So Simple Even a Theonomist Could Understand

But Then There's Washington

R.J. Rushdoony

Greg Bahnsen

]The other day our grandsons were talking economics. One said that if you managed a toy store, you could get toys for free. The other said that, if you use “a card” to buy something, then you don’t have to pay for it. Both then pointed out how much money they had made when they ran a lemonade stand for a few hours.

As grandparents, who raised five sons on a preacher’s salary (the old fashioned kind of preacher’s salary), their grandmother and I felt an obligation to disabuse them of their economic views. We  explained that, while managers and other employees might get discounts, they did not get toys for free. Even the owner did not get toys for free. We told them that, when you use a credit card, you have to pay it off at the end of the month, and, if you don’t, you have to pay even more than what the item cost. We pointed out about their little capitalistic venture that their mother bought the lemonade ingredients and cups, that a neighbor made the cookies, that “customers” gave them big bills and told them to keep the change, and that, if any of those things had been been different, they would have lost money.

Some economic realities are simple enough that even young children can understand. Or so it would seem. But then there’s Washington and its dependents.

It occurs to me that the same it is true about interpreting the Old Testament and applying it to the present age. It’s really not that difficult.

Let me lay it out:

1. God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants to be their God, to give them a land, and to make them a nation.

 2. The people were the Jews, the land was Canaan, and the nation was Israel.

3. The people were formed into a nation when Moses led the Abraham's descendants out Egyptian slavery, when God made a covenant with them at Sinai, when God took up residence among them in the tabernacle (later temple), when God gave them moral (10 Commandments) religious (ceremonial) and national (judicial) laws, when God settled them in the land through conquest, and when God established them in the land as his special nation under Davidic kings.

 4. Ethnic Israel constituted the people of God; national Israel was the kingdom of God, Canaan was territory given to ethnic Israel for its life as the kingdom. Israel was unique among the nations of the earth. No other people were God's people; no other nation God's kingdom; no other land God's land.

5. The denunciations and curses against Israel’s enemies and the wars of vengeance and conquest carried out against them were against them them as enemies of God, God’s people, and God’s kingdom.

 6. The curses and blessings God pronounced in relation to Israel were directed to them as his unique people and nation. The curses were against Israel for breaking God's covenant with the nation, and the blessings were promised to Israel for keeping covenant with the God who had made them his people and his kingdom on earth.

7. God planned always to fulfil the Davidic kingship in Jesus the Messiah and Savior, to incorporate elect Gentiles into the people of God, and to spread his kingdom among all the nations of the earth. It is in Christ that God fulfills his promise to make Abraham's people more numerous than the sands of the seashore and stars of the sky (the church) and to give Abraham the whole earth (a kingdom without borders), and his promise to give to David an everlasting kingship and kingdom (the Messianic kingship).

8. Jesus rejected political conceptions of his Messiahship and kingdom. He did not come to make war against the Romans or any other nation. He did not come to re-establish ethnic and national Israel within territory of Canaan, to give Israel preeminence among the nations, or to form a new kingdom with territorial aspirations or a distinctive national polity. Neither Jesus nor his apostles organized political movements, or sought to bring the nations and governments of the world into conformity with the political order and laws of Israel, or otherwise to subject the nations or their governments to the Messianic rule.

 9. The form of the people of God after the coming of Christ is not ethnic but spiritual. The form of the kingdom of God in the New Testament is not national but spiritual. The people of God transcend race and ethnicity and the kingdom of God transcends territory and nation.  

10. The New Testament people of God are the elect of every nation, both Jew and Gentile. The New Testament kingdom of God is the church. The elect whether Jew or Gentile are a spiritual ethnicity. The church is a spiritual nation, the Israel of God. The government of the church is Christ's spiritual reign by his Word and Spirit through men who are called to spiritual service. God-called, Spirit-equipped leaders use spiritual weapons - the Word, the sacraments, the keys of the kingdom - to wage spiritual warfare in order to conquer by grace God’s enemies and to protect and provide for God’s people under Christ's saving rule. The kingdom of God is given expression in the church and not in any earthly nation or alliance of nations or in any government or political order. Israel has ceased to be the kingdom of God; her laws have expired with her; she has not been replaced by any nation or group of nations, and her unique position has been given to the church as church.

 11. Ethnic and national Israel today are not Israel as Israel was under the Old Testament order. The United States is not Israel. No nation is the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God does not have ethnic, national, or territorial dimensions. The church is Israel.

