"Loneliness and the feeling of being unwanted is the most terrible poverty." Mother Teresa link
Years ago, when my daughter was sick, I was helped through that dark journey by Philip Yancey who wrote Disappointment With God. I then went on to read a number of his books and found his insights into the faith challenging and thoughtful. Yancey has long been held in high regard by a broad swath of Christian thinkers, that is, until the Calvinistas began their dismissal of all authors who did not toe their exacting and obviously "gospel line."
You see, unless you believe that God programs each lightening bolt to hit exactly where they hit each and every time, you may be an "open theist" which is the Calvinista word for 'heretic." (Apparently one cannot believe in the sovereignty of God unless you believe that he must direct each lightening bolt to its intended victims. And they love to tell us who God is punishing at the same time.) If you quote Mother Theresa then you are lower than low. (See today's quote at the top of the post.) Here is just one link. There are more. This goes for other Christians authors such as Dallas Willard and Roger Olson. I love these authors. So, this must mean that I, too, am close to being a heretic.
I read another blog which attracts members of the Neo-Calvinist crowd in which a man commented how relieved he was to realize, as a Christian, what a lowly worm he really is and how he couldn't imagine who God could love such a mud covered worm such as he. Everybody seemed to agree with him while I felt so sad for him. I almost commented but decided not to start a food fight on another blog. I do enough of that here.
I read an interesting post over at the 9 Marks blog on how to deal with the prosperity gospel which has a stranglehold on much of Africa. Here is part of the solution that he recommended.
Maybe that means calling together a council among reformed evangelical churches in South Africa in order to write a statement or a creed that doesn’t only affirm what we believe, but also denies what we don’t believe.
I guess that only the "Reformed" crowd can actually write a proper creed. The reason that I put "Reformed" in quotes is because TWW has been contacted by a fair number of folks who claim that the Neo-Calvinists such as Grudem, Mahaney, Piper, etc. do not speak for them.
My final straw came from a post at Desiring God that John Piper wrote in 2008.
And if they (the world) hear an attitude acknowledging that there are Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, etc. among us, and if they see us not throwing hate bombs but love bombs over the wall—expressing "I love you Presbyterian," or "I love you Episcopalian," or "I love you Catholic," or whatever (that is, they see love going out, not necessarily organizational unity)—it seems to me the world can see that, understand that, and sometimes even be impressed by it.
Walls. Their precious Neo-Calvinist doctrine is so gosh darn important that walls should be built. But, we can lob "love bombs" over the wall at one another. Oh yeah, the world will be sooo impressed by our unity that they will be running as fast as they can from all of our walls. There are far too many walls already in society. Why should they trade one for the other?
My response to that is best summed up by a friend's response to that post:
"Mr. Piper, tear down that wall!"
This, of course, means that I am not wanted. I love the Lord. I have studied long and hard but, because I like Mother Theresa and Philip Yancey and disagree with some aspects of the TULIP, I am an outcast and (as R.C. Sproul, Jr. once said that his father RC said) "Barely a Christian."
So, where do I go? For many of you who frequent this blog, it appears that the Christian world is now overrun by hardcore Neo-Calvinists who dominate the discussion. Is there anything left for me?
Missio Alliance comes to the rescue
Who are they? As you read this, note the words which I highlighted.
Mission Alliance began as an initiative of Ecclesia, a relational network of missionally-minded churches and leaders that takes a primary interest in encouraging and equipping church planters. Over the course of several years and through untold hours of conversations, there emerged a strong sense that perhaps there was a need for a broader fellowship – one that could incorporate not just leaders and churches, but other networks, denominations, schools, and still other groups that shared a desire to engage in dialogue and work around the most pressing theological and cultural challenges facing the North American Church in mission amid its rapidly shifting cultural context.
As this conversation moved beyond Ecclesia to those in a wide range of cultural contexts and representing many different theological traditions, God confirmed that many others were cultivating an imagination and vision for precisely this kind of fellowship.
Different theological traditions working together? I can think of a few Neo-Calvinists who are having seizures as they read this.
What do they say about The Gospel Coalition?
In an Associated Baptist Press article link
Its leaders said the Missio Alliance will offer an alternative to the Gospel Coalition…
“In our opinion, there is a real need for a more positive, theologically orthodox yet sociologically hopeful, evangelical voice in North America,” said Baucom, whose church is just outside of Washington. “Of late, the loudest voices have been hyper-Reformed, offering what sounds to us like a deterministic and discouraging vision of God, creation and God’s relationship to creation. We find this vision inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus and the whole counsel of Scripture.
Backert said that, while the Missio Alliance isn’t a specific response to the Gospel Coalition, the new group “is saying there are other ways of being scripturally faithful, that as evangelicals we are grappling with the realities of post-Christianity on our continent and want to bring some substantive theological reflection and formation to that.”
“We consider the tribes [faith groups] in the Gospel Coalition our brothers and we appreciate and respect what they are doing,” said Backert. “We are just working in a different field. In our new day of challenge for mission we all have to remember that those who share a foundation of Christian orthodoxy all work for the same boss.”
Do they believe in the gospel?
Read carefully their statement of purpose from the ABP post.
work for a Kingdom-driven, gospel-centered, biblically grounded theology and ecclesial practice for God’s mission in North America.”
Whoa….you mean there is actually another gospel-centered group besides The Gospel Coalition? How can that be? They are the ones who have exclusive rights to the gospel, right?
It appears they are Christians in the middle of two extremes.
Here is how one attendee at their first large gathering in April 2013 described it.
The constellation includes things like multi-ethnicity, women in ministry, social justice, optimism of grace, openness to the Spirit, free church, non-fundamentalist valuing of Scripture. Sociologically, it is a group that does not want to have the excluding tone of the Gospel Coalition without losing orthodoxy like the Emergent Village. They are post-conservatives who can use the word "evangelical" but feel a little uneasy about it.
Can people from different traditions get along?
