Calvinism or Lollardism?

An interesting theme that has peeked its head out several times in both Oliver O’Donovan and Joan O’Donovan’s classes this past term has been the gap between Calvin and Calvinism, and I thought it would be worthwhile sharing some of their remarks here.  To point out that later Calvinists were not necessarily the most faithful followers of Calvin’s own thought,  is, of course, nothing new; however, it cannot be overemphasized, in light of how blithely and readily followers of the English Puritan or Scotch Presbyterian traditions identify themselves as Calvinists. 

According to Oliver O’Donovan (henceforth O O’D), the Presbyterian/Puritan movement followed Calvin in about the same way that the early Anglican movement adopted Luther--he provided a convenient figurehead under which to align themselves, and his ideas were invoked when useful, but much of the impetus was quite different.  Indeed, O O’D went so far as to state his conviction that the English Puritan movement was in fact more of a Lollard movement, rooted in the paradigms established by Wycliffe two centuries before, than it was ever a Calvinist movement; it had (shocking as it may be to today’s Presbyterians) too much Catholicism about it to be genuinely Calvinist, more Catholicism than any other major Protestant group.  This last statement turns standard Presbyterian paradigms--by which the 17th-century Puritans and their evangelical descendants finished purging the relics of Catholicism out of the excellent, but incomplete, reforms of Calvin and the English Reformation--on their heads.  What can O O’D mean?  

Some discussions in his wife Joan (henceforth J O’D)’s class shed some light.  The differences on issues relating to political theology and church polity are particularly significant.  For Calvin, although discipline is an important responsibility of the Church, it is never elevated to the point of an essential mark.  For followers like John Knox (of whom Calvin was always suspicious, and who was more of a co-belligerent of convenience than a genuine follower, according to the O’Ds) and the English Presbyterians, church discipline, understood in an increasingly juridical fashion, was an essential mark of the Church, and it was not long before discipline, as practiced in Presbyterian circles, regained much of the character of the Catholic penitential system, so that their Anglican adversaries derisively called the Presbyterians “Jesuit Puritans.”  Connected to this was an increasing focus on works-righteousness, deriving in part, O O’D suggests, from a new use of the doctrine of predestination.  Whereas Calvin had emphasized the mystery and inscrutability of predestination, the Puritans came more and more to insist on its perspicacity, as if we could not only know that God was in control, but read his will through outward signs.  If you prospered, God was blessing you; if you suffered, you were under judgment.  If you were elect, it must be visible in certain characteristic fruits.  Increasingly, the marks by which one could make sure of one’s election were precisely delineated, which led to an increasingly Catholic piety focused on externals.  

There was also a strong tendency, mentioned by both O’Ds, for subsequent Presbyterianism/Puritanism to do away with the large range of adiaphora established by Calvin.  For Calvin, church polity was essentially indifferent--different forms could be appropriate in different times and places.  The Presbyterians made presbyterianism essential.  For Calvin, civil polity was also variable, but Presbyterians (particularly following John Knox) made republicanism the absolute ideal.  Various aspects of church order that Calvin recommended patience and flexibility became matters over which subseqent “Calvinists” would (literally) fight to the death.  Whereas Calvin had firmly insisted that Old Testament civil law was not binding on Christian polities, Knox and his followers were thoroughly theonomist, insisting on a Christian state that rigidly conformed to the specifics of OT Israel.  This perfectionist goal of an authentically Christian civil order results, according to J O’D, in a slide from Calvin’s covenant of grace into a new social covenant of works, in which the salvation of society depends on a civilly enforced resolution to resist idolatry.  This becomes quite explicit in the Scotch Covenanter movement.

Since John Calvin makes a rather more impressive and respectable theological ancestor than John Knox, there has been a tendency on the part of later Presbyterianism to identify itself completely with Calvin, and to read back all of its idiosyncratic Puritanism into Calvin.  Reformation scholarship has now increasingly demonstrated the untenability of this reading, and it is about time for Presbyterian churches to catch up, and face up to this deeply-embedded schizophrenia.

A Letter to St. Paul's Cathedral

I'll be mailing this tomorrow.  [edit: I initially addressed this to the Dean, but it appears now that the Canon Chancellor is the appropriate person.]

