This morning I opened my RSS feed to discover a fascinating web article by Darryl Hart entitled Why Do Reformed Think They Are Evangelical? The article asks, in brief, why the sharp line that once existed between Reformed and Evangelical is disappearing. It is no secret that, in the 1930s, J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til battled as much against evangelicalism as they did against liberalism. So what happened? Why has the former battle waned into obsolescence? Well, the consensus theory is that evangelicalism has evolved theologically from its Wesleyan and Finneyite roots to accommodate Reformed theology, and has thus become more palatable to Reformed folks.
Hart disagrees with the consensus. While theological evolution within evangelicalism may have been something of a contributor to rapprochement, he admits, this has not been the major contributor. Instead, a greater reason for rapprochement has been evolution on the Reformed side--not an evolution of theology, but an evolution of form. To be Reformed once meant that worship forms were (and in Dutch Reformed circles still are) sharply regulated both by principle and confession. Now, Hart laments, the forms have lost their role as uniting features in worship; instead, either "the Spirit" or "the Gospel" have assumed that role. Forms have been relegated to the junkpile of irrelevancy.
Now, to be sure, Fundamentalism has rarely been as deliberate as Reformed in formalizing elements of worship. Nonetheless, there has been for decades something of an unofficial distinction of form between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism that contributed significantly to the wall that existed between them. This is becoming less and less the case as time passes. And I wonder, along with Hart, whether such a development is entirely positive.
MAS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Mark Snoeberger
- After growing up in the great state of Pennsylvania, I settled down in 1994 with my new bride, Heather, in Allen Park, Michigan, and have been here at Detroit Baptist Seminary ever since (with a bit of time away for doctoral work). Since 2007 I have been privileged to be a part of the systematic theology faculty here. I love teaching, researching and writing, hunting with my two boys, and enjoying any little bit of God's unadulterated creation I can find (which means I occasionally have to get out of Detroit). But all these things matter to me only because theology matters. For it is God himself who gives all men life and breath and everything else (Acts 17:25).
5 comments:
I, too, am dubious regarding the current drift toward a "one size fits all" approach to worship. I suspect that the "wall that existed" between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism you mention resulted primarily from the fundamentalists' concern over the encroachment of worldliness in the church. It would have been far better for them to anchor their forms to elements required by the regulative principle of worship. The former approach was essentially negative, defensive, and open to significant subjectivity. The latter would have been positive, proactive, and more objective, thus restraining pressures toward change. Unfortunately, an evolution of form most likely is a harbinger of changes in theology, as well.
"Nonetheless, there has been for decades something of an unofficial distinction of form between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism that contributed significantly to the wall that existed between them."
In the sense of "formal" used by Hart, neither fundamentalists nor evangelicals have a formal approach to the faith. He would say that despite differences in worship service style and lifestyle characteristics, both groups are deeply suspicious of formalism.
Keith
Agreed, Keith. Attention to form within fundamentalism has not been uniform, largely, as Steve pointed out, because the standard of form has often been inadequate. But attention to form has been (in my experience) at least something of a concern within fundamentalism.
MAS
Thanks for the interaction, and I mean no disrespect here by what follows. However, I think that you are still missing my point and -- I'm pretty sure -- Harts.
Yes, as you say, fundamentalists and non-fundamentalist evangelicals have taken different stands on worship service styles and what people listen to watch and read outside of a worship service. However, in Hart's sense neither of these groups approaches worship or sanctification formally.
Regardless of how much attention different stripes of fundamentalism give to what you are calling "form", and regardless of the fact that some stripes of fundamentalism have a better "form" than others and than evangelicals, none of them hold that the Christian life as carried along by following formal patterns.
Fundamentalists who focus on "forms" in your meaning still do so as a RESULT of the spirit working on them -- it is evidence and support of their sanctification -- not as the MEANS of their sanctification.
Fundamentalists and Evangelicals jointly believe that a "formal" service can be dead or alive and what makes it alive is not the style -- but the hearts the participants bring to it.
Whereas formalists like Hart believe that the form itself is what GIVES life.
Thanks again.
Keith
Keith,
This is a healthy discussion and the tone you are setting is such that I have no question that is respectful. Thank you for this.
I think I understand your (and Hart's) point. Hart's regulative principle is such that the form is part and parcel with the content. You can't really have one without the other, and to the degree that the content ministers grace, so does the form.
This is not generally true in evangelicalism. Of course, evangelicalism is far from monolithic, but in the main I agree with Hart's assessment that evangelical "form" (such as it is) is determined by different factors than in the Reformed model. One of these, Hart suggests, is "the Spirit." I agree with him. Another factor that he does not mention (and in my mind, one that is even more prevalent than "spirit") is prevailing culture.
Fundamentalist form (again, such as it is) is likewise not monolithic, but in the main, it does not seem, historically at least, to derive using the same factors as those employed by the evangelicals. As Steve pointed out, fundamentalist "forms" have very often flowed out of a sort of anti-culture, which Steve aptly described, in direct contrast to the regulative principle, as "essentially negative, defensive, and open to significant subjectivity."
So I agree with you that fundamentalist is not the same as Reformed with regard to form. Not even close. At the same time, though, I do think that form has long been a much larger piece of the distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical than many are claiming today. Many reduce the distinction between evangelical and fundamentalist to one of doctrine, and once this problem is addressed, rapprochement should follow. I find this assessment a bit too reductionist. It is that sentiment that I am echoing in Hart.
MAS
Post a Comment