Sunday, March 04, 2007

TR, BR, CR?

If you're presbyterian/reformed and reading here, among the following three categories (defined below), how would you classify yourself? Please leave a comment and if you're comfortable doing so, identify yourself enough that I'll know who you are as you respond. Also, comment on how you perceive others in your circle of influence/observation to be.

  • TRULY REFORMED
  • BARELY REFORMED
  • CATHOLIC REFORMED

And if you're not presbyterian/reformed and reading here, let me know what your impressions are of these different categories and how they relate to your own beliefs.

THE TRULY REFORMED (TRs)

The TRs are conservatives of the most intense sort; and they are fervently committed to the scholastic, Reformed orthodoxy of the 16th and 17th centuries. Almost all are “strict subscriptionists,” holding that statements of faith like the Westminster Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons and Decrees of the Synod of Dordt, the Belgic Confession, or the London Baptist Confession are virtually summary duplications of Biblical teaching. They are strongly committed to the scholastic formulation of Calvinist doctrine as it comes to the fore, to take an example, in the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

THE BARELY REFORMED (BRs)

This group within the Reformed camp is much more committed to a broad evangelicalism than the confessional form of the Reformed Faith. The BRs are pragmatists (and sometimes admittedly so). They are strongly committed to reaching the unsaved, and therefore the evangel, the gospel, means a great deal to them. They often pastor or attend the largest conservative Reformed or Presbyterian congregations in the United States, and they are tireless in their efforts to win souls and increase the size of the congregation. They tend to be less concerned with what they consider secondary doctrinal disputes over literal, six-day creation; women in the ministry or in other church leadership roles; the inroads of Arminianism; evangelistic strategies; the nature of the sacraments; and so forth.

THE CATHOLIC REFORMED (CRs)

Catholic Reformed does not denote Roman (or Eastern) Catholicism, but the manifestly Biblical notion of the universality of the Faith and church (Eph. 4:4) and their description in the Nicene Creed and among the patristic church as “one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” CRs agree with the TRs in identifying three main problems in the modern church as evangelical Arminianism, Protestant liberalism, and Roman Catholicism. We agree that evangelical Arminianism has undermined the gracious character of the gospel; that the European Enlightenment, joining later with Romanticism to produce Protestant liberalism, precipitated a great crisis in the Western church; and that Roman Catholicism undermined the catholicity of the church by insisting on its hegemony and subverts a gratuitous soteriology by insisting that man in some way merit salvation. CRs agree with the BRs, however, in wanting to focus attention on the preaching of the evangel, the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We agree that incessant dispute over comparatively secondary doctrines to the exclusion of the energetic preaching of the gospel has things just backwards, though CRs by no means consider any Biblical doctrine unimportant.

The author is in the 3rd of these categories and is making a case for it. I am curious to know how each of you might classify yourself.

These categories are excerpted from an article I'm reading right now and I'm curious where different people I know fit into or respond to these ideas. You can read the article in its entirety here:

Disclaimer- Links to Internet sites are provided for informational purposes only and do not imply endorsement of the content of those sites or organizations.

Posted by at

7 comments:

MC said...

Batch,

I guess since no one seems to be bold enough to answer I will make a stab at it. I guess historically I have been a TR and very much believe in historical presbyterian doctrine, cannons, and decrees but not so much in a dogmatic way that it undermines the evangelical call of the gospel nor the call to be united with your brothers.

This belief has manifested itself into the new church my family goes to Redeemer Pres. in mid-town Memphis. I have historically been a high worship sort of person who believes we should dress for worship and sing traditional hymns, but that does not work for a missional church plant in the heart of what is a very bohemian urban area. Our church is still very doctrine oriented and gospel centered but not so rigid and dogmatic that we forget the call to unity nor so relaxed and catholic that we forget the call to the gospel message. We are what one would call low church in dress and sing a lot of RUF type songs (no clapping as I am a non-clapper and very dogmatic on this point) but still have liturgical worship.

I think back to what Brian Habig taught me as I was just beginning to grasp the doctrines of grace and that is to be "distinctive without being divisive."

I think many are repulsed by the arguments that are going on in our denomination right now but I don't think we should look at these issues and shed our doctrine in the name of unity. I think we should call on those who are causing the derision to be gracious in their differences on secondary issues.

I think I have gone on a tangent here all to say I am a TR with some catholic tendencies.

Now it is your turn.

Mike

10:29 AM
Batch said...

I guess this article has gotten me to consider some new categories. I previously thought of only in terms of Reformed, Truly Reformed and Not Reformed. I fall prey to gross generalizations and the realities are always more nuanced than that.