12. The church and state are independent of one another. Neither seeks or should seek to construct a government or laws for the other, to use the other for its own ends, to control the other, or to instruct the other. Each should leave the other alone. What the church wants from the government is sufficient societal order to allow her meetings to be conducted unmolested and to allow her people to live quiet and godly lives and the freedom of the church to go about her unique mission. What the government has a right to expect from the church is the instructing of her members to submit to government as God’s minister in the civil realm.The church is under Christ’s rule as Redeemer and Messiah. The government is under Christ’s rule as Creator and Sovereign.

So to sum up:

1. The people of God are the elect of every nation. 

2. The land God has given for the establishment of his kingdom is the whole earth without regard to nations or governments. 

3. The King of God's kingdom is Christ who rules now by means of his Word and Spirit through men he calls to church office.

4.The kingdom of God is the church.

Therefore:

1. When you preach about Old Testament ethnic and national Israel, preach about the church.

 2. When you preach about the Old Testament kingship preach about Christ’s Messianic rule, present and future.  

3. When you preach about the land, territorial Israel, preach about the trans-territorial spiritual kingdom of the present and the kingdom yet to come that will encompass the news heavens and earth. 

4. When you preach the laws of the kingdom preach them to the church about the church's life.

5. When you preach about the threats and promises to Israel relate them to the church as God's covenant people and kingdom. 

6. When you preach from the prophets relate their messages to Israel to the church and their messages to Israel’s enemies to the enemies of the church.

It’s so simple even I get it. Even a theonomist should get it. But then there's grandkids,Washington, and economics.

"TR": The Anatomy of a Slogan by Guy Oliver (1976)

“T-R”: 

THE ANATOMY OF A SLOGAN

Guy Oliver

George Fuller, Allen Killen, Guy Oliver, Simon Kistemaker, Dan Morse

This is a paper delivered by Professor Guy Oliver to a group of alumni meeting on the campus of Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS, on April 26, 1976. Thanks to my wife, Susan Smith, for retyping the paper and to my friend John K. Reeves for furnishing me with a copy. The paper is presented here for its historical value and for the sake of comparisons with the perceptions of the original TRs (See my "The Six TR Points") and comparisons with the current incarnations of TR. With regard to the former, it seems to me Mr. Oliver correctly describes a few characteristics while missing others by a country mile. With regard to the latter, it may be of interest to note that Mr. Oliver says nothing about homeschooling, young earth creationism, theonomy, transformationalism, or things associated with various current manifestations.

by Professor O. Guy Oliver

“T-R” stands for “Thoroughly Reformed.” It is the chosen self-designation for a particular form of theological thought and practice which has arisen over the past decade mostly within the context of a portion of the faculty and students of Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. The purpose of this study is to describe the beliefs of this new movement, and then to offer some analysis of my own. Since the “T-R” theology has never adopted a formal platform, its views can only be determined by a subjective examination to set forth what appear to be its major tenets. Therefore, this study is a tentative one intending to evoke clarification of positions and making no pretentions of finality.

It should be noted first of all that the “T-R” movement arose for the purpose of differentiation. But this differentiation, as the slogan suggests, was not one separating Christian from non-Christian nor Calvinist from Arminian. Rather, it was intended to differentiate among professing Reformed Christians those whose theology was deemed to be thoroughly Reformed from those understood to be falling short or drawing back in some important particular of Reformed Christianity. The historic doctrinal standards of Presbyterianism formed the reference point for determining the thoroughness of one’s professed allegiance. It is not difficult to understand how in an academic context this differentiating approach was the convergence of no little debate and some conflict. Later, this commitment to differentiation sometimes expressed itself in disputes and protests in church courts.

In the second place, the beginnings of the “T-R” movement were no less involved with the idea of distinctiveness. Here priorities within one’s commitment were the focal point. The “T-R” movement sought to be distinctively Reformed, i.e., to reject those patterns of theology and practice which were not contained in the Presbyterian standards and to openly oppose such alien views. The aim was to teach and practice the Presbyterian standards (and nothing else) in toto; the task was understood to be a monolithic one. Therefore, the “T-R” felt the necessity to confront those who, while professing Reformed Christianity, either found some values in non-Reformed theological options or refused to condemn evangelical shortcomings for the sake of a broader cooperation and unity.

These first two points are somewhat modified by a third emphasis: the “T-R” movement generally recognized its fundamental unity with “conservative” Christians and its fundamental disunity with “liberal” Christians. This unity was especially operative when the “T-R” and broadly conservative elements stood together over against “liberalism” in the P.C.U.S. denomination. After the formation of the P.C.A. denomination, however, this negative agreement no longer functioned as the unifying force it had been. Numerically, the “T-R” movement had been relatively insignificant in the P.C.U.S.; however, in the P.C.A. structure, “T-R” adherents found themselves a significant minority and saw the possibility of effecting change in the church. This, in its own way, led the ”T-R” movement to emphasize its particular views over against the larger conservatism. Then, differentiation and distinctiveness tended to become the form of “T-R” relations with the conservative majority in the new denomination. Although there was still a theoretical recognition of the fundamental unity of “Bible-believing Christians” within the P.C.A., there were several controversies which functioned essentially on the basis of the differentiation and distinctiveness principles outlined above. The predominance of either one of the three factors detailed above will largely determine the future relations of the adherents of the “T-R” theology with the P.C.A. conservative majority.

