Jesus Calling: How They Got it Wrong– Insufficient Arguments

In Part 1, I narrated a process in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which will continue at the 52nd General Assembly in June. The Committee on Discipleship Ministries (CDM) and Mission to the World (MTW) will report on Sarah Young’s book Jesus Calling. I thought my 2024 overture was quixotic. I got it wrong: The PCA was primed to address the book.

After 20 years, why did the Assembly vote for scrutiny? It was not recommended by a PCA entity. There was no advocacy by any PCA free-standing organization (i.e. the GRN or the AMR). Floor speeches from churchmen of standing and influence do not galvanize them. Yet half the hoi polloi (or much of the middle) of the Assembly voted to take an action unprecedented in the PCA’s history. They just did it. Why?

The Problem with Assuming

The motion passed contained no rationale. None. Without explanation, the Overtures Committee (OC) Chairman stated that most of the Assembly would expect from CDM a negative assessment of "the book's appropriateness for Christians in general and PCA members and congregations in particular.” (See Part 1.) What was he assuming—and assuming most others were assuming—about the book?

Did the speeches assailing Jesus Calling present a new perspective? No, not at all. Did they turn upon a real doctrinal problem in the PCA? No. It seems the OC chairman was correct: A lot of people shared similar assumptions about the book.

The theological and practical failure of the case made against Jesus Calling must be recognized. Debunking that advocacy [Part 2] opens the way to consider the book’s provocation by a careful examination of the book’s genre and content [Part 3]. A competent analysis is necessary for a theological critique to be insightful. The PCA should understand the actual problem before offering a critique and solutions.   

How They Got It Wrong

The best representation of the PCA's mind about Jesus Calling appeared on the Assembly floor. It was fresh and succinct, concluding in a narrow 55% decision. Support of the overture embodied the major line of criticism from 2012-2015. Even more, the only public replies to that criticism—ever, so far as I can determine—appeared on the floor. The latter deserve a serious hearing.

[The floor debate is here, beginning at time 2:41:30.]

The Sufficiency of Sola Scriptura

The criticism of Jesus Calling rested on Bibliology. One Teaching Elder identified the book as purported "immediate revelation from God," which "defies the sufficiency of Scripture very clearly." Without citing examples connected to the book, he urged the Assembly to vote "yes" because of "the dangerous effects of diverting from sola scriptura." Claims of private revelation diminish attention for the Bible. He cited Jonathan Edwards, that personal revelations supplant Scripture, causing

“ . . . persons to esteem the Bible in great measure useless . . . [they]. . . bring the Bible into neglect and then contempt.”

He suggested a dire scenario around Jesus Calling with the erosion of sola Scriptura.

A second Teaching Elder took a different angle to press the sufficiency of Scripture and the categorical distinction of sola scriptura. Pastors must foster godly dependence on the Bible, training discernment for even the subtle and inconspicuous. He warned about resources which

“. . . if not explicitly, then implicitly and in a sense catechetically would deny our convictions about sola scriptura.”

Rather than boldness of new revelation, he censured Jesus Calling for subversive influence. It trains sensibilities away from "the ways and means of the sufficiency of Scripture."

The Insufficiency of The Argument

I share these concerns; but, they fall short. That case will not be firmly owned by the PCA in general, and reasonably so. Both sides affirm these doctrines. On the Assembly floor, replies were heard to both "extraordinary revelations" and "implicitly, and in a sense catechetically.” Both these replies recapitulate Sarah Young’s explicit statements in the book’s Introduction (both the 2004 original and the 2014 revision).

Extraordinary Revelation?

Replying to the argument from sola scriptura, Teaching Elder Steven Young manfully vindicated his wife’s book:

"Her writings do not add to Scripture but explain it. She would stand with Martin Luther and declare that her conscience was captive to the Word of God."

