"When I first began to study Calvin in earnest, I was puzzled by what seemed a glaring omission in his writings and sermons. He never counseled his readers and listeners to be “Born Again.” This struck me as odd because I knew our denomination (PCA) considered Calvin to be our true founder. I also knew that the evangelical doctrine of “New Birth” (regeneration), understood as the moment of personal, conscious conversion, was the linchpin, the central dogma of our congregation. As an Evangelical Presbyterian, I had grown up constantly hearing these exhortations to be “Born Again.” My pastors and teachers revered evangelistic luminaries like Billy Graham and Bill Bright right along with the great Lion of Geneva. It was simply inconceivable to me that the great John Calvin did not know how to be saved! Nevertheless, as I kept studying, a clear but shocking picture emerged. Calvin knew no conversionistic account of Christian initiation. His was a vastly more ecclesial, sacramental view of the Christian life – one begun in baptism, and nourished through the Eucharist. It was not conversion but the Eucharist, Calvin held, which “brings an undoubted assurance of eternal life.”[“Have you been Born Again? Catholic Reflections on a Protestant Doctrine, or How Calvin’s view of Salvation destroyed his Doctrine of the Church”]I was not brought up Presbyterian, but similar to this CTC author, I was raised on the "magic moment conversion" paradigm. I sat through years of altar calls and heard many versions of "with every eye closed and every head bowed, slip up your hand if you want to accept Christ... yes I see you.... yes I see you..." etc. I was raised with this sort of paradigm. It was a normal part of the church experience for me. If you were a Christian, you were expected to be able to point to the year, day, and hour in which you accepted Christ into your heart. Anything less than this was a bit suspicious. You had to have a magic moment in which you were born again.
Here's the ironic part. Despite at least three decades of opportunities, I never once lifted my hand when every head was bowed and every eye was closed (and by the way, every head and eye didn't obey this liturgical rule). Nor did I ever leave my seat, walk the isle, head towards the front to be prayed with. This at times was met with consternation by those presenting the salvation offer. I recall really giving the counselors at the Word of Life Bible camp in New York state quite a challenge. They had these invitations every night that never made any sort of dent on me. In fact, I enjoyed not providing them with any sort of certainty of my spiritual state.
It wasn't just the altar calls. By the time I got into my twenties, the idea of standing up and committing to something had grown. I recall going out to the big Intervarsity Urbana conference and one of the speakers got the entire stadium on their feet to commit to some form of Christian behavior. I was one of the only persons that didn't stand up (God bless my friend Bob who likewise sat there with me). The last church I went to previous to my paradigm shift to a Reformed perspective was a rocking Church of the Nazarene (what a band!). Each service ended with a 10 to 15 minute altar call. This church began its early ministry during the early 1970's having many hippies go forward at the end to get saved at every service. By the late 1980's, the amount of people going forward at the end of each service dwindled down to a few... every once in a while. The altar call then morphed into an invitation for anyone to go forward to get prayer for anything. I eventually started leaving the church service early right before the altar call began. This way, I beat the crowd out of the parking lot.
What's struck me as so odd about the CTC quote above is I had the exact opposite experience when I started learning Reformed theology and going to a Reformed church. The CTC author thinks he was raised in some sort of Reformed paradigm, and then experienced dissonance by reading Calvin. As far as I can tell, the CTC author was raised more like I was, and then read Calvin and was confronted with Reformed theology for the first time. While he may not have been subjected to the same number of altar calls I was, we certainly both share being brought up with the "magic moment" paradigm of becoming "born again".
One of the helpful aspects of going "Reformed" was that it made sense of my own conversion "experience." Reformed theology understands that not every one hears a voice from heaven and falls to the ground like the the apostle Paul. The idea of a dramatic "once I was blind, but now I see" magic moment isn't the rule. In fact, some people can't locate a specific date in which they realized their own sin, need of savior, and desired to live a life of gratitude to God for salvation. It just happens.
