Nominal Christianity
and the Lordship Controversy
What is a Christian? How is that term to
be defined? It may seem like an easy and straightforward question but
apparently it isn't because there seems to be a lot of confusion.
Listening to the voices coming from the often overlapping
circles of Conservative Protestantism, Evangelicalism and the Christian Right
I've identified four definitions, types or uses of the term Christian that seem to be regularly used
and more or less assumed. For the most part these are false categories stemming
from a combination of theological assumptions and errors.
First we have Nominal
Christians, or Christians that make an open profession and probably attend
church on occasion. They definitely consider themselves to be Christian but for
some reason don't seem that serious about it. They are slack in terms of
personal piety, indifferent to Church attendance and they lead worldly lives,
often reflected in their interests, use of time and in how they approach the
ordering of their families and the raising of children. They may profess
allegiance to the Scripture and yet are largely unfamiliar with it and it doesn't
seem to shape their thinking. Depending on one's theology these folks may be reckoned
either a little backslidden, carnal or in some cases their Christian profession
might be doubted and yet they would still be reckoned 'Christians' in a general
socio-cultural sense.
In the course of discussion this group is usually followed by
what are called Serious or Devout
Christians who are identified by the same beliefs and outward profession,
but this profession is backed up by a certain degree of zeal and conduct that
seem to be more dedicated to life within the Church. Their profession is
certainly reflected in how they use their time and order their households.
There are of course many variations and different takes on this.
For some, serious
devotion ends up being tied to particulars of dress, diet and various
taboos. This will be accompanied by very carefully defined concepts of
household roles, education etc...
For most circles another basic identifying mark of this
'serious' group would be church membership and regular attendance of meetings
and studies. Basically unless they are working or otherwise hindered these
folks are involved in church activities not only Sunday but even during the
rest of the week.
For others serious
Christianity involves not just regular church attendance but a determined
attempt to spend time in the study of Scriptures, theology and prayer. Often
they will utilise free time for distinctly Christian pursuits and to prioritise
worship and fellowship over and against day-to-day concerns which are sometimes
reckoned secular and mundane.
Conservative and Confessional critics of this distinction
will sometimes argue this dichotomy is largely false and is a manifestation of
Pietism, and indeed there's something to that accusation. Confessional
Protestant critics of Pietism argue that an ordinary life of Word and Sacrament
is sufficient. In other words, regular
attendance and participation in Church life is sufficient. They would argue the
enthusiasm of the Pietists in the 17th and 18th centuries
led to emotionalism and in adding a subjective element to defining
Christianity, it was ultimately subversive to orthodox theology.
Pietists of course countered that Orthodoxy, (the scholastic
oriented system wed to regular attendance in the Established Confessional
Churches) had created a type of nominalism,
an orthodoxy that was in fact dead,
in which people went through the motions of Christianity and did so out of
social obligation but possessed little in the way of actual fire and
conviction. To the Pietist, orthodoxy generated light but no heat. Life in the
Spirit was all but lost. Faith had been reduced to a kind of basic rational
formula and being a Christian became equated with being a normal respectable
member of society, part of which entailed the ritual of attending church on
Sunday. Faith under this reality risks becoming token or trivial. The Pietists
wanted to attend church and worship but they sensed that under the
orthodox/Confessionalist system, the Christian life had become all form and no
substance.
Additionally, the Church and the society became conflated and
confused and this too contributed to the watering down of Christianity and
rendered the Gospel, let alone the Church's conflict with the world as
meaningless. The Pietists had a valid critique and yet their solutions were not
always helpful. They sometimes fell into ultra-subjectivism on the order of
mysticism. In other cases they fell (and still fall) into forms of legalism, a
binding system of laws and rules that go beyond what the Scriptures require.
There are problems with the serious/nominal divide but all
too often the Confessional critique is lacking. This will be elaborated when we
look at some of the other 'types' of Christian and ways in which the term is
used and defined. The acceptance of nominal Christianity can sometimes result
from a socio-cultural concept of the Church but it can also stem from an
overemphasis on Free Grace and Justification by Faith Alone what I have
sometimes referred to as Hyper-solafideism. In their zeal to eliminate works as
being a necessity to the Christian life, some have fallen into antinomianism...
a type of Christianity that requires no transformation and is in effect
lawless.
