your book for new confessions. I call it anecdotal because it fails to account for historico-theological factors which were at work in the great confessional age, and which are discontinuous in our own times. One of these factors -- establishmentarianism -- was basic to the magisterial reformation, but sadly discredited at present. Another fundamental criterion of the confessional age was doctrinal cohesion, which is certainly not characteristic of our own age. I also observe that your anecdotal evidence fails to account for the fact that at some point in the history of the reformation the reformed churches ceased making new confessions, and simply declared their mind on the meaning of their Confession as new teachings emerged. This took place long before the 19th and 20th century factors which you have wrongly identified as causes for ceasing to write new confessions. Finally, the Westminster divines did not write a new confession. They gave "advice" to the Parliament with respect to a Confession of Faith which was to be part of the covenanted uniformity of religion between the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Prof. Clark,

I can assure you I have read your book, and I observe your post simply repeats the type of anecdotal evidence you have provided in your book for new confessions. I call it anecdotal because it fails to account for historico-theological factors which were at work in the great confessional age, and which are discontinuous in our own times. One of these factors -- establishmentarianism -- was basic to the magisterial reformation, but sadly discredited at present. Another fundamental criterion of the confessional age was doctrinal cohesion, which is certainly not characteristic of our own age. I also observe that your anecdotal evidence fails to account for the fact that at some point in the history of the reformation the reformed churches ceased making new confessions, and simply declared their mind on the meaning of their Confession as new teachings emerged. This took place long before the 19th and 20th century factors which you have wrongly identified as causes for ceasing to write new confessions. Finally, the Westminster divines did not write a new confession. They gave "advice" to the Parliament with respect to a Confession of Faith which was to be part of the covenanted uniformity of religion between the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland.

Anecdotal? Those are called facts where I come from! Process theology is. Barthian theology is. Dispensationalism is. The list could go on. Those are not anecdotes. Those things really happened and they've had an effect on the Reformed churches and they are the proper subject of an ecclesiastical response.

You seem to have set up a test that would preclude any ecclesiastical body ever confessing the faith again--unless a magistrate convenes an assembly. Is that what you're saying?

The doctrinal cohesion or lack thereof of which you write was not so different than it is today. These are the kinds of things we tell ourselves, e.g., "ours is not a confession-writing age" to forgive ourselves for not fulfilling our duty to confess the faith in our own time. There was plenty of disagreement in the 16th and 17th centuries and yet somehow, they managed to get it done. We could, if we would do it.

 

[MW]

"Anecdotal" referred to your "facts" from the reformation period in which you sought to find precedent for writing a new confession. They are facts without factors. The factors I mentioned simply are not present today. Merely alluding to the fact that new confessions were written is not sufficient to provide a precedent. Without relevant factors all you have provided are anecdotes.

As for "the church" confessing the faith, as already stated, the church has the power to declare its mind as to the Confession it adopts. It has been doing this since the 17th century without having recourse to a new confession. The church also confesses the faith in the sound preaching of the Word and faithful administration of the sacraments. The church also confesses the faith in the mutual exhortation one to another. The church also confesses the faith in its ready answer to those who ask a reason for the hope of a believer. The idea that a church must continually write a new confession in order to confess the faith does nothing other than sentence the church to incessant constitutional disturbances and divisions.

 

[DMcFadden]

Wow! Sorry to have stirred up such a hornet's nest. Lynnie, you are reacting out of what sounds like strong personal feelings about WTS. I had no intention of fussing over internecine battles between WTS and WSCAL. My point, small as it was, related to the central point of the articles that the "liberal vs. conservative" explanation was too simplistic for understanding the dynamics in the American church.

For the record, as a 6 day creationist, my own views do not coincide neatly with everything Dr. Clark says. However, his work has always struck me as of very high quality academically and worthy of admiration. Whether he agrees with me or not is irrelevant; his insights are often quite sharp and worthwhile. But, then, my weakness is for historical theologians. Anyhow, the point in citing the blog related to the idea that we are missing something in reducing everything to a "liberal" vs. "conservative" polarity.

My own migration to Reformational Christianity came after more than a half century in the precincts of broad evangelicalism. My alma mater went from a Carl F.H. Henry type neo-evangelicalism to a Scott McKnight/Rob Bell progressive position in a matter of two decades. And, the reasons for that slide seem to be popping up in institutions and churches all over the country.

As long as the explanatory template assumes that all one needs to understand about departures from orthodoxy is that conservatives become liberals, we will not see the full dimension of the problem. No, confessions to not work ex opere operato or magically. But, I cannot help but think that many of the struggles being faced in broad American evangelicalism relate to the narrowness of evangelical minimalism. If all you have to believe is Bebbington's quadrilateral (conversionism, cruicicentrism, biblicism, and activism), then almost everyone is an evangelical. Shorn of ecclesiology, discipline, and the enriching nuances of confessions, our evangelical brethren will find their flight from conservative to liberal accelerated by decades.