Now, having seen something of the historical background of the “T-R” movement, this study will move to a summary description of “T-R” theology. The focus will be on the positions held in distinction and differentiation from other theological viewpoints. [However, it is vital to remember that the things held in common by the “T-Rs” and their opponents are far greater than the matters about which they disagree.] It is necessary to say once again that this description of the “T-R” platform is a subjective one by this writer since the movement has never adopted an official position statement. Hopefully, some measure of dialogue and discussion will stem from this description as the movement clarifies any misunderstandings or misconceptions found in the model set forth below.

The “T-R” model of faith and practice is composed of four basic components:

Component One: a DISTINCTIVE ADHERENCE TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AS EXPRESSED IN THE FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM. Note that the approach is one of distinctive adherence, i.e., the setting forth of The Five Points as a system of truth with the refutation of the errors of opposing systems. For the “T-R” Arminians in the pulpit or pew must be confronted and brought to see the sovereignty of God reflected in the doctrines of The Five Points. And, to profess adherence but not to distinctively practice that adherence is likewise an error to be spoken against. It is obvious that this type of commitment places the “T-R” in an essentially militant framework as he is involved unavoidably in theological conflict.

Component Two: A DISTINCTIVE VIEW OF EVANGELISM BOTH IN REGARD TO ITS MESSAGE AND ITS METHOD. The “T-R” understanding of evangelism presupposes that conversion is a rare and difficult thing, not the relatively easy and simple transaction many evangelicals imagine. This presupposition has consequences in terms of the “T-R” view of both the evangelistic message and method.

1. The evangelistic message: “The whole counsel of God” is the self-professed message of evangelism according to the “T-R” viewpoint. Thus, in contrast to the minimizing approach of most evangelical tracts and preaching, the “T-R” commitment is to a maximizing approach. The exposition of Law must awaken a sense of lostness and precede the preaching of grace. The call to repentance must accompany the command to believe. The message must be addressed to the intellect with direct appeal to the emotions usually considered improper. Thus, in the “T-R” understanding, a rather large body of intellectual comprehension is normally required before conversion takes place. 

2. The evangelistic method: Opposition to “the altar call” and “the invitation system” has been a marked particularity of “T-R” evangelistic methodology. In place of these public appeals, “T-R” methods have focused more on the concept of guidance by the pastor doing the work of an evangelist. Much literature setting forth the “T-R” understanding of the message of evangelism is used with continuing personal contact by the pastor. Preaching, understood as the authoritative proclamation of the gospel by God-ordained messengers (ministers of the Word), and nouthetic personal counsel complement each other as the human means bringing to pass conversion. The essential evangelistic task of the laity is to distribute “T-R” literature and urge their neighbors to attend upon those occasions when the authoritative, God-ordained spokesman declares the truth in preaching services. Lay-evangelism training in the popular methods now in use among evangelicals (Billy Graham, Coral Ridge, Campus Crusade) is an unacceptable practice to most in the “T-R” camp. 

Component Three: A DISTINCTIVE COMMITMENT TO “THE PURITAN MODEL” OF THE MINISTRY. Three aspects of the seventeenth-century Puritan conception of the ministerial office have been accepted as normative for the “T-R” practice:

1. The pastor as “doctor of souls”: This involves ministerial competence in analyzing the varied spiritual conditions which beset man and prescribing a specific remedy. A tendency to skepticism about those professing Christianity predominates since it is held that true conversion is rare and difficult. Hypocrisy and falsehood are detected among many professing believers. Frequently there is an emphasis on regeneration rather than credible profession as the proper qualification for church membership. The ultimate test of true religion is personal holiness – a holiness which functions as the sine qua non of Christian assurance. 

2. The pastor as “biblical scholar”: The “T-R” movement is concerned for the pastoral office as one based upon a high level of scholarship. The motivation here appears to be one of devotion more than human pride. Thus, it is expected that proficiency will be maintained in the original languages of Scripture. In contrast to the rather shallow approach of many contemporary pastors, nothing less than “the whole counsel of God” is to be the sum and substance of the pastor’s teaching. This latter phrase is often understood to require the “T-R” pastor to be knowledgeable with the whole sweep of biblical teaching and to emphasize precisely those parts which are being disputed, denied or denigrated by contemporary churchmen. This explains a predilection, often considered an imbalance, for messages emphasizing the varied themes of God’s sovereignty – since these seem to be lacking in today’s church. The “T-R” pastor understands his task to be more that of bringing men up to the level of divine truth than bringing divine truth down to the level of human understanding. 