Who was present at this meeting?
- Arminian Baptists
- Charismatics/Pentecostals
- Anabaptists and free church
- Wesleyan-Arminians
- Evangelical Anglicans
Now, take a look those who write for The Gospel Coalition. Look at the board of this Coalition. Each and everyone of these are Reformed and only Reformed. This is not a "gospel" Coalition. It is merely a "Neo-Calvinist View of the Gospel" Coalition. Neo-Calvinists would be welcome at Missio Alliance, but far too few of this group are willing jump the wall.
Missio Alliance is missional as well!
I guess the Reformed crowd does not have a lock on this word.
But if I had to describe it positively, I think the word that really best describes this group is missional. And by missional I mean the real deal, not its knock offs. Missional means getting on board with what God is doing, not trying to get people to come to my church or using gimmicks to try to attract people to my group. Missional means a full sense of the gospel that is king Jesus focused and doesn't have some narrow focus on getting a person to say a sinner's prayer.
So, are they just a bunch of liberals who want to overthrow the gospel and substitute a false gospel?
After all, they said this:
We are seeking to launch an initiative that offers in-depth theological and practical direction for the many pastors and leaders attempting to navigate the challenges of ministry in a Post-Christianizing era. We are seeking to create a space where theological concepts can be discussed and even debated. Where conversation space is allowed for and encourages freedom of exploration, not fearing a phrase like “theological innovation.” The goal is “to stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together for the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27). This is a gospel mission imperative.
They adhere to the tradition and commitments of the Lasusanne Movement.
In fact, they embrace a document that came out of the Lausanne Movement. This is a "radical" organization which was started by Billy Graham and others. John Stott presided over the original meeting.
Here is the history of the movement.
The story of Lausanne begins with the evangelist Dr Billy Graham. As he started preaching internationally, he developed a passion to ‘unite all evangelicals in the common task of the total evangelization of the world’.
In 1966 the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, in partnership with America’s Christianity Today magazine, sponsored the World Congress on Evangelism in Berlin. This gathering drew 1,200 delegates from over 100 countries, and inspired further conferences in Singapore (1968), Minneapolis and Bogotá (1969), and Australia (1971). Shortly afterwards, Billy Graham perceived the need for a larger, more diverse congress to re-frame Christian mission in a world of social, political, economic, and religious upheaval. The Church, he believed, had to apply the gospel to the contemporary world, and to work to understand the ideas and values behind rapid changes in society. He shared his thinking with 100 Christian leaders, drawn from all continents, and they affirmed the need. It would be a timely gathering.
Here is a synopsis of the first big meeting. Note the "radicals" involved.
The First Lausanne Congress
In July 1974 some 2,700 participants and guests from over 150 nations gathered in Lausanne, Switzerland, for ten days of discussion, fellowship, worship and prayer. Given the range of nationalities, ethnicities, ages, occupations and church affiliations,TIME Magazine described it as ‘a formidable forum, possibly the widest ranging meeting of Christians ever held’.
Speakers included some of the world’s most respected Christian thinkers of the time, including Samuel Escobar, Francis Schaeffer, Carl Henry and John Stott. Ralph Winter’s plenary address, in which he introduced the term ‘unreached people groups’, was hailed as ‘one of the milestone events in missiology’. Some were calling for a moratorium on foreign missions, but Winter argued the opposite. Thousands of groups remained without a single Christian, and with no access to Scripture in their tongue, so cross-cultural evangelization needed to be the primary task of the Church.
What is the Lausanne Covenant?
Here is a bit of the history. As you can see, it was chaired by John Stott, a well-respected theologian, by even the exacting theologians of The Gospel Coalition.
A major achievement of the congress was to develop The Lausanne Covenant. John Stott chaired the drafting committee and is best described as its chief architect. This was to be a Covenant with God, publicly declared, and a Covenant with one another; it has proved to be one of most widely-used documents in modern church history. The Covenant has helped to define evangelical theology and practice, and has set the stage for many new partnerships and alliances. On the last day of the congress, it was publicly signed by Billy Graham and by Anglican Bishop Jack Dain of Sydney, Australia. It has since been signed personally by thousands of believers, and it continues to serve as a basis for unity and a call to global evangelization.
Reflecting on the impact of the 1974 congress, John Stott writes, ‘Many a conference has resembled a fireworks display. It has made a loud noise and illuminated the night sky for a few brief brilliant seconds. What is exciting about Lausanne is that its fire continues to spark off other fires.’
Missio Alliance holds to the Cape Town Commitment which grew out of the Lausanne Covenant.
You can read about the history of it here.
The Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization (Cape Town, 16-25 October 2010) brought together 4,200 evangelical leaders from 198 countries, and extended to hundreds of thousands more, participating in meetings around the world, and online. Its goal? To bring a fresh challenge to the global Church to bear witness to Jesus Christ and all his teaching – in every nation, in every sphere of society, and in the realm of ideas.
The Cape Town Commitment is the fruit of this endeavour. It stands in an historic line, building on both The Lausanne Covenant and The Manila Manifesto. It is in two parts. Part l sets out biblical convictions, passed down to us in the scriptures, and Part ll sounds the call to action.
So, I am leaving you all with a reading assignment. This link takes you to the entire Cape Town Commitment. I assure you that it is not some lightweight document. In fact, in my opinion, it gives the Neo-Calvinists exclusionists a run for their money because they would be welcome in this alliance. But, they won't come because that wall is so comforting.
Years ago, I hung around some folks who were instrumental in the Lausanne Congress. I always enjoyed fellowshipping with those from different theological traditions and convictions while all of us stay faithful historic Christian doctrine. The last few years has been trying for me as I have struggled to find a unified spiritual community that welcomes something more than rigid Neo-Calvinism. Reading about Missio Alliance brings me incredible hope for the future.
I will be writing more on this group on Friday. They seem to think women should play an integral part in the church.