As my understanding of the Reformed Faith first began to mature, I thought of myself as a TR- committed to Biblical Christianity as expressed in the confessions. It seemed simple- the Bible is true and the confessions describe what is in the Bible.

However, as I’ve continued to live/read/learn/mature, my understanding of this term (TR) has become less favorable. TR now invokes in my mind a group who are militantly committed to the confessions and aren’t willing to continually examine them in light of scripture. John Armstrong coined the terms VR (Viciously Reformed) and AR (Angrily Reformed) and I think those terms describe the group of which I am thinking. Presbyterians are confessional and I still believe the confessions are fantastic doctrinal summaries, so I am in no way advocating throwing them out. But since the confessions are not divinely and inerrantly inspired, I am willing to consider (or even presume?) that they are flawed and acknowledge that they were not written in a vacuum (the issues of the day informed their authors). As such, they should be examined, refined and expanded as we grow in our knowledge of God’s revelation and as the issues of our day inform us.

Having said all that, I have at times been monumentally frustrated with those in the BR (Barely Reformed) camp, especially as Sandlin said related to “the inroads of Arminianism; evangelistic strategies; the nature of the sacraments; and so forth.” I’m Presbyterian and think a Presbyterian church should be distinctively so. Having little to no knowledge of or respect for fundamental, scripturally based, reformed doctrines leads to a host of errors, weakens the church and produces a pragmatic, emasculated following that is not in any way appealing.

In making his case for the CRs, Sandlin says a lot of things that resonate deeply with me, like returning to confessionalism isn’t the answer to the church’s problems. And “The truth expressed in the Bible does not change, but Christians’ and the church’s views about what the Bible teaches do change… Often they find not that they were flatly wrong, but that they had inherited certain teachings that do not give full justice to the full sweep of Biblical evidence.” And “Old does not necessarily make right, and new does not necessarily make wrong.” And “In the words of my friend Rev. C. L. Stover, “If loving God with all your heart is the greatest commandment, what do you imagine the greatest sin is?”

And most of all, “However, we believe it is necessary for us today to maintain the same frame of mind as did the original Reformers. They met the theological and ecclesiastical crises of their age with a fresh study of the Bible and a reformulation and reapplication of its doctrine — always within the bounds of orthodox Christianity, of course…. We are further Reformed in that we do not believe that the need for reformation ended in 1540.”

There are points that he makes that don’t agree with as well. Although I once did, I no longer perceive Roman Catholicism to be a great enemy. I owe a number of apologies to brothers who have their roots in Rome. I think the true enemy of the Christian church are those who embrace the law to coerce changes in people’s behavior rather than the gospel to love and minister to the hearts of a hurting world. Those people are everywhere on the doctrinal spectrum (and I confess I fall into this pattern at times as well).

In my mind, the reformation isn’t something that happened past-tense, but is something that should be continually happening- that is we should examine every single thing we do and believe under a scriptural microscope and be willing to change it if we are convicted that what we’ve been doing is less than Biblical.

So, I guess I’m Firmly Reformed but not in the sense that the confessions hold as much or more weight than scripture. I’m high church (i.e. I think a well executed liturgical worship is beautiful and expresses an appropriate reverence for approaching God), but in a way that is majestic and joyful, not in a southern-church style idolatry of tradition and rote rituals of dead orthodoxy. I think old hymns are beautiful and worshipful when they are well done, but can be mournful and meaningless if not. I love singing the Psalms to new tunes (i.e. RUF songs). I don’t clap, but don’t think I’d mind if others did so (but not something I’ve experienced either, so I can’t say for sure)… we need to embrace joy in our worship. I would like to see more of the frozen chosen raise our hands in worship (in your name I will lift up my hands- Psalm 63), but I’m too chicken to start the trend. I don’t really have an opinion on what people should wear to church, except that I think that our cultural preferences too often inform what we think is God honoring in our attire (on both the casual and the formal sides). I’m more and more convicted that we are called to love our neighbors in a sacrificial way (not only by sending our money but really getting our hands dirty, hanging out with the downtrodden), but often fail to do so.

7:20 PM
Mosshouse said...

Being a former Roman Catholic, and never truly caring much for the constant bickering on this doctrinal issue or that, mainly because when I try to understand what all the bickering is about I find myself distracted from what my true purpose should be. And if I am distracted then the example I am to others is tragic. So toss me in the CR group. - Renie, who feels that BSC is fertile ground for some evangelizing this week!

6:57 PM
Anonymous said...