To the Rev. Dr. Giles Fraser,

I am writing to you to express my deep concern and disappointment over a sermon preached a couple weeks ago, on the Sunday of the Conversion of St. Paul during Evensong at St. Paul’s Cathedral.  The sermon in question was preached by the Revd. Mark Oakley of Grosvenor Chapel, Mayfair, and was, quite frankly, the worst sermon I have ever heard in an Anglican Church.  As a new Anglican Christian, I was embarrassed for my adopted Church, having brought to the service two non-Anglican friends who were touring in London.

Now, of course, let’s be honest--one doesn’t expect much of the sermon these days when visiting services at cathedrals and the like.  A watery ten-minute homily offering some vague remarks on the reading for the day and some general words of encouragement or exhortation is, perhaps, par for the course in this day and age. 

One scarcely expects to find a vigorous commitment to Christian orthodoxy or a rigorous attention to the text of Scripture, I am well aware.  So I assure you that I would not be troubling you with this letter if the sermon in question were not exceptionally bad.  I am also sure that you consider it no part of your office to act as a sort of “thought police” for all the clergy preaching in the cathedral, and that ministers are allowed a great deal of leeway in forming and propounding their convictions.  However, in a cathedral of such renown and visibility, and on a day of such importance, honoring the conversion of the cathedral’s namesake, it seems that it would be in the best interest of parishioners and visitors to exercise some quality control, rather than allowing the name of the blessed Saint Paul to be publicly dishonored and insulted.

In the sermon, the Revd. began by telling us that the Bible was like a friend, a conversation partner with whom one could have mutually challenging discussions, and ultimately have to disagree from time to time.  In light of what followed, I must say that Rev. Oakley does not know how to be a very good friend.  He proceeded to spend some time walking through recent scholarly debates on the authenticity of the Pauline epistles.  These epistles could be divided into three categories, he informed us: those which scholars generally agreed had been written by Paul (Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon), those which scholars generally agreed had not been written by Paul (1&2 Timothy and Titus), and those which were a matter of ongoing dispute (Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians).  True enough so far as a statement of current scholarly opinion (at least among certain sectors of the scholarly community), though an odd way to start out a sermon.  Without offering anything in the way of a defense of these hypotheses (as would indeed have been odd outside of an academic context), he proceeded for the rest of the sermon to take them as given facts, and to repeatedly imply a subtle derision of any soul so benighted as to persist in thinking of all thirteen epistles as authentically Pauline.

Now, he hastened to assure his hearers that the authors of the later, inauthentic epistles meant no harm or disrespect, but were following a venerable ancient literary convention.  But, having mounted this brief defense of the “pseudo-Pauline” epistles, and perhaps justification for their inclusion in the canon, his sermon took quite a different turn.  St. Paul, he said, was a frightening, challenging, and radical thinker, and if we wanted to do justice to him, we ought not to tame that radicalness, but should seek to come to grips with it and let ourselves be challenged by it.  The New Testament itself, he said, had tried to tame Paul, to revise and water down his legacy, and we can see this happening in the disputed epistles and the inauthentic epistles.  The case of slavery, he said, provides an excellent example.  Initially, Paul preached that “there is no slave or free” in Christ--and that all slaves ought to be freed by their masters (he cited Philemon for this); later, in the disputed letters, we find a much less radical, more institutionalized Paul, saying that slaves should obey their masters as they would the Lord, and finally, in the inauthentic letters, he informed us, we find statements as harsh as “be submissive to your masters,” totally overturning the original radical message of Paul.  Other examples, we were assured, could be multiplied, for example on gender issues.  Finally, the Revd. closed with some flighty rhetorical effusions about the kinds of Christianity that Paul would want nothing to do with (“heavy books and strict ethics”), and the kind of open, egalitarian, “radical” Christianity that he would want to see.  We must embrace the latter and eschew the wicked attempts of the inauthentic letters and of later Christians to water Paul down.  