3. The pastor as “systematic expositor”: Life is understood by “T-Rs” systematically. By this I mean that people and situations are analyzed according to a model taken from systematic theology (ultimately stemming from the seventeenth century but with significant modifications in the late nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries). The part is understood according to its place in the whole. Proper evaluation takes place by fitting people or situations into a system of theology or philosophy; each is analyzed presuppositionally, i.e., as a part of the whole complex of beliefs, commitments and underlying assumptions about truth. Preaching then becomes the popularization and application of this systemic understanding. 

Component Four: A DISTINCTIVE PRACTICE OF “JURE DIVINO” PRESBYTERIANISM. Together with their ecclesiastical fellows in various Presbyterian denominations, the “T-Rs” profess government by elders in gradated church courts to be the biblical standard. However, their practice of this form of polity sets them apart from many other Presbyterians. Here the “T-Rs” take their cue from Thornwell and others of the early Southern Presbyterians in understanding Holy Scripture to teach that authority for missions and evangelism is committed to the church itself (understood as the institution) – rather than to societies or agents of a “para-ecclesiastical” kind. This distinctive viewpoint has led the “T-Rs” into controversies regarding the proper way for the church to fulfill its evangelistic mandate and exercise ecclesiastical discipline in missionary matters.

By way of summarization, note that I have contended that the “T-R” model in its specificity not its generality, its uniqueness not its commonness, can be described by four components:

1. A distinctive adherence to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God as expressed in the five points of Calvinism. 

2. A distinctive view of evangelism both in regards to its message and its method. 

3. A distinctive commitment to ”the Puritan model of the ministry”; and 

4. A distinctive practice of “jure divino” Presbyterianism. 

It should be remembered that I have sought to offer this model in the hope that others will respond to it, correcting it where it needs correction or modifying it where it needs modification. Also, it is offered against the background of a deep appreciation for the commitment, integrity and sincerity of the “T-Rs” and their potential contribution to the advancement of the faith and practice of the contemporary church. With this in mind, may we now proceed to notice some “tension points” in the “T-R” movement in its relationship to the historic faith of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches.

Tension Points in the “T-R” Model

Tension One: THE TENSION BETWEEN “SEMPER REFORMANDA” AND “REFORMED ORTHODOXY.” There is no doubt that “T-Rs” profess and seek to practice faithfully “reformed orthodoxy”, understood as rigid and full adherence to the Westminster standards. This can lead to the understanding (conscious or unconscious) that the content of theology has been finalized; all that remains is its outworking or application. What is often missing in practice, if not also in theory, is the historical concept of “semper reformanda.” Normally, this phrase is translated to mean “the church Reformed is/and always reforming.” By “church” is usually meant ecclesiastical life in its totality – faith no less than practice, doctrine no less than ethics.

“Semper reformanda” tends to call into question any way of doing theology which does not seek continually to test the received doctrinal tradition by the Word of God. “T-Rs” seem to have concentrated on “Reformed orthodoxy” and given little attention to “semper reformanda.” One senses little wrestling with Scripture to see what light God has yet to break forth from his Word. Kuyper’s famous dictum that the tragedy of Reformed Christianity is not that it wrote creeds but that it stopped writing them does not seem to bear much weight in the “T-R” movement. Do we need a new confession in twentieth-century words and thoughts addressed to contemporary people and issues? Do we need to correct or modify any aspects of “Reformed orthodoxy” in light of contemporary biblical knowledge and understanding? These are questions “semper reformanda” force upon us today – and “T-Rs” should be in the forefront of the dialogue.

Tension Two: THE TENSION BETWEEN “THE REFORMED LIFE AND WORLD VIEW” AND “THE SPIRITUALITY OF THE CHURCH.” From early Southern Presbyterianism the “T-Rs” accepted the teaching that the mission of the church is spiritual in nature and does not involve the complex economic, political and social disputes of the world. The essence of the life of the church in the world is understood to be spiritual. In addition to this spiritualistic interpretation, Reformed history also contains an emphasis on “the Reformed life and world view.” Holding to the theoretical commitment that Christ is Lord of the whole of life, it contends that Christian theologians must proclaim the Word to every facet of life and every experience of the human family. This, of course, has led many Reformed churches and individual Christians to direct involvement in social and political issues. Several models for the outworking of each of these views have been developed. The crucial point here, however, is that by opting for the “spirituality” of the church the “T-Rs” have tended to neglect the application of Holy Scripture to the problems of the age. Thus, the development of a life and world view agreeable to the Word of God has been lost sight of. Of course, this does not mean that “T-Rs” and their congregations have no life and world view; it means that such is not the result of conscious Scriptural applications. While “T-Rs” are not alone in this great omission, they are especially responsible because they have not taken seriously enough that portion of their tradition expressed as “the Reformed life and world view.”