Lydia's Corner: Jeremiah 22:1-23:20 2 Thessalonians 1:1-12 Psalm 83:1-18 Proverbs 25:11-14
It looks like it will take me at least until Friday to read the whole document. But so far it looks pretty awesome.
I’m so glad you’ve posted this article, Dee, and I look forward to reading the details soon! I know quite a few of the people who catalyzed Missio Alliance, and see them as accessible role models and peer-mentors. I’ve also been personally acquainted with about half of men and women on the board for at least 5 years, several closer to 15 years. I’ve found them (and other catalyzers and leaders not currently on their leadership team) to be conscientious disciples of discernment, whose missional approaches are demonstrated with great spiritual humility and culturally-sensitive activity in communities. I especially appreciate their intentional efforts on striking a more balanced demographic that better represents the larger Body of Christ in North America. In a phrase, Missio Alliance rocks!
I am also going to get going on reading that Dee…I just wanted to check that you also knew about Renovare (http://www.renovare.org/) who draw from a wide range of Christian traditions to get a balanced perspective. There is a structure, & yet a freedom there.
Oh & I read that review of Philip Yancey (allegedly his book, actually his theology)…Challies is not fit to lick Yancey’s boots, in my opinion. Those two are a fantastic example of the difference between single-minded, & narrow-minded. I love Yancey.
Thanks for this article Dee, this is exactly the kind of anti-toxin that’s needed to counterbalance the non-stop poison of the calvinistas.
@ Beakerj:
I will put Renovare in a future post. Thanks for reminding me.
You see, unless you believe that God programs each lightening bolt to hit exactly where they hit each and every time, you may be an “open theist” which is the Calvinista word for ‘heretic.”
Mohammed abu-Hamid al-Ghazali, who when presented with the same conundrum as his contemporary St Thomas Aquinas (reconciling Faith and Reason, the Spiritual and Physical Reality) came to the completely-opposite conclusion from Summa Theologica in his Incoherence of the Philosophers.
(Actual example: When a cloth burns, Al’lah is Willing the Cloth out of existence and Willing the flame and ash into existence, No Cause-and-Effect Whatsoever, No Connection Whatsoever.)
Al-Ghazali set Islamic theology firmly in the direction of Utter Determinism, where God Predestines everything down to the subatomic level. And later More-Islamic-Than-Mohammed took this Predestination-turned-Determinism as far as they could. Look where it got them.
Now, take a look those who write for The Gospel Coalition. Look at the board of this Coalition. Each and everyone of these are Reformed and only Reformed.
And Truly Reformed, and Really Truly Reformed, and More Calvinist than Calvin Could Ever Imagine. (Like the Talibani are more Islamic than Mohammed Could Ever Imagine.) Until you get to A.W.Pink Syndrome, where you cannot interact with anyone else because All Other So-Called-“Christians” are Heretics and Apostates because they do not have YOUR Truly Reformed, Perfectly-Parsed Theological Party Line. The ultimate theoretical end state of Protestantism.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Thank you for making me laugh, as always.
Walls. Their precious Neo-Calvinist doctrine is so gosh darn important that walls should be built. But, we can lob “love bombs” over the wall at one another.
Isn’t Love-Bombing a CULT tactic?
dee wrote:
Isn’t “More Calvinist than Calvin”, “More Marxist than Marx”, “More Islamic than Mohammed”, “More Freudian than Freud” the sort of thing followers do as Entropy sets in and “Can You Top This” becomes their True Follower credentials?
Dee, thanks for publishing this. It looks interesting. I’m pleased to see that they are trying to remain within the *broad* bounds of orthodoxy.
Re the Challies review of Yancey, I thought that although he displayed his theology quite openly, Challies was at least reasonably graceful. That’s not to say I agree or disagree. I like Yancey but one of my friends doesn’t.
If you think that some of the Reformed sites out there are rigid, you should see some of the hyper-Calvinist ones – I saw one of them had recently even added John Calvin to their list of heterodox leaders. HUG mentioned the case of A W Pink, which was indeed rather sad, and has been noted upon.
BTW re Reformed, I know it’s been said before, but there are Reformed and there are Reformed, so to speak. I think we all get on with JeffS, and among Reformed theologians, I like B B Warfield. Francis Schaeffer was also Reformed. However the latter was also keen to emphasise living, or existential, Christian experience, whereas with some of the current Reformed crowd “experiential” seems to have become a bit of a suspect word.
Kolya wrote:
Gracious? How? Let’s take a look at the following statement from Challies awful review of Yancey’s book on prayer.
http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/prayer-does-it-make-any-difference
“Sadly, much of what he writes is false; dangerous even. ”
Challies calls Yancey dangerous while he has nothing to say about Mahaney? This is the “gospel” of the “gospel” coalition?
DEE!!! But TULIP is awesome, she’s probably crawling under your chair now! 😉 That is one form of TULIP that I could adore! 😀
@ dee:
Tim Challies books only have one useful purpose in life. They exist at becoming toilet paper. That is the only thing I could see them being used for.
LOL I didn’t say I agreed with them! Maybe I’ve read so much vitriol on other “religious” websites that Challies seems quite restrained by comparison. 🙂
LOL…
Actually there is something in what you’re saying, Eagle. I agree that the cult of personality is extremely unhelpful in Christianity, even where it involves writers or people that we personally may like a lot. No human is infallible.
Funnily enough I’m reading “Stalin’s Generals” at the moment which does somewhat touch on this subject 😉
Dee wrote:
“….perhaps there was a need for a broader fellowship – one that could incorporate not just leaders and churches, but other networks, denominations, schools, and still other groups that shared a desire to engage in dialogue and work around the most pressing theological and cultural challenges facing the North American Church in mission amid its rapidly shifting cultural context.”
BJU just called. They want to know how to sign up.
Eagle wrote:
Oh no you didn’t………….
(off topic)
I’m bad at math. What is 63,000 sq ft divided by 16,000 sq ft?
