Category: Mercersburg Theology (Page 5 of 5)

The Mercersburg Theology and the Quest for Reformed Catholicity.  

By W. Bradford Littlejohn

In recent years there has been a growing interest in Mercersburg Theology among young Reformed scholars.  Why the interest in a “dinky little German seminary, and its two underpaid and unrenowned teachers”? (p. 170)  The answer lies in the growing pained awareness of modern Protestantism’s dysfunctional and fractured state.  W. Bradford Littlejohn found in Mercersburg Theology a corrective to the “low sacramentology and ecclesiology” popularized by Charles Hodge and Princeton Seminary (p. 18).

The book is organized along the lines of seven chapters.  The first three provide an introduction to Mercersburg Theology.  Chapter 3 provide an insightful discussion of the clash between John Nevin and Charles Hodge.  Where Hodge defined Christianity as a system of doctrine, Nevin insisted that it was life in Christ (p. 83).  Where Hodge’s dualism led him to view the church as being the invisible church, Nevin insisted that the church was a visible organic reality (p. 78).  These are especially helpful for Reformed Christians who are wondering if something has gone horribly wrong with Calvinism and/or Evangelicalism.

Mercersburg Theology and Eastern Orthodoxy

In the next three chapters Littlejohn utilizes Mercersburg’s catholicity to enter into ecumenical dialogue with the Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic traditions.  What makes the book so pertinent to this blog is Chapter 5: “Facing East: Mercersburg and Eastern Orthodoxy.”

Littlejohn notes that there is no direct historical connection between Mercersburg and Eastern Orthodoxy.  Despite the lack of direct connections, he finds common ground in the way Nevin and Schaff understood soteriology, more specifically with respect to the Incarnation, the mystical union, and theosis.  Nevin’s understanding of salvation as union with Christ and as a lifelong process of growth and transformation places him much closer to the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis than the Protestant emphasis on justification.

Littlejohn facilitates conversation between the two traditions through clarification of differences.  He draws our attention to Donald Fairbairn’s observation that where the West understands grace as God’s attitude towards us, the East understands grace as God giving us himself (pp. 137-138).  This insight sheds light on one of the presuppositional differences between the two traditions.

I was surprised to find so little attention given to Nevin’s teaching on the mystical presence in the Eucharist.  Nevin’s defense of Calvin’s affirmation of the real presence is what got me interested in Mercersburg Theology and it provides an obvious link to Eastern Orthodoxy.  But Littlejohn makes clear that his intent has been to focus on an area where the two traditions rarely see eye-to-eye (p. 146).  In this he is right because agreement on the sacraments contains the danger of superficial agreement that leads to Anglican comprehensiveness where the same sacraments are celebrated while the celebrants hold to differing interpretations.  By exploring the organic and dynamic nature of salvation in Christ and how it relates to the Orthodox doctrine of salvation as theosis Littlejohn has boldly attempted to construct a theological bridge across one of the widest divide between the two traditions.

Assessment

Littlejohn’s citations show that he has read and carefully digested the writings of contemporary Orthodox theologians: John Meyendorff, Georges Florovsky, Kallistos Ware, Christoforos Stavropoulos, and Bradley Nassif.  He also draws upon Reformed theologians, like Fairbairn, who shows an empathetic understanding of Orthodoxy.

Are there any shortcomings in Littlejohn’s book?  I wished that he had given more attention to Schaff’s dynamic Hegelian understanding of church history which I’m sure many Orthodox will take issue with.  Schaff’s version of church history has implications for how we understand Christian unity.  Also, any sustained dialogue between the Reformed and Orthodox traditions will have to address the Filioque controversy that divides the West from the East.  Discussing the Filioque will take us into the areas of how we understand the Trinity, the role and authority of the Ecumenical Councils, and the differences between the cataphatic and apophatic ways of doing theology.

Conclusion

The Reformed community is undergoing a revival of sorts as evidenced by Christianity Today’s article: “Young, Restless, Reformed.”  It is also undergoing a fermentation of sorts as young Reformed scholars like W. Bradford Littlejohn and Jonathan G. Bonomo embrace the Mercersburg vision of a catholic and high church Reformed tradition.

Mercersburg Theology brings to light the fact that the Protestant Reformation is a far richer and complex tradition than many Evangelical and Reformed Christians think.  It is hoped that an appreciation of the catholicity of the Reformed tradition will stimulate further dialogue between the Reformed and Orthodox traditions.

This slim book is highly recommended for: (1) Reformed Christians who wish to explore the richness and catholicity of Reformed theology, (2) Evangelicals seeking a more rigorous and sophisticated approach to theology, and (3) Reformed Christians who want to enter into dialogue with the historic churches: Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox.

One last caveat, Littlejohn’s slim work is just an introduction to Mercersburg Theology.  Those who embrace the Mercersburg vision will need to read Nevin and Schaff for themselves.  This is now possible thanks to the Internet resources provided by the Mercersburg Society.  Even then, Nevin and Schaff are interpreters of Calvin and the Reformers.  Being more solidly grounded in the sources of their faith tradition  — the Reformers and the early Church Fathers — will enable Reformed Christians to enter into an informed dialogue with Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Robert K. Arakaki

See: Daniel Alders review on Reforming Politics and Culture blog.

