Neo-Calvinism: An "Idea That's Changing the World"?

Wow… Neo-Calvinism.. what a peculiar choice.

I’m not a fan of either sort, really… but Cecil is probably close to point, as far as I understand the matter. (Which, admittedly, isn’t a great deal. Reformed theology is definitely not my bag – but I must live in a world where it is quite prevalent so….)

Neo-Calvinism is a wolf in sheeps clothing: Pretending to be deeply committed to the bible and the hard, heroic justice of God, it is in fact and expression of our cultural aggression, unsanctified machismo and pseudo-manhood. It gives expression to our Hollywood-Hong Kong hero fantasies and the sordid underbelly of our crisis in manhood. It’s those that shout the loudest that usually conceal the deepest doubts.

To quote the New York Times article on Mark Driscoll entitled “Who Would Jesus Smack Down?”: “Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.”

Read it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html&OQ=_rQ3D3Q26pagewantedQ3D1Q26refQ3Dmagazine&OP=5ca72a01Q2FVQ24q)V7x,r3xxQ26Q7DVQ7D886V8Q23VQ23Q23VnQ51SQ514pQ2BqVQ23Q23RYQ2BiNQ26UbQ26n(

Calvin must be turning in his grave!!

I was, and am, still a bit shocked by the article in Time.

I don’t know what to say really, other than… what Nic just said.

As a first hand witness to Mohler’s ascent to power, I can say it was ugly, nasty, and un-Biblical. I’d have to say that whatever we want to call theology like that, feel free to keep me on the sidelines. It wasn’t Jesus. In fact, it was the antithesis of the Jesus presented to us in the Gospels.

And to the Epistles, we read “be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit.” Nope, I think Southern Seminary failed that test as well. They’re quick to preserve the unity of anyone who thinks just like Al and company.

Truthfully I am not sure I have anything to add here except to add my shock to reading about the ‘new Calvinism’ article. My initial thought after reading it was that Calvinism in this new form ( or any form for that matter) may be more comforting in these unsettled times simply because it offers a sense of order to some one whose ordered life has been disrupted. Round about way of saying that Calvinism is a lazy man’s because,imho,it only requires blind obedience and a false self righteousness that they are the “chosen”. As you might guess I am on the side of Freewill and the ability to chose. Possibly one of the reasons I have become interested in the emerging conversation.

John Calvin in 1553 supported the silencing of the Spanish physician, Michael Servetus, when Servetus asked for asylum in Geneva, Switzerland. Servetus was burnt as a heretic. The only regrets Calvin had was that Servetus was not killed in a more human fashion.

This story is very different from David’s Psalms which were written in repentance for having an adulterous affair with a married women and then cleverly arranging her husband’s death on the battle field.

We have the epistles of Paul written after he fully repented of his past of stoning Christians to death. Paul eventually died a martyr to his faith.

There are conservative Christian’s today who are listing Calvinism as a cult. (See Evangelical Outreach)

You have to understand the evangelical church’s new fascination with John Calvin. I grew up Presbyterian, and the PCUSA still holds Calvin as their founder, but has gone far into the “liberal” fold of churches (where I like to stay, so I remain a member!).

Other evangelical denominations, which did not come from this “reformed” tradition, must have lately discovered that John Calvin’s theology fits their conservative stance quite well, particularly Calvin’s biblical literalism. Calvin was perhaps the first truly fundamentalist Christian, exceeding St. Augustine. Though Calvin’s views were not necessarily new (others had written of predestination before), what made Calvin unique in history was his complete and concise systematic theology, written in a language a layman could read and understand.

To understand Calvin, one must understand the excesses of the Catholic Church which he rejected and reacted against. Without this understanding, Calvin’s views appear extreme (which, perhaps, today they are). He wrote his first publication of his “Institutes” in his twenties, as a persecuted Protestant hiding from the Catholic church. In short, it is a manifesto.

Calvin did not stop to challenge the assumption that the Bible may not be literally true. He accepted it at face value. His genius was in his knowledge of the original Greek, and the deductions he made from his study of the original texts. In its day, this was radical, because the Catholic Church tried very hard to keep all interpretation of scripture to their own clergy, and only used the Latin Vulgate in mass, a language the common parishioner did not speak. Calvin, following Luther, made the scriptures accessible to most.