I’m just wondering how many Steve Furtick mansions can fit inside this swanky new Baptist gym:
Ky. Church Hopes to Attract Community Residents with Full-Service, 61,300-Square-Foot Gym
Dee, please do post something about Renovare in the future! I attended one of their workshops led by Richard Foster many years ago in Charlotte. Dallas Willard was also supportive of Renovare. I think many of your readers will find this very interesting and a nice change from the neo-Calvinist “God-squad”! Ann
Great post Dee! I stumbled upon Missio Alliance a few months ago, after an “Anabaptist” pastor recommended it to me. I can attest to an extremely earnest attempt at dialogue within this group. Like you posted, differences are encouraged within Missio Alliance, but people are further encouraged to share why and how that happens. I find that story, individual and collective story, matter so much more than “doctrine”. Because, as we are all honest, we admit that our doctrine at least partially comes from our personal stories.
On a somewhat related note, I am just about done reading “Young, Restless, and No Longer Reformed” by Austin Fisher. It is a story of Fisher’s journey of hard, haunting questions, and where they have led him. I’ve connected with the author in so many ways. I intend on writing a thorough book review later this week, but I highly recommend it.
Peace!
Dee wrote:
I will be writing more on this group on Friday. They seem to think women should play an integral part in the church.
I thought women were already an integral part of Church life. You know, changing stinky pampers, making sure the kitchen counters in the fellowship hall are cleared, stuff like that. Are these Missio folks suggesting that women be allowed to go beyond the roles clearly defined for them in God’s Holy Word?
I forgot to mention when I was on here a few hours ago that one of the links in the original post is broken (or at least it’s not working for me).
It’s the link in this line:
“In an Associated Baptist Press article link”
When I click on that link, nothing happens 🙁
I gather it’s meant to go to this page?-
Coalition faces ‘post-Christian’ challenges
Muff Potter wrote:
hee hee. I was thinking the same thing earlier but didn’t bother to post it. 🙂
Yea, I think it’s about time we start focusing on this hugely divisive distinction. Excellent post, Dee.
@ Julie Anne:
Maybe they’ve redefined words again. They call themselves the “Gospel” Coalition, in effect using the word Gospel to mean “Neo Calvinist/Neo Reformed” Coalition.
I wanted to commend you for this latest post. I recently left a fundamentalist church and am now attending a mainstream one. I also had recently discovered Roger Olson’s book “How to Be Evangelical Without Being Conservative” which has really helped me sort out what has been good from my evangelical experience and what has been not so helpful. You mention Dallas Willard, who I heard about years ago while reading Richard Foster, so in that regard we seem to be kindred spirits as well. I am thinking out loud here, but it seems that especially right now when we are heartbroken by the domestic and sexual abuse in the fundamentalist churches it becomes all the more imperative to learn once again how to return to our first love of Christ and our neighbor as ourselves. And each day as we pray for wisdom and discernment, it is helpful to know that we are not swimming against a current of extremism alone, that there are some out there who remind us of what it means to be a Christian.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Lol! The sad thing is that if the Reformers had had that mindset, history might have been very different, and the liberty in Christ that was so hard fought and won for us might not have been here either. What they tend to forget is that in our knowledge of God all of us are finite human beings who will continue learning and growing till the day we see Him face to face.
@ Kolya:
Wow, that is sad. Roger Olson’s blog at patheos has some excellent material refuting this view, which he calls Calvinist fundamentalism at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/ and Ethics Daily, the American Baptist blog, has posted a few of his recent articles as well at http://www.ethicsdaily.com/section/ethicsdaily-coms-latest-articles I agree with you that it is refreshing to hear voices within orthodox evangelicalism that not only echo our concerns but that aid us in our growth and Christian discipleship.
@ Bridget:
Yeah, I at one point used to actually download some sermons from their website, but the 2012 posts about rape were so appalling that I refused to go back there. Maybe some within the neo-Calvinist movement started out sincerely seeking revival, but — and this is my opinion, the way the patriarchy movement has run amuck in it is contrary to the Gospel Christ taught, on many levels, e.g. the pharisseeism and the willingness to lay burdens on people that the leaders of this movement for the most part would not lift with their little finger.
@ Erik:
That’s next on my to-do list. Though the church I was in was fundamentalist and not part of the neo-calvinist movement, I was intrigued by the book when I saw it on Roger Olson’s site and think there is a lot to learn from it, spiritually, as a cautionary reminder if nothing else.
@ Beakerj:
Wonderful. I am a totally blind person and was able to find Dallas Willard’s books, and a lot of Philip Yancey and Roger Olson’s books, in audio format from Learning Ally and Bookshare. If I sound like a kid in a candy store, I am. The funny thing is that before joining the fundamentalist church, I used to read books like Yancey’s “Disappointment with God” and, while in my church no one explicitly told you not to read something, there were certain things you were warned to stay away from because they were part of the New World Order. Thankfully, getting out of there while it has meant the loss of people I thought were friends who act as if I never existed, finding these books has been a blessing and a source of encouragement.
@ Ann:
Richard Foster’s book “Prayer; Finding the Heart’s True Home” really helped me when I was trying to sort out whether to stay or leave my former church. I had read it several years ago but reading it again last summer I found myself in tears because I could relate to how God was moving him out of those places where he was most comfortable to where God wanted him to be. It was just me and God alone not knowing what to do but to trust Him. Reading your post has really been a great help, thanks!
andrea ball wrote:
Hi Andrea! Is your computer reading this out to you? Waves hi! I’m so glad to hear this. In comparison to people like Yancy & Olson the calvinistas/fundamentalists sound like robots when they write. They appear to be absolved from all true human emotion, which is being repressed under the weight of their submission to God’s sovereignty. Even if they admit to emotion, it’s all neatly tied up by the end of the article…Not for them the messy job of long term emotional interaction with things the Bible says, & so on. They also have that tendency to treat everyone like children, as if an adult can’t read certain books because they don’t have sufficient learning to remain ‘unpolluted’ by it. Aaaargh.
