A Word About Transformationalism

Painting a CRC Future: Part 4

By now, it has long been common within the Christian Reformed Church to speak of three distinctive points of emphasis within those who claim the label of “Reformed”. These are sometimes referred to as the 3 “minds” within the denomination.

They are

• Doctrinalist

• Pietist

• Transformationalist

And as we’re thinking about the future of CRCNA distinctives, the future of a CRCNA Vision, we should look at these.

Here is how the CRC-produced “What it Means to be Reformed” pamphlet distinquishes each of these three minds:

Doctrinalist

“refers primarily to a strong adherence to certain Christian doctrines as taught in the Scriptures and reflected in the confessions of the church. The question for doctrinalists is: What do we believe? Doctrinalists especially appreciate Louis Berkhof, a Reformed theologian whose Systematic Theology is a thorough summary of Reformed doctrine.”

Pietist

“refers to the Christian life and to one’s personal relationship to God. The question for pietists is: How do we experience God in our daily walk of faith? Pietists especially appreciate Hendrik de Cock, a pastor in the Netherlands who led the Afscheiding, a breakoff in 1834 from the Dutch state church that had lost its theological and spiritual vitality.”

Transformationalist

“refers to the relationship of Christianity to culture, to a world-and-life view, and to Christ as transforming culture. The question for transformationalists is: How do we relate the gospel to the world? Transformationalists especially appreciate Abraham Kuyper, a pastor, scholar, and prime minister of the Netherlands who led the Doleantie movement in the Netherlands in the 1880s, a movement that stressed the development of a Christian culture and had a very direct impact upon the CRC in North America.”

It seems to me that there has been some antagonistic pushback from two of these minds “against” each other.

The Transformationalists push back against the Doctrinalists today. “Doctrine divides”, is the claim. “Doctrine hinders our witness, drawing lines for gatekeeping rather than being open and welcoming.” (I’m not directly quoting anyone here.) Doctrinalists are claimed to be cold and “unloving”, caring only about “being right” rather than about real people.

On the other hand, the Doctrinalists have been increasingly critical of the Transformationalists, claiming that they “have themselves succumbed to the worldiness of culture rather than actually having any real transformative effect on the culture”. Their denial of doctrinal distinctives creates only a foundationless church which lacks any real unity and could instead be leading people into dangerous false beliefs, thus away from Christ, not toward Him.

The Pietists, in my limited analysis, seem to be increasingly a distinction within the two above camps. I’d appreciate feedback on this, but to me it seems like the doctrinalist/transformationalist divide influences how one is outwardly pius. I have a hard time imagining a strong personal piety that manifests itself outside of the above categories.

This may reflect the broader claim that North America is becoming increasingly binary, rather than increasingly open to nuance.

Regardless, I believe that it is important for the CRCNA to continue to hold onto these three “minds” within the denomination.

Personally, I am one who “converted” from Transformationalist toward Doctrinalist, in large part due to the concerns shared above. But I believe that we should not dismiss the concerns listed above, on both sides! Those of us who lean Doctrinalist must guard against forms of piety that become too insular! The Love of God pours out into Love of Neighbor. Otherwise it is not true Love of God.

On the other hand, worldliness is an evergreen problem in the church, and I believe there is more danger and temptation toward worldiness for Christians than ever before.

We each need to take these fears and concerns and give them a fair shake in our own lives.

While I continue to hold concerns about not just the approach of Transformationalism but also the level of potential effectiveness of transforming… I do believe that our Reformed Theology leads us to embrace a world-and-life-view that enables and encourages an all-of-life commitment to outward acts of faith.

I think that we should keep this threefold distinction as descriptive of who the CRC is and what the CRC should continue to be.

But I want to add one more suggestion/push-back for the CRC’s understanding of Transformationalism.

Transformationalism is not wrong inherently, but can become wrong when directed at an impossible goal — a goal which God does not call us to — which is the transformation of this current world in this current Church Age into the eschatalogical New Heavens and New Earth.

Transformationalism is good when it seeks as its goal a transformation of one’s personal and social life in conformity to God’s Moral Laws and Christ’s personal and Apostolic teachings from the New Testament. But Transformationalism errs when it has an “over-realized eschatology” and attempts to bring Heaven down to earth by any means other than the Word of Christ proclaimed.

We can embrace the “already” aspect of the presence of the Kingdom of God for believers while waiting patiently for the “Not Yet” eschatalogical fulfillment of Christ’s Second Coming. Here we seek both to mitigate sin in our own lives and help our fellow Christians do the same, knowing that sin persists in everyone until the Lord’s return and that thus personal and corporate repentence from sin is needed every day.

In this current Age, God grows His Kingdom through the salvation of human souls. Christians can and should live outward, publically-Christians lives in which they plant trees, start Christian businesses, make great music, etc… but these acts do not build God’s Kingdom on earth.

We can call these acts “God-glorifying acts of Kingdom Citizens”. And they might even be acts which God uses in His Common Grace and Providence to lead individuals toward future salvation, but that’s the closest we should come in our thinking about “building the Kingdom”.

There must always be a healthy balance of “the antithesis”. While working in this world as Christians, our own actions will always be tainted by sin, and the unbelieving world will always suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The antithesis does not stop us from working within and among unbelievers, but it should open our eyes to the limited scope of “transformationalism”.

We should seek to “transform” our world. But this is a rearranging of worldly furniture toward a more God-glorifying arrangment. Only God can make new furniture or new rooms.