A Tale of Two Protestantisms

In our supervisory meeting yesterday, Oliver O’Donovan went off on another of his delightful and delightfully illuminating tangents, a tangent that helped make remarkable sense of my own conflicted experience in the Reformed tradition–first in a quite narrow and parochial Southern Presbyterian context, then in a “Federal Vision” context that aspired to a more “catholic” perspective, but seemed unable or unwilling to follow through, retreating always to the comforting black-and-white dualities of the Reformed tradition they knew and loved, and finally in an Anglican context that, though historically rooted in the Reformed tradition, is despised by most who wear that badge today, and seems more than content to distance itself from it.   

The problem is, suggests O’Donovan, that there were actually two quite distinct Reformed traditions from quite early on, and the difference can be seen, as plain as day, in the contrast between the Scots Confession and the Thirty-Nine Articles.  The Scots Confession holds as an article of faith the existence of an anti-Church, alongside the true Church, an anti-Church presided over by an anti-Christ, the Pope–this notion later became enshrined in the Westminster Confession of Faith, to the considerable embarrassment of 19th- and 20th- century adherents of it.  Ch. 18 of the Scots Confession opens this way: 

“Since Satan has labored from the beginning to adorn his pestilent synagogue with the title of the kirk of God, and has incited cruel murderers to persecute, trouble, and molest the true kirk and its members, as Cain did to Abel, Ishmael to Isaac, Esau to Jacob, and the whole priesthood of the Jews to Christ Jesus himself and his apostles after him. So it is essential that the true kirk be distinguished from the filthy synagogues by clear and perfect notes lest we, being deceived, receive and embrace, to our own condemnation, the one for the other.”  

In other words, it is possible for portions of the visible Church to become not merely rotten branches, but in fact, “synagogues of Satan”–part of an anti-Church that must be utterly repudiated and purged out.  For the Scots, this was precisely what the Roman Church had become, and so one of the first things the Scottish Reformation did was to suspend all Masses in Scotland.  Only once the anti-Church had been put out of business could a true Church with a true Eucharist be put in its place.  A bad church was no church, a bad priest no priest, a bad Eucharist no Eucharist.  In short, Donatism.

This contrasts sharply with what was going on in England.  In England, the Mass was seen as riddled with corruptions, and in need of great reforms, but no one thought of simply stopping all the Masses–after all, the Mass was the Eucharistic service–just a really bad one.  So the liturgy was reformed in stages, rather than being abolished and replaced.  And no one thought of telling the laity to stop attending the services their parish priest was conducting, even if he was still a papist–of course not!  He was still their priest, and this was still a Eucharist, and they were to go partake in faith and receive grace, even if he was going to receive damnation.  A bad church was still a church, a bad priest was still a priest, a bad Eucharist was still a Euchrist.  This understanding, inherited from Augustine’s anti-Donatist writings, is articulated forcefully in Art. 26 of the Thirty-Nine Articles:

“Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime 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 the receiving of 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.”

The one Protestantism saw little need of historical continuity; for the other, it was clear that the Church reformed must be the same entity as the Church needing-to-be-reformed.  The one Protestantism thought that to be a true Christian, you had to deny that Catholics were Christians; the other thought this was absurd, since they professed the faith, Scripture, and the creeds, and practiced baptism and the eucharist.  The one was characterized by an ethos that was always on guard against the marks of a “synagogue of Satan”–any part of the Church might cease to be so, and we must be constantly vigilant, and ready to withdraw ourselves from it if it did; the other was characterized by an ethos which considered purity necessary for the well-being of the Church, to be sure, but not its being, and which thus sought to take differences of opinion and corruptions of practice in stride, as matters that must be resolved for the health of the Church, but upon which its very life did not depend.  