Any PCA author would own that description of their work, and be pleased to be so described themselves. At times, these authors are prolix in claiming the same about their own writings. Sarah Young was straightforward and clear.:

"The Bible is, of course, the only inerrant Word of God; my writings must be consistent with that unchanging standard." (pg. XIII)

Contradicting her requires significant demonstration. She offered her works to the world without claims of revelation. The lack of nuanced epistemology—beyond subordination to Scripture, God's inerrant Word—marks her books as devotional, rather than doctrinal. She is not a subtle theologian. Is she a liar? As presented on the Assembly floor, the charge of compromising sola Scriptura is not vindicated by ignoring her statement.

Implicitly Undermining the Sufficiency of Scripture

Invoking the sufficiency of Scripture is the silver bullet among PCA critics of Jesus Calling. Kathy Keller (2012) and Tim Challies (2015) introduced it as the chief objection. They locked on to the author's professed desire for greater experience of Jesus, and connected her practice of listening with the literary conceit of devotionals as direct address from Jesus.

Young's submission to Scripture quoted above is followed by this explanation. It is the very next sentence, with the pronoun "them" referring back to "my writings”:

“I have written them from Jesus' point of view; i.e., the first person singular (I, Me, Mine) always refers to Christ. "You" refers to you, the reader, so the perspective is that of Jesus speaking to you. I have included Scripture references after each daily reading.” (pg. XIII)

The charge of violating the sufficiency of Scripture hinges entirely on rejecting the first person casting of the book. Unless that is debunked, the charge will not stand.  

On the floor, Teaching Elder Kevin Twit put his finger on the literary conceit. With his depth in English hymnody, he pointed out that putting words in the mouth of Jesus is common. It is endorsed by examples in the PCA's own Trinity Hymnal. The literary conceit is actually propagated by the PCA. Presumably, these hymns fit the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). Twit cited an example to make the point: John Newton's "Pensive, Doubting, Fearful Heart":

Hear what Christ the Savior says. . . .

"I who heaven and earth have framed,

Am thy husband and thy friend

I the High and Holy One,

Israel's GOD by all adored,

As thy Savior will be known . . ."

"For a moment I withdrew

And thy heart was filled with pain,

But my mercies I'll renew . . .

'Tis but for a moment's space

Ending in eternal peace."

This literary claim undercuts the “if not explicitly than implicitly” argument about sufficiency. Young explicitly explains the artifice, and that artifice is officially inoffensive in the PCA. Perhaps the book shouldn’t be read without the Introduction, which is why there is an introduction.

Both Keller and Challies narrowed sufficiency to a laser-like application. They did not catalog ways in which this written-voice-of-Jesus contradicted or exceeded Scripture. They opposed Young’s purpose for the book: a better experience of God than the author (and she thought others) found from reading the Bible. Keller and Challies championed the sufficiency of Scripture particularly and specifically as a means of grace for communion with God. This was the cutting edge of their direct opposition to Young’s literary conceit.

Compared to sufficiency’s historical formulation, this is a narrowing of the concept. It is a strong argument. Ironically, just such a refined application of Scripture’s sufficiency exists: the historical Regulative Principle of Worship, as expressed in the Second Commandment. Young crafted the conceit for communion, and that falls in the scope of the RPW. One may or may not find an appeal to the Second Commandment persuasive, but this is how the sufficiency of Scripture was originally employed in the PCA discussion of Jesus Calling.

Not Right Enough

Reaching back to the public criticism of Jesus Calling in that previous decade is relevant for the contrast. The successful speakers on the Assembly floor never evinced why their Bible arguments applied to Jesus Calling. They did not anticipate their opponents’ agreement on sola scriptura and the sufficiency of Scripture. They didn’t address the counterclaims about the book. They assumed a characterization of the book.

Sarah Young did not claim continuing revelation. The common literary conceit does not inherently contradict the sufficiency of Scripture as it has been formulated in the Reformed tradition. Yes, she does have a squishy semi-cessationist idiom, but that is rather pedestrian. Associations with that idiom may be the reason her clear assertions were ignored by a narrow majority out of 2,000 men.