Now, before jumping into my manifold concerns about this sermon, I should be frank about where I’m coming from.  As a fairly experienced student of theology, though no expert in New Testament studies, I am unconvinced by the standard arguments against Pauline authorship for many of the letters that are attributed to him.  It may indeed be that some of them are not Pauline, but hundreds of scholars all agreeing to repeat the same thin and patchy arguments does not prove them so.  I am also committed to a firm belief in the authority of Scripture--there are doubtless an acceptable range of ways in which to articulate this authority, but abandoning even the pretense of believing it is not one of them.  

While my particular perspective may have heightened my concerns, though, I don’t think you have to share my perspective to be troubled, confused, and upset by Rev. Oakley’s sermon.   

First, there were some practical problems about the approach of the sermon.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would propose, as the definition of a sermon: “edifying reflection on the text of Holy Scripture (with other auxiliary sources) as a guide for the life and practice of the hearers.”  This precludes, among other things, essentially academic dicussions of essentially academic problems.  To be sure, it is helpful to draw on academic scholarship to elucidate a text under discussion, but Rev. Oakley’s “sermon” scarcely got so far as actually considering a Biblical text--it had more the character of an academic discussion of what qualified as a Biblical text.  This style of reflection, while possibly edifying in a classroom, scarcely belongs in worship.  Moreover, if the purpose of a sermon is to bring the insight of Scripture to bear on the lives of the listeners, how does it help them to instead use it to pit different sections of Scripture against one another?  To be sure, there are variations and tensions within various portions of Scripture, which the teacher may need to take note and analyze; but if the express purpose of the “sermon” is to turn two (or three) whole chunks of the Bible against each other and watch them have at it, like some crude textual gladiatorial match, this serves only to confuse, and not to edify, the listeners.

Second, there was the theological problem: even supposing that certain letters originally accepted as Pauline are not in fact Pauline, they are still part of the canon, which has been received by the Church as a guide for faith and practice; they are still presumably of great value in guiding our lives.  Since when did non-Pauline mean non-canonical?  And yet Rev. Oakley’s purpose was not to discern different authorial emphases that each had their own valuable perspectives, but to persuade his hearers to disregard a large chunk of the New Testament, to throw it out the window as rubbish. 

Third, there were exegetical problems, which is perhaps an understatement.  In discussing the “taming” of Paul’s view on slavery, he contrasted the early testimony of Galatians and Philemon, for example, that there should be no slavery, with the later testimony of Ephesians and Timothy that slaves should continue to obey their masters.  This is, if you will pardon my saying so, just absurd.  The testimony regarding slavery in all the traditional Pauline epistles is actually remarkably consistent.  In 1 Corinthians, for example, a letter that Oakley accepted as genuinely Pauline, Paul says “But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk....Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.  Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it.  For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave” (7:17, 20-22).  In other words, ultimately there should be no slavery, and there is no real difference between slave and master in Christ, but for the sake of pursuing peace and humility, slaves should continue to serve faithfully in their condition if necessary.  A more subtle approach to doing away with the institution is recommended.  Repeatedly the testimony is the same, in Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy, Philemon: masters could continue to have slaves in terms of legal title, but in terms of conduct, they were to make it as if the slaves were brothers, and so undermine the institution.  The slaves were likewise supposed to undermine the institution by serving their masters as a way of imitating Christ, not because they were legally required to.  The letter to Philemon seems to fit this picture precisely, rather than calling for straightforward legal abolition of slavery.  Oakley also claimed that the original radical Paul was not interested in strict ethical norms like the later false Paul, but I can’t think where this radical Paul then exists--certainly not in Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, or 1 Thessalonians, which all contain their fair share of strict moral condemnation and exhortation.