Perhaps reflective of my own naivete, it is my observation that confessions authentically held will tend to mitigate the conservative to liberal declension, partly for reasons Hart and Clark identified, perhaps party for exogenous reasons. Whether you are holding to the Westminster Standards, Three Forms of Unity, LBCF, or some other confessional standard, the salutary benefits will outweigh the deleterious ones. The problems being experienced in the PCA currently would, in my mind, have surfaced much sooner if there had not been a serious effort to covenant together to live by a confessional boundary.

That was my only point. Sorry that it got you so exercised about the WTS/WSCAL example.

 

[Mushroom]

Ah, brother Dennis, would that the term 'confessional boundaries' had any real weight in these chaotic days, wherein the Bride of Christ is so corrupted that to amend existing, or create new, confessions worthy of addressing the incessant onslaught of heresies and errors that assault her is beyond her capacity, as she so thoroughly was able to do 400 years ago. Those assaults and errors were not then so insurmountable as they are now, seeing men were only burning at the stake for the truth rather than the inconvenient confrontation we face today. We are in such a sorry state that we need fear that any change in those sacred documents then authored would only be liberal in character, and so should be vehemently avoided. We are this emasculated.

 

[Pergamum]

A question about the civil magistrate and the convening of councils:

If this is so, then the rise of Constantinianism in the church was a step forward instead of a step back for the faith, right?

 

[lynnie]

Dr McF- you are a fine brother and I have appreciated many, many posts of your here, and I am sorry that I never said that before, so I am saying it now. I could say it to a 100 others as well. The level of discussion is often way over my head, the subjects numerous and so interesting and challenging and thought provoking. I love history as well and can understand why you linked what you did, and why the topic is worthy of discussion. Thanks for your concern and care.

However, we have a number of new people here regularly, and all I can say is, if you want to read an objective analysis or critique of WTS, I don't think Hart or Clark can provide it. If Marsden wants to write one, fine. If Dr Strange wants to write one, fine. But not RSC or DH.

Don't worry, if somebody posts a link to a Frame essay about the two ways WSC tends to think, and why Frame's third way is the right way instead of the other two ways, I'll point out that it might not be the most objective analysis.

As far as the subject matter goes, I actually side in some ways with RSC in that we have an FV friend on a PCA staff. I think Darwinian evolution needs to be addressed in an updated confession, and modern psyciatric thinking where sin is normalized as physical disease (I don't mean feeling depressed, I mean outbursts of rage for example, or addictions). Feminism. A lot of things.

I am in a church with all Calvinist elders and Calvinist books and materials used for teaching, and a good library that hub and I have full control over- to keep or to trash every item. But, we have no confession or statement of faith beyond the barest minimum. The thinking is that a strong Calvinist statement is a terrible turn off due to misrepresentations of Calvinism ( Calvary Chapel/Dave Hunt types calling us fatalists, and amil replacement theory presented as what enabled the holocaust). People come in, hear the preaching, and stay and slowly change. Over time many people get it- sovereignty, TULIP, covenantal theory. It can take years. But not having a confession to appeal to has led to situations such that I resigned my membership and it was agonizing to do, but necessary to my conscience. So believe me, I can see the need for confessions!!! Or position papers or long statements of faith.

I saw the other side in the PCA though. RE skips church for theatre in NY, all sorts of stuff. I don't see the point of a confession where you can have so many exceptions. If it doesn't matter, why is it in there? I mean really. We were in a Calvinist church once with a fantastic long statement, and the youth leader decided that Calvinism was "death and stagnation", and the elders refused to dump the guy ( Rich Koster who posts here beat his head against a brick wall over that one, along with my hub). The leader finally got caught with another woman and that was the end, but what is the point of confessions that don't matter for leaders? It is endemic.

Like I said, I am thinking through a lot of things and don't know where I will end up. But recently hubby went to a WTS first annual evening meeting on the church and Westminister's role, with his old WTS roomate. All faculty on the panel. These are good men, conservative men, imperfect men, but confessional men. And for Hart and Clark to analyze the two problem camps they supposedly fall into, and offer themselves as representing the one true and perfect third camp that they all need to become, is, well, never mind, I might say something I should not. But consider the source.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It seems to me that the circumstances surrounding the genesis of the WCF would have to be very similar today for a new confession to be written. Then you had the civil magistrate convening a group of extraordinary stellar men (credentials, experience, etc.) combined with significant unity within the Protestant church militant. Does anyone expect such a set of "perfect storm" circumstances to be possible in this day and age?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

There was also significant interest and support from the continent; the Assembly corresponded with other Reformed churches there; so there was an international component as well.

It seems to me that the circumstances surrounding the genesis of the WCF would have to be very similar today for a new confession to be written. Then you had the civil magistrate convening a group of extraordinary stellar men (credentials, experience, etc.) combined with significant unity within the Protestant church militant. Does anyone expect such a set of "perfect storm" circumstances to be possible in this day and age?