For many the eighteenth century is regarded as the “century of mission,” or perhaps the century of the so-called First Great Awakening.1 But if fidelity to the Reformed Confession is a mark of the health of the church, there are many ways in which the eighteenth century was perhaps not the benchmark of spiritual vitality that many would have us think. Wes Bredenhof provides a quote from Roelf Christiaan Janssen’s PhD dissertation, “By this our Subscription: Confessional Subscription in the Dutch Reformed Tradition Since 1816,” illustrating the weakness of confessional commitment and fidelity in the Hervormde Kerk (the Dutch Reformed Church) in the eighteenth century.2
There are other indicators. As part of his summer series on Reformed theology after Calvin (orthodoxy), Dan Borvan discussed the career and teaching of Jacob Vernet (1698–1789), a student of Jean Alphonse Turrettini (son of Francis) who had already begun to downplay and even reject significant aspects of the Reformed confession. Vernet continued that trajectory in most unhappy ways, so much so that Socinians (rationalists and the forebears of modern Unitarian Universalism) thought of him as one of their own.
There were orthodox figures in the eighteenth century, but it was, it seems to me, largely a century of compromise with modernity and equivocation. The orthodox writers of the period, whether in Europe or the English-speaking world, are by and large not very interesting, and the creative figures (e.g., Jonathan Edwards) are ambiguous and problematic in significant ways.
The point of this article, however, is to ask us to think about how we measure well-being in the church. For many the eighteenth century is a paradigm of a healthy church because it is the period during which the modern missions movement got its start. For others, the eighteenth century is paradigmatic because of the outbreak of revival. According to these two measures, every period since the eighteenth century is more or less unsuccessful or unhealthy because it lacks the missions fervor or the necessary marks of “revival.” What if, however, at the same time religious excitement (to use a more neutral term) broke out, the genuinely evangelical faith of the Reformation, the original definition of “evangelical,” was being undermined by a loss of confidence in the Word of God as the true, reliable, revelation of God in Christ? What if, at the very same time, fundamental Christian doctrines such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, or the doctrines of predestination and justification were being lost in favor of autonomous human reason? What if the movements that became known as Romanticism (a turn to subjective affective experience) and rationalism (the replacement of objective, divine authority primarily in the Scriptures and secondarily in the church with autonomous human reason) profoundly shaped eighteenth-century theology and set the stage for the collapse of Christianity in the nineteenth century? The evidence suggests that, in fact, this is exactly what was happening.
Most people would recognize that, in many ways, the nineteenth century was a most unhappy one for evangelical Christianity. It witnessed the rise of Protestant liberalism and higher criticism in biblical studies, a resurgence of Tridentine Romanism, the Anglo-Catholicism of the Oxford Movement (Darryl Hart’s account of Nevin notwithstanding, a version of Anglo-Catholicism appeared in corners of the [German] Reformed Church in the U.S.), Romanticism, and Finneyite revivalism. From where did these phenomena arise? Did they drop out of the blue sky with no connection to the eighteenth century? No, they did not. These developments had precursors in the eighteenth century.
This might seem like a wholesale indictment of the eighteenth century. It is not meant to be exactly. It is meant to ask us to rethink how we measure ecclesiastical and spiritual prosperity. The eighteenth century was a time of religious excitement, busy-ness, and novelty. In those respects, at least, our time (as Dan pointed out Sunday morning) is like the eighteenth century. It may seem prosperous and thrilling, but examined from a distance such times may look a bit different. The collapse of Reformed confessionalism in the eighteenth century may, in fact, be a better indicator of the true state of things. In that century, the Reformed churches effectively lost the regulative principle of worship (to which loss the revivalists contributed mightily) and other essential elements of the Reformed theology, piety, and practice (such as a piety ordered by Word and sacrament ministry). Judged by these indicators, the eighteenth century may not be the one we want to try and imitate.
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on the Heidelblog in 2009.
Notes
- For more on this see chapter 3 of R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008).
- Wes Bredenhof, “18th Century Familiarity with the Confessions,” Yinkahdinay (blog), August 31, 2009. Bredenhof cites Roelf Christiaan Janssen, “By this our Subscription: Confessional Subscription in the Dutch Reformed Tradition Since 1816,” PhD diss, Proefschrift Theologische Universiteit Kampen, 2009).