The weakness of the passionate arguments was obvious; and I agreed with them. I posit that something previous, assumed and weighty, decided that vote—rather than attention to the debate. As a vote for an inquiry by CDM and MTW, even an inchoate assumption against the book could see value in asking and answering questions officially. While I agreed with the outcome it was still a puzzlement. I can’t do better than to repeat my conclusion from Part 1:

Maybe what happened at the 51st General Assembly

was good mule-sense: "What is that thing? Dunno, just don't eat it."

While it may be a clever depiction, it is actually a disturbing metaphor. Usually, silent donkeys are helpful, at least eventually. You only start listening to donkeys when the situation has turned grim and your own prophetic office is the problem (Numbers 22:28).

Getting It Wrong Sounds Bigoted (Correct or Not)

I agree with the Bibliology argument; but it cannot settle this matter in the PCA. It will "pass muster" for a parade, but it cannot win peace (and purity) by a display of medals. Some other assumption moved the middle of the PCA. Without articulation of that unspoken assumption, the action to scrutinize Jesus Calling appears dubious.  

One can assert and reassert again, quote Edwards aptly, and stare gobsmacked at disagreement. The narrow appeal to sola/sufficient cannot make the case. Instead of gravitas, repetition of undisputed principles sounds desperate. Authoritative repetition looks bigoted. This should surprise no one.

Why not the Roman Catholic church? It is unbiblical. A Romanist friend, who admits to knowing far less Bible than I do, disagrees with “Biblical” as a necessary standard. “Unbiblical”, here, is a substantive disagreement. No prayers to Mary; it's unbiblical.

Why not be an Arminian? It is unbiblical. An inerrantist Arminian would laugh in my face. "Unbiblical because . . . " requires more. We disagree about something else. Biblical is the Arminian's framework too. All errors do not arise from Bibliology.

I have a longtime positive acquaintance (friendship might be presumptuous by now) with a PCA Teaching Elder who promulgates use of the Christian Year, seasons and ashes and days, for the sanctification of his people. I don’t camp out on the sufficiency of Scripture—although historically similar positions denied it. He might well reply, "I just think it is sufficient for more than you do." I reject his position. The exegesis is bad, the results are idolatrous. He shouldn't be accused of denigrating Scripture.

Why did the PCA take action to assess Jesus Calling and review the history of the book with Mission to the World? Sola and sufficient are real boundary markers of the Reformed Faith, but they can actually obscure issues within a Reformed communion. More is required to prevent sola/sufficient arguments from earning disdain as mere shibboleths in this controversy.

It should be remembered that, if we wish to be strictly biblical, shibboleths are tools for division among God’s people—and for targeting them (Judges 12). Trumpeted like a stout champion for single combat, sola/sufficient is ripe for charges of tag team bigotry. It is for this reason that I say they got it wrong on the Assembly floor.

It is imperative to give Jesus Calling a good hearing. It has eluded denominational scrutiny for 20 years, while provoking offense. Without insight into why the book actually is offensive, the PCA may well wash its hands of it without any constructive outcome. That may be tidy, but is it faithful? It has a 45% chance of disturbing the peace and no clear implication for the purity. This is about the church, not just the book. The committee on Discipleship Ministries has a responsibility to bring a report with finalizing gravitas. The PCA can still get Jesus Calling right.

℈ ℈ ℈ ℈ ℈

They all talk about Mr. Schrodinger's cat. Of course, quite right.

Still, we might be well concerned for that poor box.

Kurt to Adele, 1979 (purportedly)

Part 3, “Jesus Calling: How We Got It Wrong” turns attention to the book itself.

Benjamin T. Inman, Ph.D. is a member of First Reformed Presbyterian Church in Durham NC and a former teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.