Those guys remind me of the Borg, they assimilate individuality & promote the hive mind.
Hmmm, as to your so-called friends…how sad they turned out to be that way. I hope you have or find many others.
The Challies review is so disappointing. I also found his criticism of Yancey giving equal weight to the opinions of Jewish Rabbis and Christians alike completely patronizing. Jesus followers do NOT have the market cornered on all things true. I have learned the most from my friends who hold to differing worldviews. All truth is God’s truth, whether spoke from the mouth of a believer or not.
@ Sara:
You make a vallid point. A lot of Christians won’t read or listen to anything, whether it be books, news sources or commentary that doesn’t come from within their own subculture. This is sad, because while I might not agree with everything I read, how intellectually and spiritually impoverished we become by staying in our own little bubble. I haven’t read the review you mentioned, but I wonder how many people will read it and for that reason alone decide not to read any of Yancey’s books.
@ Beakerj:
Hi, (waving back) I am using a screen reader, but, unlike the borg it isn’t telling me resistance is futile, and it has a very human-sounding voice. I get what you are saying about some theologians leaving human emotion out of the picture. Last year, my aunt died of pancreatic cancer and my grandma who is still in a fundamentalist Baptist church actually commented that she was experiencing doubts when the prayer line called about other people, wondering why God didn’t save Linda from dying. Roger Olson recounted a similar experience in his chapter about doubt in “How to Be Evangelical Without Being Conservative” about what happened at the Gaither singing convention, and how that was a moment when people were being real. That description really resonated with me, having experienced it myself and being able to assure my grandmother that the Psalmist cried out to God, even complained to Him that the wicked prospered while the good suffer, and letting her know that I knew as does God that her faith is strong in the midst of her questions.
@ Erik:
Just finished Austin Fisher’s book too. Four thumbs up from me. Looking forward to your review.
Bridget wrote:
Ain’t that the truth!!
@ Bridget:
Anyone else is looked on as heretical!
andrea ball wrote:
Andrea – how true. This is entrenched in church culture now (and has been at least since the reformation). The local church is split into separate plural “churches” and we not only tolerate that but insist on it. On one blog, I encouraged people to go out and worship with different groups of believers sometimes on a Sunday. The blog owner came back saying that was very nice, but he wanted – in his words – to immediately slap a health warning on it. He was worried that we might become church-hoppers and lose our connection with our one little subgroup. We actually treasure those unbiblical divisions and fear losing them.
Unfortunately, I don’t have much idea of what to do about that other than commenting in the blogsphere…
(BTW – I hope, when your computer is reading my comments, that it sounds like a Hollywood villain. I have a BBC English accent in real life, you see.)
In other news, as I type this, TWW is just 1651 hits short of 10 million.
There should probably be some kind of ceremony.
Dee, thanks so much for this post! It’s so encouraging to read about a push back against these guys. It gives me hope.
Ann wrote:
It is particularly appealing because a number of the “gospel” boys think Richard Foster is also dangerous. When I first read that, I had a fit of giggles about their “oh so serious” correct theology.
Erik wrote:
I have a thought. When you write the review of the book, think about posting it here. I just ordered the book but it will be awhile before I get around to it. It is raising chatter in a number of places.
Muff Potter wrote:
Can you imagine that? They would actually allow for an expanded role for women! I am sure a call to arms is going out in certain segments. From what i can tell, God hasn’t sent one of his perfectly controlled lightening bolts to one of their gatherings.
Julie Anne wrote:
I agree, Julie Anne. The Neo-Calvinists do not have a final say on the truth. Arrogance and assured superiority will always come back to bite you.
Daisy wrote:
Thank you Daisy. This link gave me trouble when I posted it and I had to fix it twice. I just fixed it again. It’s a conspiracy!!!
Bridget wrote:
I intend to continue to call them out on their co-option of the word “gospel.” It shows an underlying hubris. If they had called it the Reformed Coalition i would have little problem.
@ andrea ball:
Welcome to TWW!
Beakerj wrote:
In fact, many of them say this very thing. The pastor is the father, you are the child. This was said to a wonderful man who was a long standing deacon in a Reformed Baptist church. Eventually, the arrogance proved to be their downfall at that church.
Sara wrote:
But that is their style. They hold the truth and they know it. Period. My breaking point was when he called Yancey dangerous and has been a supporter of all books coming out of SGM. Apparently SGM is not dangerous but Yancey is??? Good night!
dee wrote:
And then all too often they invoke Paterfamilias and the Household Codes in all their pagan glory…
An Attorney wrote:
I am learning to embrace my inner “heresy” as a badge of honor when it is applied by those guys.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I have done just that due to frequent moves as well as curiosity. The most fun I had was at a messianic Jewish congregation and a small Catholic church in New Hampshire. The least fun was at Ed Young Jrs church in Dallas. I am still recuperating!
Beakerj wrote:
Just like the classic Communists and Extreme Islamistas, until their Submission to Predestination (including the Marxist version, “The Inevitable Dialectic of History”) leads them to inhuman actions.
dee wrote:
Sounds an awful lot like the Pharisees to me!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Now you’ve done it. The Guy Behind the Curtain will appear and explain why he number isn’t valid since it counts multiple page hits by one reader.
I actually use it as a rough way to see the activity on the blog. I can sometimes tell that things are heating up by watching the counter. Interestingly, on Monday we had a major jump in readers. It seemed to be tied to the Bob Jones, Bill Gothard, and creation stuff.
As you know, we like to hop from story to story and are often surprised by the stories which resonate.
@ Sara:
They are. It is almost scary.
Daisy wrote:
About four times the size of the Furtick Mansion.
For a better mental image of size, 61,300 sq ft is over 200 x 300 feet (around 60 x 100 meters).
@ Sara:
For them, love has become a bad word. Many of them now define it as being willing to “love” people so much that you will discipline them. Can you imagine??
