Tag archives for Calvinism

Time: New Calvinism is Changing the World Right Now

Time Magazine‘s “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now” is truly an interesting topic as well as courageously prophetic; but, hey it’s journalism and it’s captured my attention for one.  Idea number three is what they term The New Calvinism. It’s funny that it’s been termed “new.” Only thing new about this Calvinism is that it’s in the 21st century instead of the 16th or 18th. Time‘s short synopsis of the movement is a good read and worth your five minutes.

Update: Fallen and Flawed has a beginner’s guide to New Calvinism. Read it, too, if you’ve got seven minutes to spare instead of just five.

If you really want to follow the development of conservative Christianity, track its musical hits. In the early 1900s you might have heard “The Old Rugged Cross,” a celebration of the atonement. By the 1980s you could have shared the Jesus-is-my-buddy intimacy of “Shine, Jesus, Shine.” And today, more and more top songs feature a God who is very big, while we are…well, hark the David Crowder Band: “I am full of earth/ You are heaven’s worth/ I am stained with dirt/ Prone to depravity.”

Calvinism is back, and not just musically. John Calvin’s 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism’s buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism’s latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination’s logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time’s dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.

Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation’s other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don’t have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by “glorifying” him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism’s loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.

No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don’t operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, “everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world” — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle’s pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom’s hottest links.

Like the Calvinists, more moderate Evangelicals are exploring cures for the movement’s doctrinal drift, but can’t offer the same blanket assurance. “A lot of young people grew up in a culture of brokenness, divorce, drugs or sexual temptation,” says Collin Hansen, author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists. “They have plenty of friends: what they need is a God.” Mohler says, “The moment someone begins to define God’s [being or actions] biblically, that person is drawn to conclusions that are traditionally classified as Calvinist.” Of course, that presumption of inevitability has drawn accusations of arrogance and divisiveness since Calvin’s time. Indeed, some of today’s enthusiasts imply that non-Calvinists may actually not be Christians. Skirmishes among the Southern Baptists (who have a competing non-Calvinist camp) and online “flame wars” bode badly.

Calvin’s 500th birthday will be this July. It will be interesting to see whether Calvin’s latest legacy will be classic Protestant backbiting or whether, during these hard times, more Christians searching for security will submit their wills to the austerely demanding God of their country’s infancy.

Posted in Christianity, Theology | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Edwards’ Cautions against Wholesale Theological Adoption

Jonathan Edwards caused quite a hubbub with his congregation around the year 1749 after the death of the previous pastor, his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard who was “so great and eminent a divine” in Northampton. Edwards as the new pastor felt convicted to tweak the qualifications for full membership (i.e., taking the Lord’s Supper). Stoddard had led the church to practice an open communion, believing that the unbeliever could be converted in receiving the elements as had been his conversion experience. Edwards disagreed with such an open view of communion and attempted to lead the congregation back to what he considered a more biblical reception of the elements. But seeing as his grandfather was so well respected in not only the church but also in the community, Edwards was met with staunch opposition. Who do you think you are, Jonathan, to try and change what your sagacious grandfather had taught? He would eventually be relieved of his duties.

Edwards didn’t give up without a theological fight however. In 1749 he penned An Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God, Concerning the Qualifications Requisite to a Complete Standing and Full Communion in the Visible Christian Church. This was meant as a sort of tract for his opponents to read and see if they be not swayed to his understanding. It wasn’t especially well-received. Only about ten copies sold after it had been published and printed. People complained it was too difficult to understand (Edwards? Difficult to understand? Ha!). What was meant to assuage the debate and ill-will toward the humble preacher was largely brushed to the side in favor of siding blindly with his grandfather.

In the preface to An Humble Inquiry, Edwards makes a point concerning the adoption of another’s theological views which I believe should be well-heeded because much wholesale theological adoption takes place today. For example, without a doubt one of John Piper’s main effects on evangelicalism is the resurgence of Calvinism among my generation. Books have been written on this so-called “New Calvinism” (e.g., Young, Restless, Reformed). With such a rise in popularity of a theological persuasion comes the risk of its unexamined wholesale adoption. Do you believe in a limited atonement because the scriptural evidence leads you in that direction or because it’s the view of your favorite preacher and you like everything else he has to offer? If it’s the latter, Edwards has the following words of corrective caution to offer:

“I [Edwards] ought not to look on his [Stoddard's] principles as oracles, as though he could not miss it, as well as Nathan himself in his conjecture about building the house of God; nay, surely that I am, even to be commended, for examining his practice, and judging for myself; that it would ill become me, to do otherwise; that this would be no manifestation of humility, but rather show a baseness of spirit; that if I [be not] capable to judge for myself in these matters, I am by no means fit to open the mysteries of the gospel; that if I should believe his principles, because he advanced them, I should be guilty of making him an idol. Also he tells his and my flock, with all others, that it ill becomes them, so to indulge their ease, as to neglect examining of received principles and practices…”

Edwards in making a case for the reasonableness of differing with his grandfather over the proper recipients of the Lord’s Supper gives a word of caution that should find wider application.

John Piper is not God. His principles are not oracles. He can miss it. The budding theologian is to be commended for judging and examining a man’s theology and searching the Scriptures. Further, it’s not humble to say, “I believe in a limited atonement because that’s what Piper holds to”; it’s base, it’s stupid, Edwards says. (Of course, none would admit that they believe something simply because a favorite theologian believes or teaches it; but, trust me, that temptation is always there and it happens far too often.) The temptation exists because it’s easier to import wholesale someone’s theology whom you respect than to formulate your own based on a careful exegesis of Scripture. Edwards, however, warns against such indulgence of ease and neglect of examination. Moreover, great theologians will almost certainly be against such a wholesale adoption of their theology without prior examination..

