Broaden Your Horizons
Oct 11, 2016
What do you do when two parties within the same Reformed tradition approach the issues from such different perspectives that they end up seeing one another as the devil? In the previous article in our series on lessons from an old controversy (see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) we learned that one thing to do is to appeal for outside help. Another thing to do is to broaden our horizons in at least three areas.
First, we need to force ourselves to look at the issues from our opponents’ perspective and carefully consider and address their concerns. Our emphases and theological formulations are in part driven by our pastoral concerns and personal experiences. If we are not in tune with what is driving our opponents and vice versa then discord, rather than harmony, will be the order of the day. This is what happened to the Presbyterians and Congregationalists at the end of the seventeenth century in London.
After a failed attempt at reunion, the Presbyterians, tried again by asking the Congregationalists the reasons for their departure. The Congregationalists responded with a list of errors related to Arminianism that they believed needed to be rejected. The Presbyterians received them but also wanted their own concerns addressed and so added to the list a number of errors pertaining to Antinomianism. They then sent the full list of errors to the Congregationalists. The Congregationalists, however, ignored this communication because they firmly believed that Arminianism was the only problem. They were convinced that the Presbyterians needed to reject Arminianism, but that they were under no obligation to repudiate Antinomianism. Their utter disregard for the theological concerns of the Presbyterians was unloving as it was unwise. It displayed contempt for the Presbyterians and cast a shadow upon their orthodoxy. Consequently, it further damaged their relationship and the likelihood of reunion. Eventually, the Congregationalists did address the issue of Antinomianism with a tract in 1699 but only after it was far too late.
The second way we need to broaden our horizons is in regard to our own outlook and ministry. Our theology will be skewed or unbalanced if we are focused on one particular error (or truth). For example, in the arena of soteriology, if our chief (or only) concern is Arminianism, as it was for the Congregationalists, then we will tend to stress the sovereignty of God to the detriment of human responsibility. By the same token, if we primarily worry about Antinomianism, as it was for the Presbyterians, then we will tend to stress human responsibility to the detriment to the sovereignty of God. The truth of the matter is that we need to be equally concerned about both errors. Anthony Burgess once insightfully said that every person has a Pope and an Antinomian “in his belly.” If the Congregationalists had been as concerned about Antinomianism as they were about Arminianism, and the Presbyterians as concerned about Arminianism as they were about Antinomianism then the two sides might well have been able to reconcile their differences.
A third and final way we need to broaden our horizons is to recognize and tolerate different formulations of Christian doctrine. In his final book on this controversy, Williams noted that the Congregationalists and Presbyterians formulated the doctrine of justification differently. But he also recognized, particularly in light of the Congregationalists’ tract repudiating Antinomian errors, that they did not differ from each other as much as some “weak persons” suggested. However, for the two parties to come together, especially on the matter of justification, they both had to be willing to recognize their differences as minor and be willing to tolerate them. Unfortunately, there were many in this debate that were reluctant or unable to do that.
One of the key lessons that I have learned from my historical studies is that the Reformed tradition is much broader than I had once thought. The Reformed didn’t always agree with one another and not just on secondary matters but also on important and fundamental doctrines like justification, atonement and Theology Proper. Unity, in the presence of disagreement, will thus require a certain amount of breadth and toleration. This is as true in the seventeenth century as it is today.
When the going gets tough in theological controversy, the tough get some perspective. They look at the issues from their opponents’ point of view and consider their concerns. They are careful to avoid being one sided in their theological views and pastoral ministry. And they are willing to tolerate differences within acceptable limits. In short, good controversialists, broaden their horizons.