Tension Three: THE TENSION BETWEEN “ORTHOPRAXY” AND “ORTHODOXY.” As we have mentioned, “T-Rs” are committed to orthodoxy as that is understood by conservative Reformed Christians today. “Orthopraxy” understood as the active practice of biblical Christianity has received less emphasis. Now, there is a problem here for all Christians – the problem of our professed faith and imperfect practice. But this whole matter does not seem to have been much of an interest for the “T-Rs.” Certainly, no knowledgeable person would deny that “T-Rs” have been more interested in right belief than right practice. Holy Scripture does not permit such an imbalance. This means that “T-Rs” need to bring their formidable theological insights to bear upon practical problems; it means that “T-Rs” should give greater emphasis than they have in the past to what Scripture denotes as “doing the truth”; it means that “T-Rs” ought to be more interested in the application of the faith to the nitty-gritty problems and concerns of the man in the pew; it means that “T-Rs” need to balance their scholastic preoccupation with doctrinal formulations with an emphasis on experiential realities in ethics, evangelism and relational Christianity.

Tension Four: THE TENSION BETWEEN “CONTEXTUALIZATION: AND “HISTORYLESSNESS.” “T-Rs” tend toward “historylessness.” They seem to view certain periods of theology (seventeenth century; the “Hodge-Warfield-Machen-Murray-Van Til” progression) and certain productions of theology (Reformed confessions; selected Reformed theologians) as beyond the corruption which infects all eras of history and all human endeavors. The problem with this way of doing theology lies in its failure to consider the context in which theologians inevitably work. Certain historical, social, political, economic, religious and philosophical assumptions form the context within which thinking, systematic analysis and wrestling with the Word takes place. By the grace of God, biblical reality breaks through the cultural context and salvation occurs. But the Reformed faith at its best has always taken seriously the reality of sin at work in history and its corrupting influences upon ecclesiastical life, including theology. Theology, understood as man’s thinking about God according to his revelation, becomes encrusted with ideas which more or less faithfully reflect the truth – but always from a context of assumptions that interact with the biblical data. This contextualization process can be mitigated by the correction and modification which the Christian community offers in its diversity. An awareness of the reality of the historical context in which theology takes shape will make “T-Rs” more determined to test the received tradition by the standard of “sola scriptura.” It will direct “T-Rs” in the path of “semper reformanda.” And that is the path to which God calls all his Church today.

G. Oliver

[Presented to the Reformed Seminary alumni 4/26/76]

The Church Is No Place for Sinners

Be Honest with God 

But You Might Not Want to Risk It 

in Church

When Adam and Eve sinned, they hid. Hid from God and hid from each other. They experienced bodily shame. No longer naked and unashamed, they covered themselves with makeshift clothes. They experienced psychic or spiritual shame. No longer looking forward to walking with God in the cool of the day, they hid themselves in the trees.

But God came looking for them, and they were flushed out. Their sin was exposed as God asked, “Who told you you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I told you not to eat?” Judgment was pronounced on the man and the woman - thorns and thistles in the workplace and pain in childbearing, and expulsion from the garden paradise.

But there was more. Even before God announced the consequences for the woman and the man there was the Gospel. God took their side against the serpent and the one who used him. God would put enmity between the serpent and the woman, between the serpent’s seed and the woman’s seed. Eventually the Seed of the woman would fight that Old Serpent, the Devil, to the death. The Serpent would bruise the Messiah’s heel, but the Christ would crush the Serpent’s head. Eventually God will crush Satan beneath his people’s feet.

Meanwhile God made clothes that would cover the shame of the man and woman while they lived in this present age looking forward to the day when Christ would raise their vile bodies and make them like his glorious body with perfect wholeness and harmony of body and soul. On that Day there will be no more shame along with no more death or tears.

Shame is, in part at least, the fear of being found out and rejected. The thought in the heart is, “If anyone knew me as I am, they would reject me. They would cast me out of their company." Underlying this and always accompanying it is the fear that, if God knew us as we are, God would reject us. The irony, of course, is that God does know us just as we are. Still we hide, not only from others, but from God and from ourselves. We pretend he doesn’t see or that we are not so bad as in our dark moments we know ourselves to be. As we do not come clean with others, we do not come clean to God, acknowledging the ugly mess that were are in our stupidity and sin.