This brings the modern Lordship Controversy to mind. The
debate all but raged throughout Evangelical circles in the late 1980's and into
the 1990's.
Many Evangelicals have under the influence of CG Finney and
other Semi-Pelagian forms of soteriology embraced what is often described as
Easy Believism. This is fueled by what has often and rightly been called a
concept of Cheap Grace. The Gospel of faith and reconciliation is practically
speaking turned into something of a gimmick, a 'get out of jail free' card or
as it is sometimes described, fire insurance. Exacerbated by the 'invitation
system' and the 'anxious bench/altar call' methods of Finney, DL Moody, Billy
Sunday and in more recent years Billy Graham, salvation is equated with having
a moment-in-time decision and involves little else in the way of
transformation. Or to put it another way, the transformation of life and the
notion of knowing and walking with God are certainly preferred and should be
desired but technically are relegated as 'optional', something beyond the basic
gospel message. To insist on sanctification and transformation of life is to
(from their standpoint) introduce works into the Gospel and ultimately to
subvert it. The student of Scripture, let alone historical theology can say
with confidence that the Cheap Grace/Easy Believism understanding of the gospel
represents a very shallow and often superficial understanding of conversion and
regeneration.
It is in one sense a coherent theology and yet it is patently
unbiblical and out of accord with both the general ethos of the New Testament
and certainly its overall teaching. Nowhere is this Cheap Grace gospel to be
found and in fact such notions are repeatedly warned against.
This doctrine was further buttressed throughout the 20th
century by the outworking of Dispensational doctrine which emphasised the Age
of Grace over and against the Dispensation of Law. While this distinction is by
no means erroneous it must be understood in its proper Redemptive-Historical
sense, something Dispensationalism fails to do. There are distinctions that
need to be made and clearly the New Testament teaches we are not in any way
shape or form under the Mosaic Law. But just because the Law of Moses has been
abrogated (as the New Testament teaches) it does not follow that the Christian
is free from moral and ethical obligation.
In fact it could be argued the requirements of New Testament obedience are of a
higher order.
This issue is further confused by the fact that many
Confessionalists still adhere to portions
of Old Testament law and will critique Dispensationalism on that flawed basis.
This tends to muddy the waters of debate. The Confessionalists (in particular
the Reformed variety) will agree that Ceremonial and to a degree Civil Laws are
abrogated but still utilise the Mosaic formula when framing what they term the
Moral Law. The Ten Commandments become the hallmark and this leads to debates
over Sabbath and to what extent the so-called First Table is applicable to
society and so forth.
The problem is, this division of the Mosaic order is uncalled
for, without exegetical support and only generates confusion. The order stood
and was fulfilled in toto,
functioning as a unified covenant. The distinctions they would make in order to
retain portions of the Mosaic order and its functioning are like many
Dispensational categories, i.e. without warrant vis-à-vis the doctrine of the
New Testament. The Jerusalem decrees of
Acts 15 alone settle this matter, let alone the wealth of relevant doctrine
found in the epistles. It is a major theme in the book of Hebrews and the
language is unequivocal and absolute.
And of course there are also sharp differences within
Confessionalist circles on these points. Lutherans and Anglicans will differ
and they both are at odds with some of the Reformed formulations. And even
within Calvinistic and Reformed circles there are sometimes rather heated
debates and even bitter discord.
The Lordship Controversy generated a divide even among
Confessionalists. Some saw the point John MacArthur and others were trying to
make regarding the necessity of Lordship and they recognised the danger and
potential antinomianism at work in the Anti-Lordship faction represented by
Dallas Theological Seminary among others. To be fair the Dallas camp did not
define themselves in negative terms. Anti-Lordship (while an accurate
description) is certainly not the term they would prefer. They would support
Christians surrendering their lives to Christ, they simply do not believe such
a full surrender is part of the Gospel message. They believe (erroneously) that
they are supporting Biblical Free Grace.
