On March 9, 2021, Kevin DeYoung wrote an insightful and heartfelt article regarding the deepening polarization across not only the American Evangelical landscape but also within the subset of Reformed Evangelicalism. Until COVID-19 (and some earlier events that were particular to the American scene), this movement seemed unshakeably united despite obvious differences on second degree issues.
I have observed and grieved over the same reality here in Canada and wrote an article entitled “A Deeper Freedom and a Richer Fellowship” in 2022. [1]
Kevin probed deeper into the splintering and helpfully divided that fracturing into four categories. In this article, I revisit those categories to help us process the sharp division we sense and experience on the Canadian scene as we emerge from COVID-19.
DeYoung’s analysis is beneficial as always, and my hope is to simply help us here in Canada by applying that same analysis to our context.
DeYoung’s Argument
Kevin began his article by stating:
‘It’s no secret that America is suffering from ever-deepening division and polarization. Many of us are concerned about the increasing animosity, belligerence, and violence in our body politic. What concerns me even more are the divisions in the church, in particular, the growing factionalism in the conservative evangelical Reformed world I inhabit. Whether the problem is on the right or on the left (or both), there is little doubt that our Young, Restless, and Reformed tribe is less young (and maybe less Reformed?), but certainly as restless as ever.’[2]
These divisions seem to be a result of an elevation of second and third tier differences (to borrow theological triage language from Mohler and Ortlund) to first level issues. In other words, many Canadians equated differences of approach to current controversial topics with sin and a denial of the orthodox faith once delivered to the saints.
Kevin continues:
‘My memory may be too rosy, but in my estimation—having been “in the room” for most of this history—the early 2000s, up until 2014, saw a remarkable coming together of a variety of Reformed and Reformedish networks, ministries, and church leaders. Of course, the “Reformed resurgence” or “New Calvinism” or “YRR” was always divided along some obvious lines. There were the usual disagreements about the sacraments and spiritual gifts and polity and approaches to worship. But the “team” was held together by a number of important theological convictions: historic Christian orthodoxy, inerrancy, penal substitution, Calvinist soteriology, the Reformation solas, complementarianism, and the centrality of expositional preaching. Across the almost decade of (apparent) unity, there was also a shared sense of what the movement was NOT: we were not liberals, not Arminians, not Emergent, not seeker sensitive, not prosperity gospel, not egalitarians, not revisionist on sexual ethics, not Catholics, not watered-down evangelicals, and not compromisers on unpopular doctrinal truths.’ [3]
Kevin then highlights several events in the American context that abruptly seemed to change that harmony.[4] He goes on to say:
‘…But it’s not just race that divides us [in the American context]. It is more broadly our different instincts and sensibilities, our divergent fears and suspicions, our various intellectual and cultural inclinations. Yes, there are important theological disagreements too, and these demand the best attention of our heads and hearts. But in many instances, people who can affirm the same doctrinal commitments on paper are miles apart in their posture and practice.’ [5]
I began my vocational ministry in southwestern Ontario in 2003, so I feel as though I have also been “in the room” for much of this YRR move across America and then Canada, something we experienced differently north of the border but no less profoundly.
It seemed that, by God’s grace and for His glory alone, we were privileged to occupy a period of history that enabled us to overcome our differences on legitimate second-tier disagreements in order to cooperate and collaborate for the sake of the Kingdom of God, emphasizing our agreement on first tier doctrines to share the gospel with our communities and disciple Christians within our sphere of influence.
Our mutual love and affection for the deep riches of the doctrines of grace and their outflowing applications united us for a brief period and saw much positive result in the form of conversions, spiritual growth, church planting and revitalization, and partnerships for the sake of the souls of men and not merely the personal benefit of those forming them.
As it should always do, the gospel rose to the forefront and impacted ministries across our nation, unsullied by lesser considerations and distracting arguments. For a too brief window, we experienced Christ at the centre of our lives and ministries.[6]
And then that seemed to shift when COVID-19 hit. While we were impacted somewhat by the Black Lives Matter movement, our cultural reckoning came as the residential school controversy was thrust into the spotlight. The Trucker Convoy, gender and sexuality ideologies, and climate change debates (especially recently in light of the wildfires across our nation) also bubbled up after a brief respite at the beginning of the COVID-19 restrictions.
These are now seemingly dominating the discussion, not just in popular Canadian culture but from our pulpits and across various social media platforms.
The priority of the gospel has been replaced by other concerns, ostensibly because they are gospel concerns. Yet the animosity and belligerence that Kevin observed in the US and that we see also in Canada undermines this contention. If we united around the gospel not even five years ago, and the gospel hasn’t changed (Hebrews 13:8), whence comes the deepening divide?
It is to this that Kevin turned his attention next, asking the vital question, why?
Why such Divisions?
‘Why?
‘That’s what I’ve been thinking about over the last year or more. I don’t have the last word on how to assess the problem, let alone all the next steps toward addressing the problem. But attempting to understand what’s going on is an important start.’[7]
Though a much lesser theologian than Kevin, I intend to further assess the problem and provide some next steps toward addressing it here in Canada in a follow-up article with the working title “Avoiding Friendly Fire”.