Before we come out from hiding, we have to become convinced: (1) That knowing us as we are, God comes seeking us because he wants to be reconciled to us. That the Offended looks for the offender because he wants the enmity between us to end. (2) That Christ hung naked and ashamed on the cross so our sins could be covered by his blood and our persons clothed with his righteousness. (3) That forgiveness of sins and perfect righteousness are received not by our efforts but by faith in Christ whose saving work is fully sufficient. (3) That all this is really true. God wants fellowship restored. Christ did everything necessary for peace with God. There is nothing at all for us to do but believe.

The work we have to do is to work at believing this, because believing it is so hard. It is counter-intuitive. It is counter to so much of our experience with fellow human beings, both our dealing with them and their dealing with us. This is no once and done thing. True it is that the faith that trusts in Christ is decisive and enduring. But, we are constantly harassed by the Accuser of the brethren, by our own accusing consciences, and perhaps by the accusations of others. And in our defensiveness we accuse others - of doing the same things, of doing worse things, of doing more things, of being no better than we. As though that helps us.

Sometimes the accusations we feel are the result of specific sins. “I did that. I said that. It is an offense against God and his grace. It damaged others. It is self-destructive. How could a Christian do or say that?” Sometimes the accusations come from a look inside ourselves. “I am that. It is awful to know it, but that is who I am. How can a Christian be that?” The devil, our consciences, and perhaps others, yell or whisper these things to us, and we are convinced.

There is nothing to be done but to believe the Gospel over and over again. With Abraham to hope against hope. To accept that Christ covers our sins, that God forgives and accepts. To accept fully the trustworthy Word, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” “The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost.”  To be reassured, “Yes, it is true, and yes, it’s for you.”  To receive the sealing sacrament and hear Christ saying, “This is my body which is given for you. This cup that is poured out for you is the blood of the new covenant.”

Now you’d think all this would mean something for life in the church where we hear the Word and receive the Sacrament. But, I am afraid it does not - at least not as it should. The church is too often a place where we “play pretend”, because we dare not do otherwise. We cover ourselves with clothing (some females not so much as they should, which is another issue), go to church (not that most feel a need to “dress up” anymore), but we also cover ourselves with an image when go. We have to look like we’ve got it all together. Like we are not struggling with sin and doubt and depression. Like we’ve got this being a Christian thing figured out and working.

We look like we know we know we are forgiven. Like we have full and unbroken assurance. Like we are so transformed that we enjoy victory over our sins. Like we never have dark thoughts about God’s goodness and even his existence. Like Romans 7 has little relevance to our Christian experience.

We sing with smiling faces (even though we don’t believe in perfection),

Perfect submission, all is at rest,

I in my Savior am happy and blest.

Watching and waiting, looking above,

Filled with his goodness, lost in his love.

Why do we do this? Because we are afraid to do otherwise. It’s the shame. It’s thinking, “The minister and everybody else are different from me. I am the exception. If they knew, they would turn away from me.” And you might be right. Well they might.

Sometimes the conservative church rouses itself to admonish the unruly. But too often it does not do so well encouraging the faint-hearted or helping the weak. So the church becomes a place for hiding and covering up. The unspoken message is, “We won’t ask; you don’t tell. But if you do tell, we (1) may not know what to do, or (2) do nothing as though you did not tell us or (3) shame you, or (4) come down on you like a hammer.” That means there are defeated, discouraged, hurting, and sinning believers who dare not expose themselves and who, if they did, would not experience the acceptance, empathy, compassion, and practical support they need.

To my observation, when it comes to the local church and its members, the most likely results of honesty will be one or more of 1-3 above. When it comes to church courts and ministers, the most likely results of honesty will be 3 and 4.  Honesty becomes not the best policy. Smiling faces may be hiding all the truth. Don’t get real unless the real is cleaned up and pretty.

We hear a lot about “Gospel-driven” churches and ministry. But it seems to me that much of this is contrary to the Gospel. God does not treat people the way the church often treats them. Too often the experiences that believers have with the church makes them afraid that God is like his church. Don’t tell him the truth about yourself. Don’t be transparent when you pray.

A Lyle Lovett song says to a lousy lover about forgiveness, “God does, but I don’t; God will, but I won't; and that’s the difference between God and me.” I wonder if that’s not what the struggling and failing think they hear from the church. However, the reason God tells us to forgive our brother as often as he repents, at least 490 times, is because God is that way. “Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.” Gospel churches are places where the Gospel is not only proclaimed to people but demonstrated in its treatment of people.

Perhaps the church itself needs to listen to Jesus: "First go and learn mercy.