Beakerj wrote:
“Hive mind” as in The Collective, Comrade?
“In the name of The People…”
dee wrote:
I can, sadly. I know this from personal experience (receiving traumatizing faux-counseling from a Christian ministry and having it go horribly wrong) and from reading blogs like Doug Wilson just to see how the other half thinks.
I’ve been thinking a lot recently about how I came to repentance and how I experienced acceptance by Jesus. The words of Romans 2 were 100 percent made manifest in my own transformation. God was and continues to be kind, patient and forebearing with me. And if it really is God’s kindness that leads us to repentance, how might our kindness lead and encourage others? Will we, in kindness and humility, open the door for others or will we, in stoic defiance and arrogance, slam it in their face?
Thanks for talking here about the God who loves. And making this a safe place for those of us who’ve been wounded by the door slammers.
My copy of *Celebration of Discipline* was probably a second printing, from waaay back in the very late 1970s or early 1980s. Richard Foster shared important practices that made sense for the Inward and Outward Disciplines (various personal/individual activities), and Corporate Disciplines.
However, it always bugged me that Corporate Disciplines weren’t subdivided into inward and outward activities to bring symmetry to the system. Everything Foster listed — confession, worship, guidance, celebration — seemed to me to be an internal-within-the-organization kind of activity. At best, they were public displays of faith, done corporately by those already doing the other inward/outward disciplines. What happened to the fourth quadrant of Outward Corporate Disciplines? Where were the demonstrations of Christlikeness out in the community?
A few years ago, I realized that the missional movement seemed to be filling and fulfilling that missing fourth quadrant. “Doing good in the ‘hood” is that public demonstration of living out the Gospel that I long felt was needed.
There have been several attempts in recent years to shift to missional, with varying degrees of effectiveness. But I see Missio Alliance as the best example currently on the horizon for embodying the “missional mantra” coined by Brother Maynard (aka Brent Toderash), “Live your faith. Share your life.” His saying turns inside out the conventional dualism of modernist evangelicalism with its split between incursion-into-culture and then retreat-into-church/self to “Live your life. Share your faith.”
Some of the missional networks have ended up with limited appeal for reasons of theology and/or dominant demographics [i.e., read: older white males — of which I am one!]. Missio Alliance seems to have responded to many of those critiques from its formation. And though demographic balance in gender and races and generations isn’t a guarantee of an integrative, intercultural paradigm, I think any criticism that their multicultural photo gallery is just for show would be answered by the lives and ministry work of the people included in the steering team and larger development team. Everyone I’m acquainted with personally seems very open and collegial toward others. I’m looking forward to seeing more of what my friends in Missio Alliance do with community formation/development, and how the network unfolds … and how it may in the long run complement the spiritual formation practices of Renovare.
@ dee:
Do they ever look at what took place at the cross as an act of love, freely given, as a ransom for many, by God the Son? No, they mainly look at it as an act of discipline, inflicted upon Jesus, by His Father, to save man’s sorry souls.
@ dee:
Yeah, I realise it has limited meaning. But even so – you’ll undoubtedly surpass 10 megabits this afternoon (or this morning in the US).
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Bah. That should of course have read “megahits”.
@ Sara:
Those are some of my favorite words in scripture 🙂
dee wrote:
Isn’t that an ABUSER’s definition of love?
“Mommie Dearest is doing this to you because She Loves You — NO WIRE COATHANGERS!!!!!”
@ Beakerj:
They are submitted to their false understanding of God’s sovereignty, because they do not understand what sovereignty means, nor what the scripture really teaches about it.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
A football field is about 61,000 sf, counting the endzones and the sidelines.
correction, about 63-64,000 sf.
@ Beakerj:
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I’ve been known to call neocalvinism as Christian Vulcanism.
But I like the Borg reference too.
Aaaaaaaaaaagh!
I got hits number 9999999 and 10000001 – but not 10000000 !!!!
My day is ruined. Time to go and cook the haggis, I suppose.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
me shaking head . . . . Yes, cook haggis.
An Attorney wrote:
Oh, they understand — sort of. They understand “sovereignty” as Raw POWER. POWER to force the Will of the Powerful down the throats of the Powerless. (“Triumph of the Will”?)
“There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
— Lord Voldemort (note that this is The Bad Guy)
@ Bridget:
In other news, my day is still ruined.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Bracketing salvo; make corrections and fire for effect.
Bridget wrote:
“Why are you making pudding at 4 Ayem?”
“Because I’ve lost control of my life.”
@ Mara:
Occasionally, you’d get a vulcan who was willing to go against the prevailing rigidity and stoicism, but I like your Christian vulcanism refrence too. I think the borg applies not just to neo-Calvinism but, unfortunately to the fundamentalist church I left. During several months prior to my leaving one of the deacons who taught Sunday school would either be up there pushing his political agenda or i– worse, into a rant in which he would say, no kidding, “People who have left our church have turned away from God.” And there is no good way to leave my former church. Like everyone else who left, I have been accused of leaving because I didn’t get my way, in spite of my having sat down with the pastor’s wife and told her quietly that I was finding more spiritual nourishment at the more mainstream church. This happens not just to me but to everybody who has left, every one of them good people who gave years of their lives and service to my former church. The borg are very much with us.
@ brad/futuristguy:
What I think of when you describe this struggle to live out our Christian lives is Roger Olson’s description of the Church Under the Bridge. Is it perfect? Of course not. That genuine mission can occur in institutional churches is also something Olson points out. You also make some excellent points about Foster’s writing, though I continue to find much of what he has to say helpful and my first introduction to him was “The Freedom of Simplicity.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
There may, perhaps, be a lot of truth in that.
I certainly know at least one “apostle” over here who taught implicitly that corporate authority is identically equal to spiritual authority, and taught explicitly that everything in God’s creation runs on authority. He further taught explicitly that the evidence he is an apostle is that he has “authority”. In other words, he is gifted as a leader and as such he is able to get people to follow him – i.e., ascribe authority to him.