Now here's something that may come across a bit controversial. I realize that many people today weren't raised in Christian homes and have either had dramatic sudden conversion experiences or a slower conversion experience over time. I get that. Ask yourself this question: throughout history, by what means have most people been exposed to the Gospel message? I would argue that the answer to this question is...the family. That is, most people throughout history weren't clueless about the Christian faith, but were rather raised in some form of it. This isn't an exact science, but my guess is that the reason why there may be quite a number of other people throughout history that had the same sort of eventual conversion that I did was because of their family going to church.
The notion of raising a child in the community of faith is ingrained in a Reformed paradigm. In my own church, a child that eventually realizes their sin, need of savior, and desires to live a life of gratitude to God is typically a partial result of living in the covenant community and being exposed to the Gospel. A serious Reformed church will therefore have an emphasis on catechizing children. The Holy Spirit works in the church through the proclamation of the word.
Avoiding my desire to discuss Luther as the father of modern catechetics, this brings us back to where I began, with John Calvin, and why it appears to me the CTC author was never "Reformed" to begin with. In Calvin's The Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1545), Calvin writes,
“It has always been a practice and diligent care of the Church, that children be rightly brought up in Christian doctrine. To do this more conveniently, not only were schools formerly opened and individuals enjoined to teach their families properly, but also it was accepted public custom and practice to examine children in the Churches concerning the specific points which should be common and familiar to all Christians. That this be done in order, a formula was written out, called Catechism or Institute.”-snip-
“After this, the devil, miserably rending the Church of God and bringing upon it his fearful destruction . . . subverted this sacred policy; nor did he leave surviving anything more than certain trivialities, which give rise only to superstitions, without any edifying fruit. Of this kind is that Confirmation, as they call it, made up of gesticulations [gestures, waving the arms] which are more than ridiculous and suited rather to monkeys, and rest on no foundation. What we now bring forward, therefore, is nothing else than the use of a practice formerly observed by Christians and the true worshippers of God, and never neglected until the Church was wholly corrupted.”For Calvin, Catechisms united the Church through a common systematic testimony. Calvin states, “For in [Catechisms] there appears not only what someone or another once taught, but what were the rudiments with which both the learned and unlearned among us were from youth constantly instructed, all the faithful holding them as the solemn symbol of Christian communion.” Calvin believed that catechizing children and others was essential to the health, maturity, and continued vitality of the church. Calvin didn't teach "magic moment" theology. Children came to maturity and either became productive and mature members of the church or rejected it.
The Reformed churches wanted their children catechized so as to eventually make a profession of faith and be faithful to a particular visible church. Now this notion of a profession of faith is not the conversion experience. It is rather a public profession to join a particular visible church. This tradition is a strong part of the Reformed churches that came out of the Netherlands (my Presbyterian friends can inform me as to their practice in this area, but I would not be surprised to find out that this profession is also part of their tradition). Within the URC church I'm part of, infant baptism places a child in the covenant community (or a member of the broad visible church), profession of faith is a public confession to a particular church that one is a Christian, embraces the covenant promises, and will submit to church authority.
Now I certainly realize the author of the CTC article in question has a different intent with his article than what I'm talking about. He does though claim a Reformed heritage. I can't help but be very suspicious as to whether or not he really was raised... Reformed or as any sort of a Calvinist. He concludes with the following: "As a very young child, I believed that salvation came through recitation of a mantra: the sinner’s prayer." This certainly isn't taught in my Reformed church, nor do I think this prayer finds its way into to Westminster Small Catechism. It is though taught in the tradition I was raised in: garden-variety-evangelical-fundamentalism. It appears to me that the Presbyterian church the CTC author was raised in had been infected by "magic moment" theology. The reason why he was surprised to not find it in Calvin isn't the fault of Calvinism, but rather his understanding of Calvinism.
Simply because a church says "Presbyterian" or "Reformed" on the marque outside doesn't mean that in spirit they actually are. This was made quite apparent to me from my early visits to Reformed churches before joining the one I'm currently in. Imagine my surprise when I sat through a Reformed church service in which the minister quoted out of M. Scott Peck's Road Less Traveled rather than the Bible. As to Presbyterian churches, I have a number of good Pentecostal friends with a serious Arminian bent that are right at home in some version of a Presbyterian church. Recently a read about "Free Will Presbyterians." The rule of thumb: the words "Presbyterian" and "Reformed" on a church sign do not necessarily mean Calvinism.