Before doing so, however, Kevin’s analysis which follows is as applicable two years on as it was when he first offered it, and so we would do well to consider it before moving forward. A proper diagnosis should always precede a suggested prescription.
Four Teams of Reformed Evangelicals
‘It seems to me there are at least four different “teams” at present. Many of the old networks and alliances are falling apart and being re-formed along new lines. These new lines are not doctrinal in the classic sense.
Rather, they often capture a cultural mood, a political instinct, or a personal sensibility. You could label each team by what it sees as the central need of the hour, by what it assesses as the most urgent work of the church in this cultural moment. Let’s give each group an adjective corresponding to this assessment.’
- ‘Contrite: Look at the church’s complicity in past and present evils. We have been blind to injustice, prejudice, racism, sexism, and abuse. What the world needs is to see a church owning its sins and working, in brokenness, to make up for them and overcome them.
- Compassionate: Look at the many people hurting and grieving in our midst and in the world. Now is the time to listen and learn. Now is the time to weep with those who weep. What the world needs is a church that demonstrates the love of Christ.
- Careful: Look at the moral confusion and intellectual carelessness that marks our time. Let’s pay attention to our language and our definitions. What the world needs is a church that will draw upon the best of its theological tradition and lead the way in understanding the challenges of our day.
- Courageous: Look at the church’s compromise with (if not outright capitulation to) the spirit of the age. Now is the time for a trumpet blast, not for backing down. What the world needs is a church that will admonish the wayward, warn against danger, and stand as a bulwark for truth, no matter how unpopular.’
‘Notice that each “team” is labeled with a positive word. Although I’m closer to 3 than to any other category, I’ve tried my best to label each group in a way that expresses the good that they are after.
Most of us will read the list above and think, “I like all four words. At the right time, in the right place, in the right way, the church should be contrite, compassionate, careful, and courageous.”
The purpose of this schema is not to pigeonhole people or groups, nor is it to suggest that if we could just mix in 25% from each category then all our problems would be solved. I realize that the danger with schemas like this is that people may further divide by placing others into rigid categories or that people may stumble into moral equivalency as if there are no right approaches or right answers.’
‘Having made those important caveats, I believe that conceptual groupings can help us see more clearly that our disagreements are not just about one thing, but about the basic posture and way in which we see a whole lot of things.
Although any categorization tool will be generalized, simplified, and imperfect, they can still be useful, especially if we realize that some categories can have a left wing (moving toward the next lowest number) and a right wing (leaning toward the next highest number)’.[8]
Applying the Analysis
There is not a lot to add here, which is why I asked Kevin if I could simply use his analysis and apply it more specifically to the Canadian context. Rather than belabouring any points or repeating what Kevin has already contributed, I would simply like to highlight a couple of items before using Kevin’s grid through which to pass some uniquely Canadian conversations.
Principles and Applications
First, as Kevin rightly points out, this shift is not one of doctrine in the classical sense but reflects one of “a cultural mood, a political instinct, or a personal sensibility”.[9] For example, some have attempted to make their response to COVID-19 restrictions a first-tier doctrinal issue but have failed on at least three fronts.
Of the making of non-doctrinal matters into doctrinal matters, there seems to be no end.
First, there is a difference between a biblical principle and specific applications of it, whether across time or in different contexts concurrently.
Elevating one’s application of a biblical truth as being the sole outworking thereof regardless of context or denigrating a fellow Christians lack of applying that outworking despite their differing context is unwise.[10]
Secondly, elevating one’s application of a biblical principle to the level of the biblical principle itself is equally unwise and can all too quickly lead to Pharisaism, something roundly condemned by Jesus Himself on numerous occasions.[11]
For example, it seems tenuous indeed to claim absolute Scriptural guidance on mask mandates (either pro or con) when Scripture is silent regarding such and the canon has been closed for nearly two millennia.
Third, elevating one’s application of a biblical truth from their limited context and attempting to make it mandatory for all other Christians is contrary to Scripture (Romans 14:4) and undermines the very gospel message we are claiming to uphold.
Only the gospel can transform the human heart, not our attempted manipulation, and the gospel transforms hearts and minds with respect to their sinfulness and need for a relationship with their Creator, not their participation or non-participation in receiving a vaccine.
Of the making of non-doctrinal matters into doctrinal matters, there seems to be no end.[12]
Imperfect Categories
Second, these categories are not absolute and cannot perfectly capture anyone’s exact thoughts on every issue addressed. It is simply a diagnostic tool that can aid in mutual understanding and hopefully lead to more mutual respect as one better understands not simply what a fellow Christian may hold as a necessary action but the reason behind their conclusion.
Taking the time to appreciate a fellow Christian’s motivation is vital to promote gospel unity; putting them into a certain category where we feel justified in judging them and writing them off is detrimental to gospel unity and a denial of the gospel itself.
Charting Canadian Categories
Kevin constructed two charts to illustrate his diagnostic tool. I have constructed two charts unique to our Canadian context but have retained some of Kevin’s headings and content. My contributions will be in bold and Kevin’s original content, wherever it appears, will not.
