As I have started writing this I have found I have enough material for several weeks. I recognize that I might lose some of my more casual readers over the next few weeks but those who are interested in theology and in the Church will probably find this of interest.
Last week I concluded by saying that I
am not as enthused as some Christians are for a return to the ways of the
Reformers. This week I’m going to get
into what I meant when I said that.
Before I begin, let me remind you that I greatly admire the Reformers,
especially Martin Luther and John Calvin.
I give thanks to God for the sacrifices that were made by Protestants
during those many years of strife. Many
Protestants gave their lives for the cause of reforming a terribly corrupt
Church. However, just because I am indebted to them,
am often guided by their writings, and because I greatly admire what they did
in the 16th Century, does not mean that I think it is a good idea to
impose the faith as they taught it and lived it onto the 21st
Century Church without some major amendments being made. Here is reason number one for me:
There
are not enough people being invited to the table:
The Reformers were geniuses. However, they were all 16th
century highly-educated, white, male geniuses from Northern Europe. To claim that the Reformers got it right for
all times, or that their theological descendents that authored the Westminster
Confession and Catechisms completely “nailed it,” is to claim that a 16th
or 17th century Northern European highly educated white male
perspective is the right perspective. If we are going to claim that, then we also need to
remember that this particular 16th or 17th Century
Northern European highly educated white male perspective was, in fact, only one of
many 16th or 17th century Northern European highly
educated white male perspectives in Europe at the time. Those who are calling for a return to the
Reformers are okay with claiming that their particular favorite Northern
European highly educated white male perspective is the right perspective for obvious reasons. If you were to go to one of the national conferences held by those who are calling for a return to
the ways of the Reformers you would find that nearly all the speakers and
writers represent one group: white men of Northern European descent (like me). At the two largest and most popular conferences
in this genre for 2013-2014 there either was or will be a combined twenty-one
speakers. 21 out of 21 of the speakers
are men. 20 of the 21 are white men. This doesn't mean they are wrong; it simply means that not enough people are being invited to the table.
What about that 50% of the population that includes my wife and
daughter? I am continually surprised by the very different insights that
never would have come to my mind that come from my sisters in faith and
ministry. The Reformers and their current disciples do not allow for
women to serve in roles of leadership within the Church. What about
people of color? What about people from other parts of the world?
What about other kinds of Christians such as Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox,
Pentecostals, etc.? What about the contributions of those who lived before
the 16th Century
and those who lived after it? What about the work of those who disagreed
with Luther and Calvin (who disagreed with each other on some pretty major
issues)? If we return to the ways of the Reformers the way that many
conservative Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Baptists are calling for, the table
shrinks and we end up with a Northern European Jesus flanked by Luther and
Calvin with a bunch of modern white men in suits sitting at their feet.
I truly believe that we need the voices of unique indigenous forms of Christianity, even when (or especially when) they have not been heavily influenced by those like Luther and Calvin. I even think we need the input of those from other religious traditions and I am even open to hearing from (instead of arguing with) those who call themselves agnostics or atheists. For me, with both the Reformers and with those who idolize them now, the table is too small. If what you want is for conservative white men of Northern European descent to be the dominant voice, then returning to the Reformers is for you. It is not, however, for me. It seems to me that this has more to do with white guys like me gripping more and more tightly to the privilege that we are slowly losing than it does with working toward the Kingdom of God that Jesus preached, enacted, and inaugurated. I recognize that this is a stereotypical "liberal" response, but it is the response that makes the most sense to me.
I truly believe that we need the voices of unique indigenous forms of Christianity, even when (or especially when) they have not been heavily influenced by those like Luther and Calvin. I even think we need the input of those from other religious traditions and I am even open to hearing from (instead of arguing with) those who call themselves agnostics or atheists. For me, with both the Reformers and with those who idolize them now, the table is too small. If what you want is for conservative white men of Northern European descent to be the dominant voice, then returning to the Reformers is for you. It is not, however, for me. It seems to me that this has more to do with white guys like me gripping more and more tightly to the privilege that we are slowly losing than it does with working toward the Kingdom of God that Jesus preached, enacted, and inaugurated. I recognize that this is a stereotypical "liberal" response, but it is the response that makes the most sense to me.
We are at a point in history during which the Christian faith can
take on new diversity, complexity, color, and texture. The faith can hold onto the core of Christian
discipleship while looking very different at the same time. The faith is not diminished by hearing the voices
of different perspectives; it is enriched. For instance, I
know the work of the Reformers, but I also appreciate the work of many Roman
Catholic theologians. The Reformers (because of their context) and their
modern devotees (because they want to be like the Reformers even though they live in a different context) are not big fans
of the Catholics and resist or outright refuse to listen to the input of Catholics. A prime example of this is R.C. Sproul, who is a
theologian and author who has helped me to understand the historical Reformed
Tradition but who has not convinced me to continue to adhere to the historical
Reformed Tradition in the way he would like. Here is what he
says about Catholics and those of us who are in the “liberal” churches as he
calls them such as the PC(USA), Episcopal Church (USA), Evangelical Lutheran
Church of America, and United Church of Christ:
“Yes there are believers, true believers here and there in the Roman Catholic Church, in liberal churches and so on. They're mavericks to their community and I personally believe that those people who truly accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior in the biblical sense who live in the Roman Catholic Church have a moral and spiritual duty to leave that communion immediately, that they are living in sin by continuing to be a visible member of an institution that anathematizes the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
I respect Dr. Sproul for stating what he believes and I recognize that he would wipe the floor with me in a theological debate (because that is his specialty) but although I have read a great deal of what he believes (and I think it should be a part of Reformed theology courses in our PC(USA) seminaries) after a great deal of reflection I simply do not share his beliefs, and the first major reason for that is that his system of beliefs is formulated at a very small, very homogeneous table of discussion. That is why I refuse to follow his advice to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) as he did several decades ago when the PC(USA) started to ordain women to the offices of deacon, ruling elder, and teaching elder. I value the diversity of voices that we invite to the table in the PC(USA).
“Yes there are believers, true believers here and there in the Roman Catholic Church, in liberal churches and so on. They're mavericks to their community and I personally believe that those people who truly accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior in the biblical sense who live in the Roman Catholic Church have a moral and spiritual duty to leave that communion immediately, that they are living in sin by continuing to be a visible member of an institution that anathematizes the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
I respect Dr. Sproul for stating what he believes and I recognize that he would wipe the floor with me in a theological debate (because that is his specialty) but although I have read a great deal of what he believes (and I think it should be a part of Reformed theology courses in our PC(USA) seminaries) after a great deal of reflection I simply do not share his beliefs, and the first major reason for that is that his system of beliefs is formulated at a very small, very homogeneous table of discussion. That is why I refuse to follow his advice to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) as he did several decades ago when the PC(USA) started to ordain women to the offices of deacon, ruling elder, and teaching elder. I value the diversity of voices that we invite to the table in the PC(USA).
This will be continued next week...
May the Christ in others stir up the Christ in you so that in all your interactions with others this week there will be peace.
In Christ,
Everett