No wonder that these two Protestantisms found themselves unable to live side-by-side for long.  The English and the Scotch churches struggled with growing tensions, until these exploded in the chaos of the 1640s (of course, then the impulses of English Puritanism, which shared the Scotch assumptions, also boiled to the surface).  And this was not, says O’Donovan, merely a British phenomenon.  The same two strains can be found in the Dutch Reformed churches–indeed, the more moderate strain was at first more dominant, until Beza exerted his influence to move the Dutch churches toward a stricter kind of Calvinism, which finally won the day at the Synod of Dordt.  This landmark conference O’Donovan sees as the decisive rout for the moderate (more authentically Protestant, one might add) Reformed viewpoint–and as, needless to say, about much much more than just predestination, which is all we think of the Synod of Dordt as.  Since then, the moderate Dutch Reformed were in many ways driven underground, the Anglicans steadily detached themselves from a Reformed identity they wanted no part of, and the Donatist mentality seized hold of the subsequent heirs of the Reformed tradition, and remains deeply entrenched today in America.

 

Oversimplified?  I have no doubt–it was an off-the-cuff ramble.  But it sure makes a lot of sense of a lot of vexing questions.

7 thoughts on “A Tale of Two Protestantisms

  1. Penman

    Hi BradI think there's a real dose of truth here. My wider problem is that it's almost impossible to define "Puritanism". The label is applied to such a wide spectrum of beliefs & attitudes, one sometimes wonders whether it has an identifiable "essence". To take one example, what about the "Puritans" who conformed to the restored Anglican Church in 1662? The most famous, I suppose, was William Gurnall – he who wrote "The Christian in Complete Armour", often hailed as a "Puritan classic". Yet in the post-Cromwell period, Gurnall ministered & died as an Anglican who, as far as I am aware, conducted no campaigns against bishops or the Prayer Book.Then there's Richard Baxter, again usually regarded as an archetypal Puritan; yet if you read his writings, I've never come across someone with so catholic a spirit & mindset. Steeped in the early church fathers, situating his theology within the history of the "great tradition", a defender & writer of liturgy, joyfully accepting that there were many true Christians in the Church of Rome, etc. C.S.Lewis of course got the idea & the phrase "mere Christianity" from Baxter.So while I've no doubt that there were "Puritans" of the less winsome kind, I think the messy complexity of the thing or things called "Puritan" is just too messy & too complex for catch-all praise or blame.And the same might be said of those Anglicans who in no sense could be called Puritans!

    Like

  2. Brad Littlejohn

    You're quite right of course, Nick, and I take this as an important caveat to my recent post "Puritan Hypocrisies" as well. It is a maddeningly ambiguous word, and I generally use "disciplinarian" in my more academic writing, to be more precise, but not many blog readers probably know what that means, so "Puritan" it is for now. But when I say it, I generally have in mind the more militant sort of Elizabethan Puritans. How O'Donovan's two branches theory would apply to the whole of "Puritanism" I couldn't say.

    Like

  3. Kent Will

    Interesting thoughts, as usual. Somewhat at random, I read an essay (actually the first chapter of a projected book) by Richard Weaver called "Two Diarists," in which he compared the diary of Cotton Mather with a roughly contemporaneous diary of William Byrd, a moderate (and somewhat loose-living) Anglican. As you might imagine, while Mather's life was far purer than Byrd's, the latter inhabited a far more livable and human world. Weaver wasn't terribly strong on historical theology, but he had some stellar insights into the natures of the two gentlemen. If you can get your hands on the essay, I think you might find it useful.

    Like

  4. Albert

    This post is generally fair, but don't Anglicans also have a line they draw with respect to what they would consider a true church? It's not "once a church, always a church" is it? If so, then the argument would be about whether the, uh, separatists, were right about the particulars and not whether one group appreciated historical continuity and the other really did not. (N.B. I don't think they were right about the particulars of Rome, but that is what they were going for, right?)

    Like

  5. Brad Littlejohn

    Good point, Albert, especially in light of what I just posted about not elevating divisions about particulars to the level of divisions about general principles. Anglicans must draw a line somewhere, to be sure, but I'm not quite sure how that works for classical Anglicanism, which is after all something of a dinosaur nowadays, squeezed out by the Anglo-Catholicism, liberalism, and evangelicalism that dominate the communion. I've had Paul Avis's books recommended to me as a resource for understanding classical Anglican ecclesiology; although I haven't read them yet, they're high on my to-read list.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s