Finally, there were enormous logical problems with the sermon, perhaps all the more censurable because Rev. Oakley set out to offer such an academic presentation of his subject.  For one thing, he began by claiming to simply be following the scholarly consensus--seven genuine letters, three disputed letters, and three inauthentic letters--but quickly shifted, when contrasting the “radical” Paul with the “tame” Paul, to treating the disputed letters as every bit as non-Pauline as the inauthentic letters.  This left his listeners in a very confused state, no doubt.  Apparently he was trying to smuggle in his own views of the authenticity of the letters (six inauthentic ones) under the guise of simply stating the scholarly consensus (three inauthentic ones), but if that were so, one would hope that he could offer some proof for these views!  The only proof offered (although it was not offered as such, since Rev. Oakley appeared to have accepted the inauthenticity of the six letters as a given) was the non-exegesis just mentioned and the criterion of radicalness: only those letters which give us a radical Paul are the genuine Paul.  But of course, this criterion is utterly circular: on the one hand, we say that the “real” Paul is radical because we find radicalism in his letters; on the other hand, we decide which letters are his by determining how radical they are!  Finally, I couldn’t help but finding it ironic that Oakley’s final point was this: we need a radical, revolutionary, countercultural Paul, not one that we fit within an institutional strait-jacket or tone down to fit our norms and preferences.  Of course, this countercultural, norm-defying Paul that Rev. Oakley wanted was one who fit our current cultural values like a glove--no ethical rules, the demise of institutions, the equality and legitimacy of different perspectives and sexual preferences, etc.  If we want a “radical, revolutionary” Paul, we’d better be willing to have one who strikes deep at some of postmodernity’s cherished values.  

I’m sorry that this letter has grown overlong (though still much shorter than most of Paul’s letters, I’ll warrant).  My point has not been to indulge myself in the joy of picking apart Rev. Oakley’s sermon, as a rhetorical or academic exercise.  Rather, my concern has been for those weary souls who come to your cathedral, hoping to join with others in praising God, remembering the great St. Paul, and receiving spiritual refreshment, but who find that when they come asking for bread, they are given a stone.  

Respectfully yours in Christ,

Brad Littlejohn

Three thoughts on Gay Churches

So I said that I was going to be meeting last week with a local Anglican clergymen who supported gay ordination and see what I could learn from him, and said that I was going to include the results in my review of O'Donovan chapter 7. It turned out that wasn't practical, so I'll lay out some of my resulting thoughts here. The three issues I'll explore are 1) the attempt to reconcile homosexual practice with Scripture, 2) the ramifications that the celibacy (permanent or temporary) of a gay clergyman may have on how we regard his ministry, 3) the teaching of the Church on the proper response to severely compromised churches and ministers.

First, here was his approach to the question of how homosexuality can be reconciled with Scripture. First, the Church has always been revising and expanding its interpretation of Scripture to address new situations; the tradition is not static, but always growing and developing. Now, of course this is indisputable, and though some of these revised interpretations prove later to have been foolish and hasty indeed, they have often proved valuable (e.g. the Reformation and justification). Of course, where the rubber meets the road is whether these new insights are in fact "reinterpretations" of Scripture, or just revisions. It's legitimate to interpret the text in a new way, or at least to try out a new interpretation (though it would be rash to try to implement it immediately in the Church), when it is really a matter of reading what's there in a new way that is consistent with what's on the page. But revising the text, "interpreting" it in a way that flatly contradicts it, is a different matter. Is there a way to defend homosexuality in a way that does not flatly contradict the text? Well, there's at least an attempt in certain circles--the argument runs that what is being condemned in these passages are culturally-specific forms of homosexuality that are reprehensible; e.g., promiscuous homosexuality, or the Greek pedophilic homosexuality. This would be similar to arguments (pretty standard among conservatives) that, e.g., the teachings regarding head-coverings were addressing a culturally-specific problem (not the best example, I know...supply your own). Stable conjugal homosexuality, on the other hand, is not what these condemnations have in mind.
Now, I find this argument highly doubtful, but I do at least appreciate the attempt to base the position on an interpretation of Scripture, instead of just tossing Scripture out the window and saying it's wrong and should be ignored. It seems to me that we should be able to treat Christians who mount such a defense differently than the latter, and, however much we disagree, still be in fellowship with them. As for Christians who think the Bible can just be chucked...well, two cannot walk together unless they are agreed on a point of such importance.

Second, what difference, if any, does it make if a gay minister is not actively homosexual? Well, there are three forms of this, of course. Type one would be a committed permanent celibate. In this case, the fact that he is "gay" is not particularly important; it is certainly not sinful as such. It may, perhaps, depending on how serious is the individual's struggle, be a reason why he should steer clear of the ministry, but it need not be. The homosexual inclination in itself is not any disqualification for a solid and holy ministry. Type two is that of someone who is merely between partners. They are not actively homosexual at the moment because they are not currently in a relationship, but they have no qualms about being so. In this case, the fact that they are "not actively homosexual" is of no moral relevance. But type 3 is more complex. It is that of a committed temporary celibate, that is, someone who does not see a problem with being in a conjugal, "marriage-like" homosexual relationship, but who is determined to remain celibate until such time as they are in such a relationship, just as a heterosexual should stay celibate until he or she is married.