Theologically, we have moved on since Calvin’s time. He has added to our understanding of where we have been and perhaps some of the depths we can find in the Bible, but John Calvin is not infallible. Like aonther commenter has stated, for those looking for an easy set of ready-made theological beliefs, Calvin does well. But then, so does St. Ignatius, or Karl Barth, or even Paul Tillich (although Tillich is less easy to understand!).

Calvin’s 500th birthday is giving his theology a new impetus, and we can celebrate his giving us the concept of separating church and state, as well as the renewed emphasis on scriptural exegesis. But I think Jesus’ theological views are far more complex and nuanced than Calvin’s TULIP.

Calvin didn’t come up with TULIP

I grew up Reformed, that is the RCA and i think that calvins theology and the theology that sprang up from it is basicly good. I would have to disagree with many that want to over-simplfy it. That is not to say that it is a doctrine that can stand on its own. It is as Rob Bell would say one of many springs in a trampoliene (see Velvit Elvis) I think that “calvinist” theology is the best way to describe grace. But that is not the be all and end all of faith. We need obediance as well. Im Torah observant. so just because we can have a proper understanding of one of many points in a full theology does not mean that we have them all

Grace and Peace
AnotherVoiceInTheMasses

Thanks for the comment Jeff Courter. Very balanced. Can folks really be heading back to the Calvin vs. Armenian debate? What goes around, I guess…

Agreed: Jeff, thanks for looking at the context.

I don’t think Cecil understands Neo-Calvinism or classical Calvinism. Part of what has frustrated me all along with the emergent/ing movement is its tendency to be overtly and uncritically reductionistic with regard to movements/thinkers with which it disagrees. And Jeff (a commenter above) far overestimates Calvin’s own emphasis on biblical literalism and even on predestination. You’d have to stretch pretty far and read a whole lot of Calvin’s Institutes to cull a modern “literalist” hermeneutic form his thinking. And his focus is – as Cecil rightly notes – far more covenant oriented than a simple focus on predestination can express. Just as Augustine’s thought contains much that has nothing to do with predestination, so does Calvin’s.

In addition, Jeff writes, “Like aonther commenter has stated, for those looking for an easy set of ready-made theological beliefs, Calvin does well. But then, so does St. Ignatius, or Karl Barth, or even Paul Tillich…”

Has Jeff even read Calvin, Ignatius, Barth, or Tillich? None of these thinkers – Calvin included and especially Calvin, Ignatius or Barth – lend themselves to “ready made” theological beliefs. Now, granted, SOME of their contemporary interlocutors may attempt to reduce their nuanced theological thinking to “ready made” formulas but I’ve yet to encounter anything in their thought or that of their contemporary interpreters that justifies such a characterization.

Again, while I’m a supporter of Emergent Village, I think Brad and Jeff’s comments simply underscore the fact that many in this “conversation” aren’t interested in understanding those with whom they disagree or that they don’t understand. I suspect that, in part, this uncritical, reductionistic and often uncharitable mode of “conversation” is why so many “evangelicals” have such a hard time understanding much less becoming “friends” with emergent village, et. al.

Andrew, I can only speak as pastor of 18 years with loose association to emergent, but completely evangelical (in the unconquered use of the term). I understand Calvinism. I’d even go as far as to say I am fundamentally Calivinst in theology, albeit I find most theology to be pretty small-minded when it’s not coupled with authenticity, humility, and love.

I find the “New Calvinism” to be the “New Hubris.” And as a person whose caught a first hand whiff of the scent of this movement, let me tell you in my opinion—these folks are the same bad date we had last week, wearing a different color eyeliner.

It smells bad. And despite what Time Magazine says, it will lose its influence during my lifetime. Ill-prepared to think outside the rugged confines of its theology, it cannot succeed without coherison. Ask Calvin. Better yet, ask his victims.