Hi James,
ReplyDeleteLooks like Calvin is not quite "Protestant" as well :)
Cheers,
Martin
Yes- the CTC author assumed his contemporary Protestant upbringing was the standard by which to judge all things "Protestant."
ReplyDeleteI plan on doing some other entries in regard to assertions on John Calvin and baptism. for instance, the article goes on to say:
We need to keep this context in mind when considering Calvin’s doctrine of regeneration. Calvin understood quite well the Patristic doctrine of baptismal regeneration. (See Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration.) Luther, too, affirmed that regeneration comes through baptism. Calvin had no intention of departing from the traditional view that salvation is communicated in and through the Church and her sacraments. What he objected to was an unthinking, “superstitious” reception of the sacraments.
For Calvin, baptism was the normative means of salvation. “It is true,” Calvin writes quite bluntly, “that, by neglecting baptism we are excluded from salvation.” “All these graces,” Calvin writes, “are conferred on us, when it pleases him to incorporate us into his kingdom by Baptism. “[T]he truth and substance of baptism is comprised in [Christ] … as he communicates his riches and blessings by his word, so he distributes them by his Sacraments.” God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of His Church, and makes us His by adoption.
One assumes from these statements that Calvin taught baptismal regeneration. I'll get to this at some point.
James, again, a great response, I was raised in the E. Free Church and have re-rededicated my life many times. Now in the EPC church, and I've had the opposite view of this author, and more similar to you. I do struggle now with my children, as I am tempted to make them say the "Jesus Prayer" as opposed to growing into their faith on their own with my guidance, and the Lord's sovereign grace. God bless, Mrk
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments Mrk.
ReplyDeleteHello James,
ReplyDeleteI sincerely appreciate the personal background that you have provided in this thread. It is indeed a rare 'treat' to get glimpses into one's spiritual journey from folk who are Reformed (this is not a 'snipe', just my personal online experience/s).
I found the following to be insightful:
==Here's the ironic part. Despite at least three decades of opportunities, I never once lifted my hand when every head was bowed and every eye was closed (and by the way, every head and eye didn't obey this liturgical rule). Nor did I ever leave my seat, walk the isle, head towards the front to be prayed with. This at times was met with consternation by those presenting the salvation offer. I recall really giving the counselors at the Word of Life Bible camp in New York state quite a challenge. They had these invitations every night that never made any sort of dent on me. In fact, I enjoyed not providing them with any sort of certainty of my spiritual state.==
I do not wish to be overly simplistic here, but the preaching of Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts, seems to be quite 'invitational' in nature—would it be safe to conclude that you would have been "quite a challenge" to Peter and Paul?
Grace and peace,
David
Catechism is understood by the reformed to be preaching to the young people.
ReplyDeleteEven further, the 1537 Articles concerning the Organization of the Church of Geneva and its Worship which precipitated the exile of Farel, Corauld and Calvin from Geneva largely concerned the reform of the Lord's Supper and church discipline. Yet what is not so well known is that the Articles also included the introduction of catechism and psalmody, along with the reform of marriage.
As for Calvin's theology, I can still remember attending a dinner with some folks who attended a United Pres. Church.
I received a letter perfect rendition of the five points of arminianism and was told that this was what Calvin taught!?
Needless to say, due to time spent previously in the PCA, I had already started buying everything I could find of Calvin in English so I wouldn't have to put up with this kind of nonsense, particularly from seminary graduates.
And I always like Spurgeon's comment.
ReplyDeleteThe gospel is not "Come forward and be saved" , but "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved".
cheers
Bob S
I do not wish to be overly simplistic here, but the preaching of Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts, seems to be quite 'invitational' in nature—would it be safe to conclude that you would have been "quite a challenge" to Peter and Paul?
ReplyDeleteI think it would be helpful to distinguish between the "invitational" nature of Peter and Paul, and the modern phenomena of the altar call. I have no problem with the forceful proclamation of the Gospel, as evidenced by both Peter, Paul, and even my own pastor. Nor do I deny that such a proclamation may result in an immediate conversion.