See also the comments on Goodreads.com.

Home.

Incarnation and Sacrament: The Eucharistic Controversy between Charles Hodge and John Williamson Nevin.  By Jonathan G. Bonomo

In 2010, Jonathan Bonomo published his Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary M.A. thesis under the title: Incarnation and Sacrament.  The book’s small size (135 pages including references) belies its significance for Reformed theology and interfaith dialogue with Eastern Orthodoxy.  A number of well known Reformed theologians spoke highly of the book: Gabriel Fackre, Michael Horton, Peter Leithart, and Richard Lints.  The foreword was written by Keith Mathison.

In this review I will sketch out: (1) the controversy between Hodge and Nevin, (2) Bonomo’s exploration of the differences between the two theologians, and (3) how Bonomo’s book can facilitate Reformed-Eastern Orthodox dialogue.

The Controversy: Hodge vs. Nevin

Charles Hodge

In the mid 1800s, a major controversy broke out between two major Reformed theologians: Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary and John Nevin of the German Reformed Seminary in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania.

The controversy began when Nevin published the Mystical Presence in 1846 in which he argued that Calvin and the early Reformers taught the real presence in the Lord’s Supper.  In short, Nevin was saying that the widely held symbolic understanding of the Lord’s Supper was Zwinglian and not at all Reformed.

John W. Nevin

Charles Hodge countered with a defense of the symbolic understanding of the Lord’s Supper.  Nevin responded with a lengthy rebuttal to which Hodge made no reply.  Hodge’s mute silence represents a defeat on the battlefield of theological debate, but in the long run Hodge won the war because his symbolic understanding came to be the prevailing view among Reformed Christians and Evangelicals in America.

Findings

Both Hodge and Nevin belonged to the Reformed tradition yet they had radically disparate understandings of the Christian faith.  Bonomo’s book brings to light the cultural and intellectual forces that shaped their respective theologies.  He points to the significant influence of Scottish Commonsense Realism on Hodge’s individualistic and rationalistic thinking (Note 3, p. 6; Note 10, p. 38).  Furthermore, he takes note of the nominalism that shaped Hodge’s anthropology, and led him to adopt an overtly federalist theological system and a forensic understanding of salvation (pp. 10-13).  By exploring the differences between the two theologians, Bonomo brings to light assumptions long taken for granted by Reformed Christians and Evangelicals in America.  What becomes evident is that their beliefs and practices are more American than Reformed.

The Incarnation was another area where Hodge and Nevin differed.  For Nevin, the Incarnation was not just an individual event but God entering into the life of the human race (p. 71).  Because Christ was the Second Adam salvation meant not just the imputation of Christ’s righteousness but also the impartation of Christ’s life (p. 78).  Where for Hodge the locus of salvation was the Cross, for Nevin it was the Incarnation.  Not unexpectedly, Hodge disagreed (pp. 89-90).  Nevin’s understanding of a universal humanity flew in the face of Hodge’s nominalist philosophy (pp. 113-114).  This difference led to quite different understandings of the church.  Where Hodge understood the church to be an aggregation of individuals who believed in Christ, Nevin understood the church to be a group of individuals who shared a common life through union with Christ.  The latter view is much closer to that held by the early Church Fathers.

Nevin’s focus on the Incarnation and his emphasis on a mystical union with Christ led him to insist on the real presence in the Lord’s Supper and the Eucharist as central to Christianity (p. 22).  Nevin’s argument that Calvin held to the real presence in the Eucharist points to common ground between the Reformed and Orthodox traditions.

Reformed-Orthodox Dialogue

Bonomo laments that American Protestantism even now continues to suffer from “historical amnesia” (p. xvi).  His and Nevin’s attempts to study the original sources of Reformed theology and the early Church Fathers represent an attempt to break free of this amnesia.  This marks a promising development.  As Reformed Christians become familiar with the early Church, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Church Fathers they will find common ground with Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Recent Orthodox apologetics have criticized the forensic understanding of salvation.  Bonomo’s book shows that ironically what is being criticized is a deviant form of Reformed theology.  An open minded reading of Calvin’s Institutes shows that he has much to say about our mystical union with Christ; this is a theme that echo the early Church Fathers.  In other words, the gap between Reformed Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy may not be as wide as commonly assumed.

Bonomo does the Reformed tradition a service by bringing attention to Mercersburg Theology, a little known but highly significant expression of Reformed theology.  He is part of a recent trend among Reformed Christians, e.g., Keith Mathison and W. Bradford Littlejohn.  The question whether or not Mercersburg Theology can effectively bridge the gap between Reformed Christianity and Orthodoxy will be addressed in a future posting on this blog.

In closing, Bonomo’s book shows that Reformed theology is much more complex and diverse than many have assumed it to be.  What many assume to be Reformed theology is a modernized and Americanized adaptation.  This means that many Reformed Christians need to take another closer look at the sources for their Reformed theology.  There are indications that Calvin’s theology was much closer to Eastern Orthodoxy than that of his modern day followers.  Bonomo does a great service by providing Reformed Christians with the tools for a critical reassessment of their belief systems.  He also helps remove obstacles that impede Reformed-Orthodox dialogue.  For these reasons Bonomo’s book is highly recommended.

Robert K. Arakaki