The Six TR Points

TR: Whence? What? Wither?

I was there when the term TR was invented. At least I think I was.

Experts tell us that our memories of the past are not nearly so accurate as we think. In fact not only do we misremember; we can invent memories. Perhaps that is one reason that parents and adult children have such different memories and perceptions of family life as it was. Take that into account as you consider my memories of the genesis of the termTR.

I am fairly confident that the term originated on the campus of Reformed Theological Seminary sometime during my student years, 1969-72.  My guess is that it began to be used during the 1970-71 term. I have a specific memory (and the research suggests the vividness of a memory is no guarantee of its  accuracy) of student banter in the bookstore then housed in the little white building behind the "White House" on campus. Something was said to the effect of "We are truly Reformed" or "We are thoroughly Reformed." The point was that not everybody was. But it was one of those insider jokes - people laughed - a joke that was funny only because it reflected a reality.

A little background: RTS came into existence in a time of great upheaval - social, cultural, political, ecclesiastical. It as the time of the Viet Nam War, civil rights, Woodstock, San Francisco flowers in your hair, "God is dead," the PCUS Covenant Life curriculum, PEF, The Presbyterian Journal, The Pensacola Theological Institute, the conservative caucus in Central Mississippi Presbytery. Belief that the seminaries had liberalized the ministers and that the ministers had liberalized the churches (and the feeling that many ministers did not have sense enough to come in out of the rain) meant that the ruling elder founders of RTS determined the institution would remain free of denominational control and firmly under the control of ruling elders.

The seminary began offering classes on the Jackson campus in 1966. The first class of three men graduated in the Spring of 1969.* By 1970 there was an enrollment of about 100. Those who came to seminary from college were draft deferred as divinity students (4-D) at a time when college graduates came to the end of their student deferments.   The "generation gap" was manifest, if only mildly, even at RTS. For instance, older students sometimes expressed dismay about such things as the younger students wearing their hair longer and socks not at all.

In those days the "traditional student" graduated from college, often with a B.A. degree, and then enrolled in seminary. It was primarily that group who had some prior grasp of the Reformed faith. Most of those  were graduates of Belhaven College with degrees in Bible and several years of Greek.  Other younger students came to seminary from secular colleges and had little, if any, exposure to Reformed theology. For instance the background of some was Campus Crusade for Christ, the Four Spiritual Laws, and the carnal Christian teaching of "Have You Made the Wonderful Discovery of the Spirit-Filled Life?"

There were also the first of what would become a trend - non-traditional students, older students with families, some of them ruling elders in the Presbyterian Church US. Most of them came the world of business, and some struggled with thinking "theologically" rather than "practically." They were conservative men from conservative churches. Evangelism Explosion was an important part of the experience of some. This was a time, however, of very little preaching and teaching of Reformed theology in the churches. The theology of the churches was fundamentalist-evangelical and oriented to evangelism.

What did it mean to be TR in this context?

1. Calvinistic Theology. These men held enthusiastically to Reformed theology as they learned it from the Westminster standards, Berkhof, and professors who had studied at Westminster Theological Seminary with Murray (e.g. Morton Smith and Palmer Robertson). Dr. Morton Smith's lectures were dry, but his three volumed syllabus and class discussions gave students who "got it" the framework of a working theology. TRs grasped, could articulate, and saw some of the practical implications of Calvinism.

2. Biblical Theology. Probably the most exciting courses offered were the young Dr. Palmer Roberston's Old Testament and New Testament theology courses. Dr. Robertson had studied with John Murray, Meredith Kline, and Ed Clowney, understood Vos, and was in the process of constructing his own contributions to the field of Biblical theology (later published as The Christ of the Covenants). Dr. Robertson gave students a framework for understanding the Scriptures, particularly the unity of the covenants, the progressive nature of revelation, and the Christ-centeredness of the Scriptures.

3. Pre-suppositional Apologetics. Some faculty came from the Dutch theological tradition (e.g. DeYoung, Kistemaker), others had studied under Van Til (e.g. Smith, Robertson), and others were familiar with Schaeffer (e.g. Killen).  TRs were convinced Van Tillians. They did not trust reason, rejected the theistic proofs, and did not believe there were any "brute facts." They pre-supposed the Bible and the whole Christian faith as the foundation for all thought. They thought they would demolish strongholds of unbelief and take every thought captive to Christ.

4. World-and-Life View. There was Dutch influence from Christian Reformed faculty members and from Kuyper's Stone lectures at Princeton. There was the Van Til influence from Westminster trained faculty. But, ironically, the primary shaper of students' understanding of a Christian world-and-life view, was a Biblical theologian, Palmer Robertson. Dr. Robertson's unpublished paper on the kingdom and the church combined a Southern Presbyterian theology of the spirituality of the church with a sphere-sovereignty view of the kingdom. The church has a limited mission but the kingdom is bigger than the church. Christians could advance the kingdom by bringing Christ's rule to bear on everything.