The Dallas position received little or no support among Confessionalists
and yet some were also quite critical of MacArthur and the Lordship camp. They
believed that such a position flirted with both legalism and pietism. Rather
than cast the fruits and demands of the gospel in terms of Christian vitality
and an ongoing life of faith and repentance they preferred to focus on 'the
ordinary means of grace' found in Church attendance and participation in Word
and Sacrament. Lutherans in particular are very critical of the Lordship
position and view it as something of a threat to the gospel, almost as
dangerous as the Cheap Grace antics of the many Evangelical and Fundamentalist
factions and their altar call methods.
By the time the controversy had run its course there was
almost a triangulated debate at work in Protestant and Evangelical circles. And
while Confessionalists were concerned with the Antinomian harvest of the Dallas
Theology, they nevertheless were wary of anything that smacked of Pietism or
drew the lines of gospel antithesis in a too stark fashion. In effect they too
retained if not embraced a type of nominal Christianity. Church attendance and
membership were sufficient. The perceived 'extras' demanded by historical
Pietism and the modern Lordship camp were viewed as potentially harmful and
certainly superfluous requirements. In part this is in keeping with the
Ecclesiastical Establishment impulse of Confessionalism. Though many
Confessional denominations and factions lost their battles to control an
Established Church, they were and in many cases remain adherents of the concept
and the cause.
This push for some variety of Establishment is at the heart
of the success of the Magisterial
Reformation and its narratives regarding modern Western civilisation. It was
built on the paradigm of the newly aspirant Protestant Churches working with
and under the protection of the state. Their success (at least in part) was
built on the legislation of Protestantism and the fact that is was now backed
up by some form of magisterial sword. The Reformation was not born of a
separatist ethos or impulse. Though it had been present in some of the
proto-Protestant bodies which existed centuries before Luther and would return
in the Free Church and Restitutionist movements in the 19th century,
it was all but absent among the Reformers. During that epoch the resistance to
the idea of an Established Church was found among Hussite descended Czech
Brethren (Unitas Fratrum), what was left of the Waldensians and of course the
Anabaptists.
The Confessionalists would never want to sanction a nominal type of Christianity that is in
reality little more than a veneer and yet in order to think in terms of an
Established Church and a Christian Society they necessarily must hold to a type
of latitudinarian Christianity. By latitudinarian I do not refer to the creed
or liturgy of the movement within 17th century Anglican theology. On
the contrary Confessionalists have always been rather militant and exacting
when it comes to the specifics and distinctives of their formulae. Rather I
refer to latitude in the realm of ethics and social conduct.
The Puritan model of an authoritarian theocratic state along
the lines of New England or Calvin's Geneva were but experiments, necessarily
small and fairly localised. The model was never successfully applied to a
nation and indeed had it been attempted it would have been a cross between a
prison state and slaughterhouse. But it would have never reached that point.
Long before such real and fervent application, a civil war would certainly
ensue. The closest attempt at this was the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell.
He favoured the Independents and in many ways was a Puritan himself and yet he
was criticised by Puritans and conspiring Presbyterians for his latitude and
laxity. And of course once he was gone the public all but clamoured for the
Restoration. They had not found his regime to be latitudinarian or lax in any
way, shape or form. They were glad that his harsh authoritarian and indeed
Puritanical regime was at last gone. With the Restoration, the frolic was
rekindled, the Maypole erected and loose-living and worldly revel once more
were permitted... and the majority of people loved to have it so. The Puritan
experiment in England was all but ended.
The same is true of Roman Catholic attempts to force these
types of regimes on Protestants. In the cases of 17th century France
and Bohemia there was mass slaughter and subsequent flight but apart from brief
periods of harsh crackdown and purge, Rome has rarely attempted to force
puritanical laws and ethics on society. Few nations took on the zealotry of
Spain and yet even Spain was lax in certain ways. Rome is happy to wink at sin
and loose living as long as the diocesan population submits to their hierarchy,
participates in the liturgy, confesses and provides financial support.
Continue reading part 2
Continue reading part 2