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Good stuff Dr. People seem to forget that Calvin sent a ton of missionaries. Most went to France and dies there as martyrs. People also forget that he sent people to Brazil. Huguenots even made it to Spain and South Africa. Early on in the Dutch churches many went to South America with just a Bible, the Heidelberg Catechism, and a psalter. People for some reason always overlook the reformation and go to the period in time where they had the most people falling on the ground during worship. Speaking gibberish which is my translation for tongues. And a Sunday worship that looks like more of Ted talk with whatever the Christian version of Oasis would be to accompany it. I’ve been in those groups where people are screaming for revival and doing all that charismatic nonsense. Its so fake and destructive it makes me depressed just thinking about it. When people tell me they want revival all I hear is one big farce that is just going to introduce a wave of weirdness which is the charismatic movement. Marks of a healthy church, if anybody is reading this, if that’s what your looking for read article 29 of the Belgic confession https://heidelblog.net/belgic/. When you see those three marks, pure preaching of the gospel, pure administration of the sacraments, and church disciple that’s a great start. Some good tips that helped me though is that when you see pure preaching of the gospel, think of the law gospel distinction right away as confessed by the reformers. A great definition is question and answer 36 of Zacharias Ursinus larger catechism. When looking ate the pure administration of the sacrament, think of baptism, and yes that includes babies, and the Lords supper. For more on those look at Belgic confession article 33-35. And for church discipline look at Heidelberg 83-85. If you have this down your in good shape. But if you want to be in really good shape just hold to the three forms of Unity as confessed by the URCNA and you’ll be more than fine.
I think we can only attest to our own time or perhaps the time of those who can directly witness their experience to us. For me, being in the Presbyterian Church for well over a half century and having a father who had been in the Presbyterian Church for forty years before me, the two of us pretty much cover a century. From my assessment of his experience passed on to me and my direct experience, a true revival is underway and has been for the last half century. This revival may never get the attention it deserves but it is a revival the likes of which has not been seen since the 16th Protestant Reformation. It is not a revival with mass conversion from elementary/pedagogical or pagan religions (i.e.. Pentecost). It is a revival of true biblical Christianity within the existing church. It is not limited to a narrow region in Europe. It is all across the world. Having been reared in the Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS), I can personally see it in the growth of the PCA. Not only in numbers, but more so in confessional orthodoxy. I can see it in the confessional subscription of the young 30 and 40 somethings that are now pastoring congregations. I can see it in the solid Seminaries all over the US. I can see it in the number of NAPRC congregations. When my dad was a child, these things only existed in isolation. When I was a child, a movement began to continue the true church through a new fledgling and discontinuous denomination. Now we PCA congregations along with our NAPRC brothers make up a new descriptor of the visible church. The “American Reformed” are launching reformation off of this continent and are vessels through which the Spirit will bring revival to the rest of the Church, who will be the Ark of Safety for the elect of every nation.
I see that you’re not issuing a wholesale indictment (exactly) of the 18th century, but are showing that we must be discerning about what was happening. The missionary impulse was good, I’m sure. You’re asking us to consider that even in the midst of good impulses, there was a deterioration going on in practice and doctrine. I see that, and I was a great lover of all things 18th century in the church (including Edwards and Watts and Whitefield). From where I sit, Dr. Clark, there seems to be no hope to bring the churches back, amidst all this prosperity and busyness and good impulses and the means to carry them out, to ask leaders to stop and look back to church history and Scripture with a willingness to be warned and instructed. But nothing is too hard for God. I’ll keep at prayer for the church as I know so many others are, and trust God’s plan and Providence.
Great post!
Provocative as always, Dr Clark.
I will admit that, even having read RCC, I find myself genuinely torn over the 18th century. One area in particular is missions. I very much hope to go into Church planting in Spain and while I’m a baptist (of the London Baptist Confession type) I have a great deal of sympathy with many of your concerns.
As a British conservative Evangelical, I live in a church milleiu which places a very high value on the missionary endeavours of the 18th Century. Could you possibly recommend a history of more confessional missions? I’d be interested to see how their methods differ.
Thanks
Ed
It’s not out yet, but may I recommend Bryan DeVries’ “You Will Be My Witnesses: Theology for God’s Church Serving in Mission” (due out in September, I believe)? It’s not only a fabulous introduction to missions from a confessional Reformed perspective, but the footnotes will open up a wide vista of sources for the kind of thing you are looking for here, both regarding the British and Continental streams of Reformed theology.
Thank you Iain!