For such people, everything is about the created order and – coincidentally – their own significant and high place therein. Thus, when Moses’ leadership was very aggressively challenged, his response was to fall face down. But when one of Fiscal’s leadership decisions (which was supposed to be a joint one anyway) was appropriately questioned, his response was to lash out at his “enemies” and hurt them to the uttermost limits of his strength.
Because everything depends on the strong and powerful keeping power. And I mean everything: it’s entirely possible that Fiscal literally believed Petry and Meyer were blaspheming against God when they failed to ascribe sovereignty to Fiscal himself. The Holy Spirit indwells and identifies, not with his people, but with his senior managers. Righteousness is purely a matter of the strong maintaining the hierarchy.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I’ve never had haggis, wouldn’t know how to cook it. Lol!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Well, Nick. I got hit 10000000 but this is a statement of commiseration, not triumph as I was looking for the all “9”s.
I’m fascinated with hit counters. In the slightly more than two years that I have been following TWW I have been recording, automatically, not manually, the daily hit totals. The regression line for this data shows an average increase of 8.7 hits/day for 25 months.
Deebs, GBTC – I can make a plot of the daily data available as a .png or as the gnuplot source data used to make the plot. Please let me know if you would like it.
Go Duke! They play arch BB rival UNC in the great Dean Dome Cathedral tonight.
@ Bridget:
Oh, wow, and if you’ve ever had an abusive father, this thinking really gets distorted. One thing learning to trust God while trying to sort out what to do — whether to leave my church or to stay, really helped me do was to focus on God’s love for me personally. In a recent sermon my pastor gave, he commented on how John Wesley really came to know the grace of God when he could say, “Christ died for me”, which sounds so elementary but is so important to get hold of and to sink in.
Dee, one of the links in this post went to the church my husband and I left in 1978 to go to GOB/CLC. Columbia Baptist Church. When we told our Sunday School teachers that were leaving they came to our house to try and talk us out of. How I wish we had listened to them. I’ve been thinking of going there again, now I’m going to! Thanks so much for this post.
@ dee:
What is neat is how we could talk about everything from the sovereignty of God to a more balanced Christian faith and view of missions to cooking haggis. Lol! On a more serious note, I think a lot of people, thank God, are becoming increasingly concerned about what is going on in their churches and Christian educational institutions. We can only pray that many who are homeschool parents and who are in some of these moments can experience their own epiphany and begin asking honest questions.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Might makes right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I’m sorry, — but I’m appalled. I’m not saying Christian fellowship is unimportant, but it seems like this gym thing is a church gearing itself to consumer creature comforts. It would be different if they were using the gym as a place to shelter the homeless or, as one little black church I knew of did, offering a program for children from homes where there was poverty and the parents were either unable to be there for them or in trouble themselves. I would have to read the whole article, but what little I saw painted the mental picture in my mind of people shopping for the church that would serve them best like you would shop for toothpaste.
Ky. Church Hopes to Attract Community Residents with Full-Service, 61,300-Square-Foot Gym
“A Kentucky congregation is taking on an unconventional approach to community outreach by building a recreational facility, with hopes to attract gym members that eventually become churchgoers.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
regarding this gym thing… why can’t a church just do something helpful and meet a need without any strings attached?
kindness and charity for its own sake. not for the sake of the church’s bottom line.
it’s as slimy as my sister’s hospital room roommate, who gallantly told all of us about her business venture with KM (multi level marketing nutritional supplement product) that was changing people’s lives. A product that was healing people, and opportunities that were helping people get out of debt and turn their lives around. All leading up to the words her husband said, “we’ve been wanting to sponsor someone for a long time now. we’ve prayed a lot about it. and we’ve decided to sponsor Kim.” (my sis)
dee wrote:
I think I mentioned on a much older thread that a lot of the Calvinists have written in some of their books that Calvinism = Gospel.
I have seen them equate Calvinism to the Gospel before (years before, when I used to lurk at their forums or talk to them).
Some sites attribute this quote to Spurgeon:
“It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.”
Quotes such as that can be found on the Grace to You site, Why I Am a Calvinist, Part 2
I don’t know if Calvinists of yesteryear meant ‘Calvinism = Gospel’ in some nuanced way that the Neo Calvinists don’t today or what, but it sounds similar to me.
Jesus said a person had to have childlike faith to approach God, that simple faith is part of the Gospel, or approaching the Gospel, but Calvinism is anything but simple. It’s convoluted and confusing.
@ oldJohnJ:
“I got hit 10000000”
+++++++++++++
waste no time & go buy a lottery ticket.
(buy 10, i’ll pay for 5 of them, & we’ll work out the dividends)
@ dee:
Thanks, glad to have found a safe, welcoming place to share things, even during my thinking out loud moments.
Hi Everyone,
This is off topic but SGM Survivors is now closed.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
“The weak are the meat which the strong do eat.”
from: David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas
@ elastigirl:
. . . gag . . . your sister’s hospital roommate. And all this while in the hospital — ugh! Isn’t there enough stress and stuff to deal with when one is in the hospital without being hit with a pyramid marketing scheme.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
“The only goal of Power is POWER. And POWER consists of inflicting suffering upon the Powerless.”
— Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, Nineteen Eighty-Four
Bridget wrote:
That is even worse than the constantly screaming and complaining crazy lady across the hall when I was racked up for a week by abdominal surgery.
Daisy wrote:
What do you expect from a completely-airtight system developed by a young know-it-all lawyer?
dee wrote:
Well, it sure bites me. Do you know how many of these guys have called me Jezebel, heathen, unrepentant, blah blah? The pompous, self-righteous, judgmental attitudes should give them away, but people still flock to them. I don’t get it.
Julie Anne wrote:
You must be doing a good job exposing them.
Keep up the good work.