What’s the Point?
Kevin concludes his article by asking another vital question: what’s the point of this diagnostic?[14]
‘So What’s the Point?
‘To reiterate, the point of this schema is not rigidity or relativism. I’m not suggesting that every Reformedish Christian can be neatly placed in one row all the way across, neither am I suggesting that we are all blind men with the elephant, each person no closer to the whole truth than anyone else.
‘One reason for the schema is to take a step toward understanding our current context. The loudest voices tend to be 1s and 4s, which makes sense because they tend to see many of these issues in the starkest terms and often collide with each other in ways that makes a lot of online noise. The 1s and 4s can also be the most separatist, with some voices (among the 1s) encouraging an exodus from white evangelical spaces and some voices (among the 4s) encouraging the woke to be excommunicated. The 2s and 3s are more likely to appeal to unity, or at least ask for a better understanding of all sides, which can make them sound too squishy for either end of the spectrum. The effort by the 2s and 3s to find middle ground is made difficult by the fact that many 2s want their friends among the 3s to call out the dangerous 4s, while the 3s would like their friends among the 2s to be less sympathetic to the 1s.
‘Just as important as understanding our context is understanding ourselves. We’d like to think we come to all our positions by a rigorous process of prayer, biblical reflection, and rational deliberation. But if we are honest, we all have certain instincts too. By virtue of our upbringing, our experiences, our hurts, our personalities, our gifts, and our fears, we gravitate toward certain explanations and often think in familiar patterns when it comes to the most complicated and controversial issues. Why is it that by knowing what someone thinks about, say, mask wearing that you probably have a pretty good idea what they think about Christian Nationalism and systemic racism? To be sure, friend groupings play a part, as does the totalizing effect of politics in our day. And yet, our own unique—and often predictable—sensibilities often play a bigger role than we think.
‘We won’t be able to put all the pieces of Humpty Dumpty back together again—and maybe some pieces shouldn’t have been glued together in the first place. But if we can understand what’s going on—in our networks, in our churches, and in our hearts—we will be better equipped to disciple our own people and reach out, where we can, to those who may disagree. Most importantly, perhaps we will be able to find a renewed focus, not on our cultural sensibilities and political instincts, but on the glory of Christ, the incarnate Son of God, who came from the Father full of grace and truth.’
Three Ways I Hope This Article Helps Canadians
I believe we are facing a deepening divide among brothers and sisters in Christ across our nation, and I trust this article helps, even slightly, to enable us to do at least three things.
First, we should always be praying for the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (John 13:35, 17:20-21, Ephesians 4:3). Rather than looking for any opportunity to distinguish ourselves from our fellow believers, we should actively seek to love, support, and collaborate with them as much as we can.
To quote Haldir from Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, “Indeed in nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him.”[15] May this not be true of Canadian Christianity.
Second, we should engage in healthy introspection. Kevin’s call to understand our cultural context as well as ourselves should be heeded as we attempt to untangle biblical truth from our own cultural moods, political instincts, and personal sensibilities.
Clarity on the difference between biblical principles and applications as well as first, second, and third-tier issues within Scripture are always needed, but now more than ever.
Third, we should resist the urge to place people in categories, especially with the intent of exposing them as unbiblical, and instead we should seek to understand their background, motivation, and intent.
Treating each other as brothers and sisters, as family members we will spend eternity with, would go a long way in stemming the tide of division, unbiblical rebuke, and false accusations.
As Hebrews 13:1 says, “Let brotherly love continue.”
Lord, may it be.
[1] I have corresponded with Kevin and he has graciously allowed me to do a running commentary on his original article entitled “Why Reformed Evangelicalism Has Splintered: Four Approaches to Race, Politics, and Gender” published March 9, 2021. My idea, which he confirmed, is to reproduce his original content but apply it to our Canadian context. As always, there are similarities and differences between our context and our brothers and sisters in America, and my hope is that by tweaking Kevin’s superb article for our culture it will only enhance its effectiveness across the Canadian landscape. While Kevin granted permission for me to use his article in this way, I don’t mean to suggest that he agrees with everything I have written here by way of cultural commentary.
[2] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/, first paragraph.
[3] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/, second paragraph.
[4] Paragraph three and first part of paragraph four of Kevin’s original article speak to the American context, and so I have omitted them for the purposes of this article.
[5] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/, fourth paragraph.
[6] For more on this, check out Tim Challies’ excellent article.
[7] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/, fifth paragraph.
[8] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/, paragraphs six through nine.
[9] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/, paragraph six.
[10] I have considered writing an entire article on the numerous differences between my context in PEI during COVID-19 and the context of other provinces, but that will have to wait for another time.
[11] For a more in depth look at this topic, check out Michael Reeves excellent new book, Evangelical Pharisees.
[12] My apologies to Solomon for this reimaging of his ancient dictum (Ecclesiastes 12:12a).
[13] The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1450124405592/1529106060525).
[14] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/, paragraphs thirteen through sixteen.
[15] J R R Tolkien, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.