Edwards concludes as much when he writes later in the same paragraph:

“Thus, I think, he [Stoddard] sufficiently vindicates my conduct in the present case, and warns all with whom I am concerned, not to be at all displeased with me, or to find the least fault with me, merely because I examine for myself, have a judgment of my own, and am for practicing in some particulars different from him, how positive soever he was that his judgment and practice were right.”

You would be confused if you took away from this post the idea that we needn’t bother with (eminent) theologians. Notice that in this post we are learning from Edwards, examining what he says, and finding that it makes sense. It would be backwards for me to say, “Because Edwards was the greatest theologian born on American soil, we should adopt what he has to say on such and such a subject” and not encourage the comparison of his thought with Scripture. Edwards would not want this, nor, if I may be allowed to speak for Piper, would John Piper. Guard against therefore blind acceptance of any particular minutia of theology because so-and-so believes it. That so-and-so believes it may be a good starting point, but don’t end there.

By the way, I love Piper and am very grateful to God for his introducing me to Calvinism (and Edwards!) through his sermons and books. I often here Piper bashing; that is, bashing of John Piper. I trust this post will not come across as such. It just so happens that he, however so unfortunate, immediately comes to mind as one from whom one may liberally adopt theology blindly, as has been my personal temptation. Other examples would be Paige Patterson (especially at SEBTS), Oprah (ha!), and Rob Bell.

The above quotations of An Humble Inquiry are from A Jonathan Edwards Reader (Yale University Press) page 180.

Posted in Christianity, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Answering the Call to a Great Commission Resurgence

Our SEBTS president, Dr. Akin, emailed to the student body and posted on his website the paper he delivered at the SBC Building Bridges Conference this week entitled “Answering the Call to a Great Commission Resurgence.” I’ve yet to give it a gander, but can guess where he’s going to go with it and am interested to hear comments on it and the Conference in general around the blogosphere. It seems like Timmy Brister’s blog is a good place to keep up with things and download MP3s and PDFs of the presentations.

Here are links to Akin’s paper:
PDF
Online (Google Documents)

Posted in Everyday | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Misconceptions of Calvinism

I am pleased that the Southern Baptist Convention has organized the Building Bridges Conference that is to take place at the end of this month to discuss Calvinism. Moreover, it’s right that Nathan Finn should be giving an address on the misconceptions of Calvinism because of his irenic, Christ-like demeanor. I would like to contribute to the conversation and polling of opinions he has started over at his blog by adding some thoughts here and would encourage readers to do the same but by leaving thoughts at his blog (or here, too, if you must). Hopefully, my thinking on this subject here won’t add to the confusion of further mischaracterization.

An obvious place to lead in talking about misconceptions of Calvinism is the so-called five points of Calvinism. One could talk about the misconceptions of unconditional election, limited atonement, or total depravity. However, I believe this is granting too much and shows a misconception in itself, namely that Calvinism is simply five points. We will do well to remember that the five points of Calvinism were not first set forward by Calvinists as the Calvinist’s credo, but were five points of doctrine with which the followers of Jacob Arminius found disagreement. The five points of Calvinism may say more about Arminians than they do about Calvinists. Consequently, I believe it a misconception to think merely of Calvinism (the outworking of theology after Calvin) merely as five points. The five points of Calvinism are the five points at which there was found disagreement by another man’s followers at the Synod of Dort and do not encompass all that is theology done after the thinking of Calvin and the reformers, both magisterial and radical. (1) Calvinism is more than “Calvinism.” Calvinism entails a certain doctrine of God, an ecclesiology, a view of sacraments, and much more that I have yet to discover. Further, this may be one reason why many evangelicals are more comfortable, like I, of referring to their theology rather as reformed than Calvinistic, though not afraid of the term Calvinism.

The last sentence above reveals another misconception worthy of address. (2) Calvinists bearing the surname of John Calvin show their indebtedness to him, but (in many cases) no special attachment to or affinity for his person. In other words, accepting the name “Calvinist” is very much unlike accepting the name “Christian” in that, while the Christian does, can and should rightfully appropriate wholesale the Christ to life, the Calvinist does not and should not the person of John Calvin. Therefore, the argument that Calvin was not a Calvinist is useless and impotent because the Calvinist is not so much concerned with Calvin per se as much as doing theology after him. Nonetheless, was Jesus a Christian?

I will end with what I see as the most common misconception of Calvinism: that because God is sovereign in salvation (call it predestination or unconditional election) missions/evangelization is not needed. The misconception is that sovereignty in salvation and evangelization/missions are mutually exclusive. John Piper has done more than anyone that I know of to combat such misguided, incorrect, and ultimately unbiblical thinking (cf. Let the Nations Be Glad). (3) Piper shows that reformed thinking is not the abdicating of, nor antithetical to, missions but a continuously combusting engine driving missions not as an end but as a means to the greatest end of the glory of God in Christ Jesus. It is therefore a gross error to write off Calvinism in one stroke with statements like “If God predestines, why go?” as did one Methodist clergyman-to-be classmate in a history of Christianity course at my state university. Calvin quipped that to fail to proclaim the gospel was to leave Christ in the tomb.

Posted in Christianity, Theology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Swedish Greys - a WordPress theme from Nordic Themepark.