“Neo-Calvinism” seems like a marketing ploy to me. Call yourselves whatever you like, but your resounding silence on the issue of absolute reprobation speaks volumes. Americans like their bumper sticker God: “Jesus loves you”—as in everybody, not just the tiny (and self-anointed) minority of the elect. The idea that most people are going to hell, no matter how hard they pray, no matter how often they repent, is a non-starter. The Arminians (not “Armenians”) won a long, long time ago.

What concerns me the most about Driscoll’s appropriation of what he refers to as Calvinism is that it claims to be deeply connected to the reformed tradition and to the Bible but is mostly concerned with preserving twenty-first century hegemonic norms such as homophobia and patriarchy. In terms of the conversation on this post, it’s important not to confuse thinkers like Augustine and Calvin with fundamentalists of today. Fundamentalism (like neo-calvinism) is a product of the modern world that tries to shore up resistance against changing cultural forces. In the midst of all of this discussion about Calvin (his inherited cultural biases and prejudices notwithstanding), let’s not forget that he was protesting (Protestant) against the dominant currents of the day. That is precisely the opposite of what neo-calvinists, and fundamentalists, are doing. Instead of protesting the dominating structures of oppression, they are trying to shore them up. Instead of subverting the culture, they are reflecting it. Neo-calvinists who wish to applaud their brave stands for ‘truth’ would do well to remember that it is not straight white male affluent Christians who are persecuted in the United States, but rather those who aren’t white, aren’t Christian, aren’t straight, etc. etc. Plus, those who pigeon-hole Calvin (and the other reformers for that matter) into ambassadors of universal truth for all times and all places would do well to remember one of the favorite mottos of the reformers: “a reformed church always reforming.” The reformed church, to borrow Barth’s imagery, doesn’t stand as ‘The Truth’ but rather places a question mark against all forms of truth—as soon as anyone thinks they have the truth or own the truth then they’ve committed the Bible’s most oft-quoted sin, that of idolatry. I state this not in opposition to the reformed tradition, but because of my love for it.

And if Calvin were alive today, I would hope that his love for the reformed protesting tradition would lead him to critique many of the thoughts and actions that he had all those years ago; for he, like all of us, is hardly without blemish.

Please stop spreading the fallacy that Driscoll = Neo-Calvinist, “New”, maybe, but not Neo-Calvinist.

Wow! I am shocked at the antagonism that I hear from so many of you about Calvinism… I thought most of the emergent folks were more ‘accepting’ of other people’s perspectives. Is this not true? It seems some of you have turned around and are more condemning than the fundy’s… What’s the deal?

“More condemning than the fundys”? Paul, there’s a difference between thoughtful critique and condemnation. I think there’s some real pent-up frustration venting on this comment thread, because this was a space opened up by Brad Cecil’s initial comments (posted here to generate conversation, not necessarily agreement). I think “the deal” is that emergents have just as many concerns about “neo-Calvinism” as neo-Calvinists have with emergent.

“More condemning than the fundys”? Paul, there’s a difference between thoughtful critique and condemnation. I think there’s some real pent-up frustration venting on this comment thread, because this was a space opened up by Brad Cecil’s initial comments (posted here to generate conversation, not necessarily agreement).

I think “the deal” is that emergents have just as many concerns about “neo-Calvinism” as neo-Calvinists have with emergent. Despite that, I would hope we would be grace-filled and God-honoring in all conversations.

Greetings
I’m really confused with the terms “Neo-Calvinism” and “New Calvinism”. I thought it referred to the Dutch theologians, and all of a sudden there’s Mark Driscoll.

The Time’s article’s use of the word “Neo-Calvinist” or Neo-Calvinism is wrong. Piper, Driscoll, Keller, et al may have some influence from the neo-calvinists but I would not venture that they are. Neo-calvinist is a line of calvinist starting with Abraham Kuyper, then through Dirk Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd.

It is interesting for me as a woman to note that only one other comment has been from a woman. I can’t be sure since some include only initials, but at least that seems to be the case. It seems like the discussions about Neo-Calvinism, like discussions Calvinism in general, typically are dominated by men. Surely a grad student in the sociology of religion could do a thesis on this phenomenon. I grew up in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. No women can be elders or pastors. Mark Driscoll seems to be yet another manifestation of Christian patriarchy. It’s discouraging than in that aspect nothing has changed.