5. Experimentalism. Calvinistic experimentalism (or an emphasis on Christian experience) was not a great emphasis of the original faculty. It certainly was not taught in the Practical Department by those responsible for homiletics and counseling courses. Exposure to experimentalism came through one Congregationalist, two Baptists, two Presbyterians, and one publishing house. The Congregationalist was Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Some had heard him "live" in the summer of 1969 at the Pensacola Theological Institute, but his primary influence came via  books (especially The Sermon on the Mount) and taped sermons. The two Baptists were Ernie Reisinger and Al Martin both of whom preached on campus. The Presbyterians were Edwardsian John Gerstner and Puritan Dutchman John R. DeWitt. The publisher was The Banner of Truth with its books and monthly magazine. TRs got from these emphasis on self-examination and conversion, searching sermon application, and a longing for revival.

6. Nouthetic Counseling. Like experimentalism nouthetic counseling came from an outside source, Dr. Jay Adams and his book Competent to Counsel.The book was assigned reading but the counseling courses were not nouthetic in orientation. However, Dr. Adams' book changed the way TRs understood pastoral counseling. Whatever the "presenting" problem the underlying problem, unless there was brain injury or disease, was sin. Once the sin was discovered, confronted, and confessed the counseler could guide the counselee through a program of behavioral and attitudinal change. Change could be effected in a relatively short time. Even long standing problems like depression and life-dominating sins like homosexuality would give way to the nouthetic approach. Identifying the primary problem as sin  meant there was hope for the counselee. The nouthetic approach gave confidence to the pastor who made good use of his Bible. Adams also shaped the TRs' understanding of marriage, children, and family life with loving husbands, submissive wives, obedient children, and happy outcomes.

A couple of notes to close:

1. TRs thought all six things formed a harmnious whole. For instance, they did not see the tensions between Biblical theological preaching and nouthetic counseling on the one hand and experimenalism on the other. Clowney and Adams are not compatible with Reisinger and Martin. There were conflicts and contradictions among the things they embraced.

2. TRs were young, sometimes unwise, often naive. They really believed the things they had learned in seminary and were ready to go out and change churches through their diligent preaching, pastoral work, leadership of sessions, and involvment in presbyteries. They believed churches would welcome their ministries. They were optimistic about the results that would follow. They had an "us and them" outlook toward faculty members, fellow students, and ministers who were not TRs. They were viewed as "young whipper-snappers" by seasoned ministers. For the most part they were not mean-spirited. But they made a lot of mistakes.

3. There was inevitable chagrin on the part of the RTS Board of Trustees ruling elders and ministerial advisors when the TRs got turned loose on the church. These members of the conservative establishment had no concept what it would mean for students to be taught, embrace, and to go out and try to be truly and thoroughly Reformed. It is little wonder that the Board of Trustees experienced  buyer's regret, wished they could recall some of the products early off the line, tried to reign in TRs, and made corrections to try to fix the manufacturing process.

4. Some of those who today hold to many of the things the TRs held and who are able to practice a Reformed minstry are themselves at best unappreciative of and at worst disdainful of the original TRs. Perhaps the originals were John the Baptists for the more wiley and political savvy contemporary Reformed men. The originals certainly found the mountains and rough places. I guess it can be debated whether they made them low and plain. But, it is my view that had those original TRs not been willing to go into the kitchen and take the heat, some today could not cook and serve up their Reformed minstries unmolested.

5. Monikers often become hard to define over time. What is a Republican? Democrat? Puritan? What is a TR as it is used in the recent internet article "Who Won the PCA?" (BTW that article is wrong on several counnts, not least of which are that the TRs ever had a key to the "big house" or that the moderate middle hijacked the PCA. The moderate middle had the keys to the house and controlled the PCA from the get-go.) It seems to me that TR today, if it means anything, means hardline conservative. For some a TR is a theonomist, or a 24-6 young-earther, or a strict subscriptionist. Most of the original TRs have moved on, some for political and practical reasons, some for theological and pastoral reasons, many for maturity and growth reasons. Most of the original generation of TRs did not attain places of influence and are approaching retirement. The young TRs of today don't necessarily recoginze the original TR's as truly TRs, and the orignals may look at the young and feel about them the way they were once felt about by others. It's probably time let the term TR die because it lacks any defining significance.

Perhaps we old TRs can say with General MacArthur:

Old TR's never die

They just fade, fade away.