In regard to my own personal experience of being raised in the church from infancy, I would assume both Peter and Paul would have no problem with someone lacking a "magic moment" conversion experience. Do you think they would?
Yet what is not so well known is that the Articles also included the introduction of catechism and psalmody, along with the reform of marriage.
ReplyDeleteA few days ago I took a few minutes and went looking for this. Is there a translation of the introduction available?
And it's always interesting to find advocates of "Magic Moment" Protestantism subsequently having yet another Brand New and Improved "Magic Moment" when they at long last (for the 12th or 13th time) realize that "Once I was blind but now I really see." Just like the ex-druggies who "gave their life to Christ," they "come home" to "the fullness of the faith." And how dare anyone else point out how utterly subjective and unstable the whole process is, let alone how very "Protestant" it is.
ReplyDeleteAnd how dare anyone else point out how utterly subjective and unstable the whole process is, let alone how very "Protestant" it is.
ReplyDeleteI've tried avoiding conversion story stuff here on the blog over the years, one of the reasons is simply because of the subjective nature of them. Sometimes it can't be avoided (like, say, Luther's tower experience).
On the other hand, I certainly enjoy getting to know people in person and hearing about God's work in their life.
Well, yes, there is a place for personal testimonies. It's hard to beat Augustine's Confessions in that regard. But we all can see that there's a universe of difference between Augustine's conversion-to-Christ story in the Confessions and John Doe's conversion-to-the-One-True-Bureaucratic-Hierarchy story in This Rock or Surprised By Truth. Writing, for the uplifting of others, a testimony about how God has met your financial needs for the last few years in unforeseen ways or about how He's been there for you in incredible times of grief is quite a bit different from writing about how six months ago you knew nothing about the Church Fathers (having just heard about Ignatius for the first time in your life), but now, having read a couple of convert books, a patristic anthology put together by a layman-convert on the Internet, and having been through RCIA, you're qualified to tell everyone else where to get off spiritually. I'm not one to say that NO ONE at all EVER finds Christ in Catholicism (it's likely quite difficult, given the obstacles Catholicism puts in the way). But I am one to say, as you are documenting, that many converts have no idea what they're talking about relative to "Protestantism" and really should hold their "stories" in for about 5 years until they settle down and mature a bit.
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteThe Library of Christian Classics: Icthus Edition, Calvin: Theological Treatises ed. by JKS Reid 1954(pp.48-55) is what I am using.
Bob S.
Hi James,
ReplyDeleteThanks again for the interaction. Just a few points of clarification:
You wrote: "The CTC author thinks he was raised in some sort of Reformed paradigm, and then experienced dissonance by reading Calvin."
I wouldn't disagree with that characterization. I WAS raised in "Some sort of Reformed Paradigm" insofar as we were taught the WCF, the doctrines of election and total depravity were heavily weighted, Calvin and the Puritans were often quoted. However, these things were held in tension with "born again" style conversionism, Campus Crusade, etc. If you want to object that evangelicalism isn't truly "Reformed," I won't argue. The point of my article was not to argue for any normative conception of "Reformed," but merely to trace out lines of historical development within the Anglo-American Protestant experience. I would think that my narrative would not be very controversial, as it echoes the interpretation offered by Mark Noll and other prominent, Protestant historians. Do you take issue with this particular narrative? In any event, I'm glad you've read the article. Thanks again, David Anders
The Library of Christian Classics: Icthus Edition, Calvin: Theological Treatises ed. by JKS Reid 1954(pp.48-55) is what I am using.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
David,
ReplyDeleteI recall listening to your story at least a year ago. And I recall wondering how "Reformed" you actually previously were.
I admit not knowing much about the Presbyterian denomination you were in, but what I take away from how you describe it, they weren't consistently Reformed. In fact, they remind me of the later years of the Christian Reformed Church. That denomination claims the same confessions I do, but in practice denies key tenets of them.
Well, yes, there is a place for personal testimonies. It's hard to beat Augustine's Confessions in that regard.
ReplyDeleteI'd say my sort of tale is Peter Abelard's, The Story of My Misfortunes.