An Interview with Brad Littlejohn: Whither the Restless and Reformed?

This is Part 4 of a four part series. Here are links to Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

IRD: You may have noticed that the Restless and Reformed Movement in evangelicalism (also called the “New Calvinism”) has finally garnered mainstream attention, albeit nearly a decade late. When you observe the material and figures of that movement, what are the theological elements that are absent when you contrast “New Calvinism” today with classical Protestant theology of the Reformation (which more acutely addressed ecclesiology, liturgics, political theology, and sacramental theology)?

Dr. Brad Littlejohn: Actually, I have done my best not to notice, as I detest “movements” and labels; indeed, I take it as proof that we “Reformed irenics” are doing something right when people find it so difficult to label us or discern what sort of “movement,” if any, we might be.

I am not convinced that the “R&R” or “New Calvinist” crowds have nearly the coherent identity that is often attributed to them.  What the designation seems to boil down to is “evangelicals who dig TULIP.”  Of course, that doesn’t do much to explain the broad appeal of it; this, I would have to say, might be substantially explained as a masculine reaction against the feminization of American evangelicalism, a way of really kicking the whole counter-culturalism up a notch.  After all, what theology says “stoic, manly, fearless, consistent” like good old five-point Calvinism?  I hope none are offended by the cynicism; I’m an equal-opportunity cynic who can insult anyone, so it’s no particular animus against the “Restless and Reformed,” many of whose leaders have indeed done some great things for the American Church.

But the point is, to get to your particular question, it’s hard to begin to list what all elements are absent, just because so many are.  TULIP, after all, doesn’t make you Reformed (in fact, good John Davenant might have argued that it makes you somewhat less than Reformed!).  Even as “Calvinism” in the predestinarian sense, the “New Calvinism” often leaves a good deal to be desired in terms of nuance and fidelity to the tradition, and once we go beyond that—really rather minimal—building block of Reformed identity, we find that many of the rest are lacking.  All four that you mention are certainly high on the list, though I might add “moral theology” or “ethics” more broadly, not just “political theology.”  And perhaps, more fundamentally, philosophy and theological method.  Of course, you might think that a criticism like that is misplaced—many of the prominent “New Calvinists” after all are pastors, not academic theologians, and so can’t be bothered with metaphysics.  But these fundamental matters, to borrow a phrase from Doug Wilson, have a way of coming out your fingertips, and it is certainly the case that, admit it or not, today’s New Calvinists have a philosophy and theological method that underlies their apologetics, their engagement in theological controversy, their ethics, and more.  Some might answer, “Sure, but you can’t expect them to do everything well; let’s be grateful for what they are doing.”  Sure, let’s be grateful, but many of the older Protestant doctors really did do it all, and if we’re to be grateful to the heritage they left us, let’s try to retrieve as much as possible, not a few scattered pieces of soteriology that we then wear as a badge of “Reformed” pride.

IRD: If you were given the opportunity, what would be some lessons or advice you’d give to R&R folks?

Littlejohn: I’ve probably already mostly answered this in the response to the previous question, but to be more direct, I would repeat our motto: “Look to the rock from which you have been cut.”  And really, spend some time looking, and reading broadly, across a range of different expressions of Protestantism, from Luther to Calvin to the “Anglicans” to the “Puritans.”  I know we can’t all be historical theologians, but really, if I may be harsh (and this doubles as self-criticism, I am well aware), if some of these folks spent just a little bit less time writing and a little bit more time reading, they’d be better off.  Of course, there’s a more positive way to phrase this (it’s a bitterly cold and cloudy day as I respond to this, hence the negative slant heretofore): “Further up and further in.”  Most of these folks have come out of ankle-deep evangelicalism and have now waded into knee-deep “Reformed” Protestantism by reading a small smattering of Reformers and Puritans.  So don’t stop there, please keep reading, and you will be surprised how much more you have to learn.

Also, I think the movement needs to be really self-critical about its leadership approach.  Despite thinking of itself as edgy and counter-cultural and taking things much more seriously than evangelicals at large, much of the New Calvinism continues to follow the same celebrity pastor leadership model as other evangelicals have.  This leads to all kinds of problems for the leaders themselves—deprived of accountability, they often don’t take long to get themselves disgraced—but also fails to be a stable and sustainable church model.  There is way too much room for the “movement,” whatever it is, to lose focus and change direction as a particular leader comes into or out of the spotlight.  I’ll probably again come across as an incorrigible antiquarian, but I tend to think it’s a good rule that the more of our heroes are dead, the better off we’re likely to be.  So there’s my advice: look to dead men as your mentors and to the guy across the street from you as your mission field.

IRD: Okay, I just had to bring this up: you studied under Oliver O’Donovan and wrote your dissertation on Richard Hooker. These are bright torches of Anglican thought. Where do you now roost in terms of a church home?

Littlejohn: Ha.  Homeless, my friend, homeless.  I like to describe myself as “English Reformed,” a category that encompasses the best of Anglicanism—the sort that saw itself in continuity with the continental Reformed (and Lutheran!) churches, and made the most of those resources—and the best of Puritanism—the sort that saw itself in continuity with the historic church and disclaimed violent polemics and separatist ecclesiology.  I’m also probably a bit more Lutheran (as in, partial to the theological emphases of Martin Luther himself, not necessarily the Lutheran tradition more generally) than most of the Reformed.  Certainly I deeply value the heritage of the Anglican tradition (especially its moral theology) and wouldn’t mind describing myself as such, but so few Anglicans today have any sense of what made their tradition strong, and do homage instead to a vacuous “middle way” ideal.  Not to mention all their disastrous ecclesiastical politics at present.

So for now I’m more than happy to seek a good local congregation where I am, and let that determine my denominational identity, rather than vice veras, which for now means membership in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals (CREC), for all its warts.