One side or the other

For the last several months we've been attending a Reformed church. That's a change for us, and I suppose it deserves some explanation. Not to put too fine a point on it, it's the only group of Christians we've been able to find in this area that remembers the Lord with bread and wine every week, without a lot of superstition. 

That's not to say we haven't met some really sweet Christians in this area. And it's not to say I wouldn't be a lot more comfortable in something a lot more "brethren."  And it's not to say that I've "gone Reformed." It's just to say that after we ruled out just sitting at home, and then ruled out places with crucifixes, we were left with very few gatherings that celebrate the Lord's Supper every week. 

And of course we haven't been trying to proselytize anyone, or convince anyone to become dispensationalist, or convince people to become "brethren." We're there – very simply – because we have been called to remember the Lord with other Christians, and this is where we know other Christians remembering the Lord in our area.

But of course there are some complications that come with hanging out with postmillennialists. We are united in the belief that the Lord died for our sins, was buried, rose from the dead, was seen by Cephas and the Twelve, and ascended into Heaven. And we are united in the belief that He is coming again for us. Those are the important things, the non-negotiable things. But there are some other things where we don't see eye to eye. There are some pretty big assumptions we just don't agree on. I've spent a lot of time thinking about those assumptions, and I think it's worth talking about some of those things.

 

After spending some time with postmillennialists, I've come to realize that some of what I had believed about Reformed Christians is really a caricature. Or at least, I've found plenty of Reformed Christians who don't believe what I always thought they did. At the same time, most of what I've heard from Reformed folks about dispensationalists doesn't bear any resemblance to any dispensationalists I've ever met. One person nodded knowingly and said, "so you believe the Church began in Acts 7."  

No, I've never met anyone who believes the Church began in Acts 7. Almost everyone I know takes an "Acts 2" position, I've heard of people who take a "post Acts 10" position, and I've actually met someone who takes an "Acts 28" position. But I've never heard of an "Acts 7 dispensationalist" before. That same person was shocked to hear that "brethren" observe the Lord's Supper. I've had to explain to a few people that "brethren" worship consists almost entirely of the Lord's Supper.

Caricatures abound.

 

But of course there are some real differences, and some of those are actually quite helpful to understand. So I've been having to work through those.

Some of those differences aren't too surprising, and aren't too helpful. For example, I take Darby's view of Daniel 2, because of what the text actually says. The stone cut out without hands crushes the statue into pieces and they are swept away in the wind and then the stone begins to grow into a great mountain (Daniel 2:35). I don't see any room in the passage for a kingdom that grows slowly and steadily, until gradually it replaces the kingdoms of men. 

But my point here isn't to defend my views or shoot down anyone else's: my point is that I've been working on understanding my fellow believers. My point is that I've been in a position to observe Reformed teaching up close.  And of course I've been thinking about what some of my own views would look like for someone who wasn't raised with them.

 

While there is a danger to oversimplifying, it seems to me many differences between  Dispensationalist and Covenant/Reformed/Reconstructionist teaching are more differences of focus rather than actual content. (I'm painting with a broad brush here) dispensationalists tend to see differences between things, while Reformed Christians tend to see similarities.

Having said that, I don't know any Reformed people who don't recognize that Acts 2 is a sea change. I don't think they're very consistent about it, but they do recognize something big happened there.

At the same time, it seems to me that many or most Dispensationalists recognize there is some continuity between the Old and New Testaments. I'm thinking here of writers like J. N. Darby, William Kelly, C. H. Mackintosh, and C. A. Coates, who are much more open to continuities than writers like Miles Stanford.  For example, we acknowledge that "the house of God" is introduced in the Old Testament (Genesis 28:17). We don't think that started in Acts 2, we understand the church has stepped into a role that was previously occupied by Israel. That doesn't mean Israel and the Church are the same thing, but it does mean  there are places we have to acknowledge Scripture doesn't make quite so stark a contrast as we might like.

There is a real difference in Romans 8: the Reformed folks believe we are in a "renewed creation," while I would argue that the entire creation is groaning, waiting for a redemption event that is still future. I agree that the Resurrection is the start of the new creation, but I'd argue that, while we're new creations in Christ, there is a greater sense of new creation that is still coming. And now that I see that written out, I think they might even agree with that synopsis.

I think the Reformed notion of "already/not yet" has some merit.

So when it comes to worldliness on the one hand and fanaticism on the other, it seems to me that there is a continuum there too. Scripture teaches and allows for us to distinguish between the body and the spirit (Romans 8:10 is explicit). But it also teaches – just as forcefully – that we are waiting for bodily redemption (Philippians 3:20–21), not for some non-corporeal "spiritual" existence (2 Corinthians 5:1–4). I think the "brethren" fascination with distinguishing between the spirit and the flesh can lead to dualism, but I equally think the Reformed fascination with the whole man can lead to worldliness.

 

That's a fair summary: amongst "brethren" I have observed a tendency to dualism and Platonism that seems to run contrary to scripture. Amongst Reformed Christians I see an opposite tendency to worldliness that is just as unscriptural. There's a ditch on both sides of the road.

I've found some help here in the first few verse of John's Gospel.  John 1:1 says that the Word "was with God" and the Word "was God."  So Christ is both God and distinguishable from God. I'm trying to be careful with my phrasing here, because the first few verses of John are beyond any of our understanding. At the same time, I don't see another way to understand those verses. Christ is with God, Christ is God. We don't choose between those truths, they are both always true. I think the Nicene Creed is solid here, and the Athanasian Creed as well: we don't confuse the Father and the Son, while at the very same time, we acknowledge there is one God.

It seems to me "brethren" take this one direction, while Reformed types take it the other way. Reformed types talk a lot about "our Triune God" – focusing on unity.  Brethren talk a lot about "the Father and the Son" – focusing on diversity. Both believe in the Trinity, both believe in diversity in unity, but they tend to think at opposite ends of that spectrum.

Christ, we know, is both Man and God. Again, "brethren" tend to make some distinctions in the Person of Christ that I'm not really comfortable with. It's quite common to hear someone say, "Christ is speaking here as Man" or "Christ is speaking here as God" in a Bible reading.  I think those are dangerous words, because they tend to lead (in F. E. Raven's words, ironically) to "a dissected Christ."  

At the same time, I have heard sincere Christians thank the Father for dying for us, because they failed to recognize diversity in the Godhead. No, God didn't die. And this particular error is one I've seen in every group of Christians I have encountered.

 

So I'm beginning to think that "brethren" types might have a tendency to see diversity and like to distinguish between things, while our Reformed friends tend to see unity and like to think more holistically.

And that might be why I see tendencies to Platonism, Gnosticism, and fanaticism in "brethren" types, while seeing tendencies to worldliness in Reformed types.  I am sure this isn't the best mental model, but I'm finding it helpful to reconcile some things in my own mind.

As an aside, I am finding it very useful – not comfortable! – to be a dispensationalist among postmillennialists. We learn some things outside our comfort zone we could not learn inside it.