Now, what is the nature of our objection to this person? We're not objecting to their homosexual inclination; that in itself is not culpable. We're not blaming them for their homosexual activity, because they are not, and have not been, active. We're blaming them for their views about the issue, their views which approve the possibility of their being active as something that is legitimate for them to do as a Christian, their views which clearly misunderstand the moral requirements of Christianity and especially of their office. Now, this is certainly a serious problem, but is it any different than the error of a heterosexual minister who held the same views--namely, that it was fine for a homosexual minister to pursue a conjugal partnership? We would have serious objections to a minister who taught such things, but it would an objection to wrong teaching and thinking, not sinful practice, still morally culpable perhaps, but not in the same degree. So, is the committed temporary celibate homosexual in a compromised sinful condition, over and above the intellectual error of his false understanding of the moral requirements for homosexuals? It would seem that there is still an additional objection we could raise, which is that in his case, unlike the case of the heterosexual sharing the same views, there is a sin of will, an openness to giving in to a temptation to sin. His is certainly a seriously compromised position.

However, this discussion raises the important question of whether the church whose minister is "Type 3" celibate homosexual is really more in the wrong, more compromised, than a church whose minister merely approves of such practice in principle. In what way do we relate to churches of these descriptions, and how do we fellowship with them? These are still questions I am struggling to answer, but the principles and distinctions discussed here provide, I think, some helpful direction.

Finally, then, an important part of this answer is provided by the twenty-sixth article from the Thirty-Nine Articles, which the priest read aloud and I found rather convicting:

"Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men."

I think we conservatives tend to forget this crucial and ancient doctrine of the Church. I posted before about how we need to be more concerned with admitting the corporate guilt that we share simply by being fellow-members in Christ with those who have perverted the Church, instead of being afraid of being tainted with guilt by associating too closely, or worshipping with such. But this pushes it even further. We do not incur new guilt simply by sitting under the ministry of an evildoer. Before, I had thought to myself, "Well, as long as you don't know he's an evildoer. Once you know he is, you must flee." But that's not what the 26th article says, nor what the teaching of the Church has historically said. "Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise." Wow. That means that even if you have an actively homosexual priest in the pulpit and at the altar, you do not sin by worshipping in the service he officiates, nor does he prevent you from truly worshipping God and receiving His grace, as long as you participate in faith.

Now, there may well still be strong prudential reasons for staying away, especially if your faith is not so strong as not to be distracted by your knowledge of the sins of the leader. But this article removes forever a strictly moral consideration from the question of "with whom or under whom may we legitimate worship" (as long as it is a Christian Church following genuinely Christian worship." I don't think we conservatives usually think that way. Instead, we tend to think that there are a whole list of abuses and sins, doctrinal and moral, on the part of clergy and churches, that are serious enough to basically bar these churches from consideration as places where you may lawfully worship. Where do we get that from? Article 26 tells us that the sins and errors of the ministers, while they should not be taken lightly, should be treated simply as one among a number of factors in determining the prudence of worshipping with a certain congregation. I think this principle is extremely important to keep in mind, both for individuals seeking to discern how to interact with and participate in severely compromised churches, and for whole denominations or groups of churches that are tempted to fall prey to a "this is the last straw; we gotta get outta here" attitude.

Of course, none of this is said to deny the latter part of article 26, which says, "Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed." Yes, church discipline needs to happen, but church discipline is not the same thing as--indeed, it is the opposite of--an uprising by individuals or particular churches to take matters into their own hands and decide who is and who isn't the Church.

Our Ever-Accomodating Catholic Friends

Well, whaddya know? The Vatican has just introduced a new policy enabling Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while maintaining their Anglican traditions, and even married clergy. Not sure whether I should be excited about this or not....is this a great step toward a more ecumenical Catholicism, or is this simply opportunistic fishing from the rapidly-draining Anglican pond?