I have a close acquaintance who belongs to an Evangelical Free Church in the Midwest that is currently showing a video series about the “Christian worldview.” My acquaintance is attending each showing of the film series and taking notes and doing his best to absorb it while thinking critically about it at the same time.
I have not seen this series and I doubt that I have time to watch it all. But I have been hearing more and more about it. According to my acquaintance, it is promoted (at least in his church) as a defense of “the” Christian worldview. I would assume, then, that it would be generic Christianity and not some specific denominational perspective that is being promoted and defended.
However, if my acquaintance is understanding correctly and reporting to me correctly, the speaker in the series is actually subtly promoting Reformed theology. One of his talks revolves around the idea of “social spheres”–each established by God and patterned after the Trinity. Government is one; the family is another. Apparently, church is supposed to influence government while government is supposed to keep its hands off the church.
As a historical theologian I recognize this right away as one strand of Reformed theology–channeled to America mainly by disciples of Abraham Kuyper. That is not to say it is wrong but only that it is certainly not generic Christianity. Nor does it belong to Evangelical Free tradition which is Pietist.
I’m not against a particular denominational perspective being promoted and defended, but I think it should be done openly and not under the guise of a presentation of generic Christianity.
According to my acquaintance there are other aspects of the video series that are decidedly Reformed–such as a view of God’s sovereignty as meticulous and absolute leaving very little or no room for human free will.
I am a firm believer that people should make clear and public their theological inclinations and presuppositions and not hide them. According to my acquaintance, at least so far, he has not heard the speaker state that his presentation is from the Reformed perspective. If he did that, many in a typical Evangelical Free Church would probably be on their guard.
All I’m saying is that we should all make it a habit to be as absolutely transparent as possible, explaining to people our particularist commitments when representing “Christianity.”
For example, if I am invited to talk about Christian theology at a Lutheran church I should not smuggle in Baptist perspectives as if they are part of generic, “mere” Christianity. I should announce and admit that some of what I say will probably be colored by my Baptist identity OR ELSE keep my Baptist commitments out of my presentation.
Again, I am NOT accusing anyone connected with the series in qusetion of dishonesty; I’m just suggesting that it would be best to be completely open and transparent (if he is not) about his specific doctrinal commitments as tied to the Reformed tradition. No other tradition that I know about includes a presentation of “social spheres” patterned after the Trinity (as part of God’s created order).
Now, since I have not seen the series, I freely admit I may be misinformed about it. Perhaps someone who has watched the series can correct my information if that is the case. Or, perhaps someone who has watched the series can confirm it.
But my main point isn’t tied to the series. It is, whether the series does or not, that people presenting mere Christianity should be totally open about their particular traditional commitments and strictly avoid mixing them into mere Christianity without clearly announcing that is what one is doing. In fact, it is probably best to preface such a presentation (whether theological or apologetic or whatever) by saying “I am a [Baptist] and that is probably inevitably going to color some of what I say about Christianity even though I will attempt to keep my presentation as generic as possible.”
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In