Please clarify

Though there are many things that were said that I do agree with, I have to express that I was greatly troubled when I came to a specific comment. In your opinion of the enemy of the church, you wrote, "I think the true enemy of the Christian church are those who embrace the law to coerce changes in people’s behavior rather than the gospel to love and minister to the hearts of a hurting world.". I must ask for clarification here as I am greatly concerned about this statement. I certainly hope that I am misunderstanding your implications here and that this is not truly saying what is seems to be so adamently proclaiming.
It seems to me that you are stating that the law, which I am assuming we are not talking about any man ordained law, is not of great importance. How can anyone of us be so audacious to say that any law ordained by our perfectly flawless maker is not of the most extreme importance? Are you truly saying that this law that is given and COMMANDED by our one true God is the greatest enemy of HIS church. WOW!!! Thats a bold statment! Gods law and grace, mercy, love go hand in hand. These things are inseperable. How can one part of our PERFECT creator be His brides worst enemy.
You even stated that the greatest commandment is to love our God with all our heart. This in and of itself is part of this law that you speak so poorly of. This seems quite self-contradicting. How can you say that law is such an enemy when just two paragraphs prior to that statment you proclaim the importance of this main command of the law of God! Certainly there are many more parts to the law, and all need to be followed as earnestly as possible. We must realize that this law was given by God and to question His law in any part or to downplay its importance is to question His wisdom, His omnipotnce, and every part of His character.
Tim Jones

9:44 PM
Batch said...

Tim,

You have indeed misunderstood me. I am critiquing those who use the law absent the Gospel, not the law itself. Upon re-reading what I wrote, I can see that my words weren’t clear. Please accept my apology and allow me to try to clarify in the following paragraphs.

I wrote, "I think the true enemy of the Christian church are those who embrace the law to coerce changes in people’s behavior rather than the Gospel to love and minister to the hearts of a hurting world."

My use of the word “rather” errantly implies an either/or dichotomy. What I intended to convey was the error of succumbing to the temptation to be grace-hating-legalists; that is to seek to manipulate behavior by browbeating people with the law without the grace and charity that the Gospel grows in us. Better stated, it should have read something like "I think the true enemies of the Christian church are those who invoke the law to coerce changes in people’s behavior absent the Gospel, without loving and ministering to the hearts of a hurting world."

The general intent of the whole of that paragraph was to convey remorse for previously viewing Roman Catholicism to be a great enemy of the church (I believe a historically TR view). At the same time I was trying to convey (obviously very poorly) that I still see errors in a law-keepers theology, which is an area where I think RC theology has some room for improvement.

The remaining paragraphs may be overkill, but you levied some pretty heavy accusations so I want to try to be as clear as I (a poorly educated layman) can.

You are correct- the law and the Gospel are inseparable, they inform each other, are two sides of the same coin, etc… I’m not saying that the law is not important. If not for the law, how would we know how needy we are?

Romans 8: 19-20 - 19Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20For by works of the law no human being[c] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

What I am saying is that we are all tempted in some way to pharasaism, to clinging to the law while forgetting the Gospel or even adding to the law in the name of Christ, abusing ourselves and those around us who don’t meet our selective standards.

There are individuals and organizations out there who invoke the name of Christ to attack lawlessness in order to elicit desired moral behavior. Although they mean well, this approach at best will only change behavior by creating fear and at worst will push people away from the good news, the Gospel.

Matthew 9:10-13- 10And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. 11And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 12But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

It would be audacious, foolish and flat out stupid for me to in any way try to critique the word of God. Let me emphasize again, that is not what I’m doing. I am critiquing our behavior when we idolize the law and law-keeping absent the liberating truth of the Gospel.

I am not pitting the law against the Gospel.
I am not saying that the law is the enemy of the church.
I am not speaking poorly of the law.
I am not questioning God’s wisdom, His omnipotence or any part of His character.

Rather I am critiquing the invocation of the law absent the Gospel.

Hope this helps.

B

9:36 AM
Batch said...

Oh, Tim I would still be very interested to hear your feedback on the TR/BR/CR notions and where you see yourself fitting in.

B

3:23 PM
Anonymous said...

Im sorry I have not reponded to you sooner, but I have been given much thought to the topic of the main conversation of the blog. To tell you them truth, I am none of the above. I both agree with and take exception to all of these options. It will be quite a long message for me to explain my thoughts. One that I will most definetly write and post in the next few days, but right now I am in the middle of work and I just wanted to make sure you knew that I was not ignoring you, but simply trying to gather all of my thoughts before writing them down. Also, I found your response to my last post to be very incouraging. Thank you for that response.
Tim Jones

7:48 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)