It probably comes as no surprise to you, dear reader, that the belief system of the CRCNA, which can be called “conservative Calvinism”, could be described as “unpopular”. Conservative Calvinism is offensive for both of those descriptions.
Calvinism has been called by some within fundamental Baptist churches a “doctrine of demons”. The Catholics declared it “anathema”. The orthodox a “heresy”.
To say Calvinism is disliked is often an understatement.
Even within our Calvinist Christian Education, a sort of personal “conversion” is often required. I remember my own conversion to Calvinism when I was in high school — the moment when things “clicked” for me. It’s a phenomenon I’ve seen again and again now as a high school Bible teacher. The first reaction is revulsion. We don’t think it’s true. We don’t want it to be true.
That’s because the Calvinist doctrine of God’s complete “monergistic” act of saving human beings apart from their own personal works is so counter-intuitive for fallen human beings. We want to do the saving. We want to work for our own salvation!
Total Depravity. Unconditional Election. Limited Atonement. Irresistible Grace. Perseverance of the Saints. All 5 Points of the Doctrines of Grace run contrary to how fallen human beings think about religion. ‘Salvation and the afterlife must be earned’, our flesh declares.
We refuse to see how sinful we are. We refuse to realize how holy God is.
Last week we read that it was this insistence and commitment to TULIP, to the teachings of the Canons of Dort, that Gary Bouma defined as “conservative Calvinism”.
Mainline Protestantism dislikes conservative Calvinism, not so much for its beliefs, but for its commitment to its beliefs! ‘The “confessions” are mere historical documents’, they claim. ‘They might be “true” for you, but they hold no real prescriptive value for me.’
So WHY do we hold on so doggedly to the “hard beliefs” (Bouma, p.1) of such an unpopular world-and-life vision? What Bouma calls (with no negative connotation) a “deviant meaning system”?
There’s only one good reason!
Because the Bible tells us so.
God has revealed these truths in His Word, and we, in humility, embrace these truths.
But that doesn’t make them not “hard beliefs”.
And so Bouma’s book “How the Saints Persevere” is seeking to answer the question of how a people group (the CRCNA) can (at the time) be “flourishing in North America and is still publicly adhering to the Canons of Dort”. (p.6)
In fact, Bouma highlights 2 possible directions in which one could “stray from adherence to Dort”. (p.6) He says,
“The upwardly mobile soften Dort’s anthropological pessimism by creating a mroe benign God and a less severely damaged [by sin] creature.” “On the other hand, the downwardly mobile, or relatively socially disadvantaged, will tend to soften Dort by treating God has harsh but potentially malleable if the person is willing to work hard”. [emphasis mine] (p.7)
Temporarily ignore how many in the 2023 CRCNA have fallen into both of those traps…
Let me add what Bouma presents as the positive “narrow path” that the CRC has tread. I think this is important to keep our eyes on…
“The CRC has consistently condemned what it considers to be the errors of fundamentalism. Against the fundamentalists’ biblicism and literalism the CRC asserts its Confessional Standards. [emphasis mine again] […] The fact that the CRC practices infant baptism, has a great respect for the intellect which contrasts strikingly with the general anti-intellectualism of fundamentalism, and flowing from its belief in “common grace” treats this world as a significant arena for human activity in contrast to the fundamentalist tendency to decry this world as totally evil and abhorrent to the Christian; all serve to distinguish this conservative Calvinist confessional church from fundamentalism.” (p.9)
And
“On the other hand, the CRC is also clearly not a “liberal” Protestant denomination. Several facts highlight this. First, the CRC continues to adhere to the Canons of Dort while no other mainline Protestant group in the United States does. […] The CRC has and uses its ecclesiastical courts and procedures in order to maintain its adherence to the confession of the church.
“Another hallmark of the CRC which distinguishes it from “liberal mainline Protestantism” is the CRC practice of “Christian Discipline”. The Consistory of the local congregation is in charge of monitoring member’s behavior and is charged with the responsibility of bringing that behavior into conformity with church regulations.” (p.9)
How exactly is (was) the CRC able to “thrive in a hostile environment” while toeing such a difficult line?
Again, Bouma will eventually lead us to the 5 Structural Factors in Persevering that were briefly introduced last week (and into which we will dive and expand in the coming weeks).
But first, Bouma takes the time to analyze the membership and survey data to come to a conclusion about why and why not people stay in or leave the CRCNA. In the end, his conclusion is this:
“They stayed because the CRC emphasized doctrine, TULIP, catechism and discipline.” [Bouma italicized this whole sentence.]
“The beliefs which we have claimed are unpopular in contemporary western culture form the very core of their motivation to attend and support the CRC." (p.32)
His argument:
“The CRC has a vision. It is a theologically integrated world view which is shared and known by the members. Why do people stay CRC? They have a vision? A vision for which they are willing to sacrifice. The key task facing the CRC is the maintenance of the vision and the willingness to sacrifice for it.” (p.33)
What is this vision?
“The central organizing vision of the CRC is the Puritan ideal of a life — both personal and social — which is lived deliberately, intentionally and carefully to the greater glory of God. […] The vision of the CRC is rooted in Dutch Puritanism and can be described as ascetic, this-worldly, all pervasive and sectarian.” (p.48)
What does that mean? Here are Bouma’s descriptions for each of these 4 parts:
Ascetic
“The CRC version of the Puritan dream is an ascetic vision. This is, it requires an active mastery over ones’ self, emotions, intellect, ambitions, over one’s relationships, and one’s environment.” (p.49)
This Worldly
“The asceticism which is demanded is not directed toward other-wordly goals or rewards, such as the attainment of heaven, earning God’s favor, or personal spiritual perfection. After all, these are not granted on the basis of personal ascetic successes, but have been decided before all time by God through predestination. No, that asceticism is directed toward the ordering of this life in such a way that it more closely conforms with God’s will as revealed in the scriptures and interpreted by the three creedal standards of the CRC — The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort.” (p.50)
All-Pervasive
“It is not a part-time, segmented slice of one’s commitments. The vision of the CRC is to be the central organizing principle in all of a person’s or group’s activities. […] The vision of the CRC demands the total integration of life around Christian principles.” (p.50)
Sectarian
“It calls one out of the world and demands that one be different. […] It is sectarian in that it sets itself off against the world, and demands that “worldiness” be subdued, and that the world be transformed. But while being sectarian it is not isolationist. It is clearly present in the world and affirms that presence as a point of leverage from which to work to shape the world according to Christian principles.” (p.51)
In the next part, we’ll give these 4 elements some updated, 2023, analysis.
And we’ll also see what Bouma sets forth as “The Requirements of the CRC Vision”.