Re the term “missional” – it’s been around for a long time (well, a long time for Evangelical circles) – it came out of the mix of “younger Evangelicals” in the late 1990s, when disparate types like Mark Driscoll and Tony Jones were actually meeting together and airing their questions with one another, and thinking about what mission would look like in the current culture. The GC got it from that environment, as their folks pulled away from the rest when they found their answers in “Calvinism.” I can’t remember if the word “missional” is actually in it, but Lesslie Newbigin’s book “The Gospel in a Pluralist Society” is all about describing what “missional” looks like. It was a big influence among those “younger Evangelicals, but now I’m sure the GC (except perhaps Keller) would write him off – he was an Anglican… Dee, this would be a good read for you if you haven’t already. I know – so many books, so little time 🙂
Another reasonable Evangelical voice, also closely associated with Lausanne, is Christopher J. H. Wright’s. He is a very good writer, specializing in the ethics of the Old Testament. He runs the organization John Stott founded, Langham Partnership. I had the pleasure of talking with him at a conference, and he is a very kind and thoughtful person – and being from N. Ireland has a subtle sense of humor as well.
Renovare was a good resource as I was journeying. Willard’s “Divine Conspiracy” blew the roof off my theology, in the best way. The Northumbria Community connected me with people who were totally unmoved by culture wars; though founded in England in the late 1970s by a group of mostly Baptists, it’s a lovely ecumenical (therefore heretical according to Neo-Cals) fellowship that extends around the world and is appreciative of the whole history of Christianity, with a Celtic/monastic ethos. I can’t understate its importance for me; it was a lifeline in more ways than one. You might give their web site a gander, Dee: http://www.northumbriacommunity.org/
andreaball, they have a booklet of the daily prayers and readings available in Braille. They do have office hours, and one can telephone to order, as well as order on line – mindful of the time and currency difference, since they are in the north-east of England.
@ Joy Huff:
YAY!!!! Go forth!
I lost my appetite for dinner!!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Paula Rice wrote:
They are back up but you cannot discuss disagreements with certain doctrinal issues. That’s OK. That is why TWW exists-to get it all on the table.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
At the risk of sounding ignorant, how does one cook haggis and make it taste palatable? Someone once convinced me to try sushi octopus. It ruined my evening.
Mara wrote:
When I think of Neo Calvinism (even the regular kind), I sometimes think of The Logical Song
Lyrics. But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible, logical, responsible, practical. | And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable, clinical, intellectual, cynical.
@ Daisy:
I love that song.
I don’t even have to click on it to have the melody and words running through my head.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
So did Charles Manson and Jim Jones.
@ andrea:
The article says (IIRC) that gym usage is free for people who are already church members, but they will charge non church members a small fee.
They also said they won’t be overt in proselytizing new comers, but they have not ruled out some gentle prodding (witnessing) to get newbie gym members to attend church on Sundays.
I’m not sure which is worse, being oogled by gym guys when you’re a lady just there to exercise (not flirt), or having a religious person try to hit you up to attend their religious services.
I am currently in a place where I cannot afford a gym membership, but when or if I do, I am thinking about signing up for one, and I don’t want to be hassled by people when I go. I posted this on an old thread, and it fits here:
What It’s Like To Be A Woman At The Gym
Thank you for posting this, Dee. I particularly like: “Mr. Piper, tear down that wall!” I think you would like Austin Fischer’s new book “Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed”. I got the Kindle edition last week and couldn’t put it down.
andrea wrote:
Actually, you just have to heat it through. Can be done in the microwave or foil-wrapped in the oven (tends to dry out a bit without foil). We did it in the oven today because it was already on for the roast tatties.
I hope this is helpful!
dee wrote:
Step 1: Buy a decent haggis
Step 2: Actually, that’s the long and short of it
@ oldJohnJ:
Och well… between the two of us, we got ’em.
Julie Anne wrote:
Well, it sure bites me. Do you know how many of these guys have called me Jezebel, heathen, unrepentant, blah blah? The pompous, self-righteous, judgmental attitudes should give them away, but people still flock to them. I don’t get it.
Hi Julie Anne, I don’t know that I’ve ever exchanged comments with you on here so I wanted to say hello!
I’m so sorry that you’ve been called these heinous names. It DOES bite. This should p*** all of us off. I wish it made more people angry. I think the fact that this bites you indicates that you are human and in touch with your core emotions (which can be both a blessing and a curse, I know).
And the fact that you “don’t get it” [why people say and do this horrible stuff and why people flock to them] indicates, I think, that you are operating within a healthy enough framework to recognize the crazy in others. In some ways, you don’t get it because it’s so beyond what is healthy and normal. But you kind of DO get that you don’t get it, ya know? You SEE that it’s crazy. And crazy just doesn’t make sense to healthy folks.
I don’t know everything about your story — or the stories of many on this site — but I believe that the backlash that you — they — we get for speaking out IS absolutely crazy and it comes from misguided, unhealthy people doing misguided, unhealthy things. They ARE pompous, self-righteous and judgmental. And if they knew it, and talked enough about it, and were trying to fix it, something tells me others would start to see it more in them, too.
I suppose all of us do misguided, unhealthy things from time to time (PICK ME! PICK ME!), but man, it’s a lot easier to be in a community of people whose posture toward God and others is at least open and humble (which is why I like this blog). The people who are doing this crazy stuff to you — their posture is toward themselves. Though don’t ask me to diagram that.
I imagine I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. I just wanted to encourage you, FWIW!!!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
So….traditional or modern recipe?
My grandmother used to have an embroidered recipe for traditional haggis hanging on her kitchen wall. That branch of my ancestors hails from the Dingwall area north of Inverness (Tulloch Castle being the ancestal home…).
She brought home from a trip there ‘canned haggis’ – and let us just say that it tasted mostly of whiskey and mystery….
However, at a local Robbie Burns dinner, someone made a haggis and it was very good (no sheep stomach or suit in this modern recipe).
@ Daisy:
Funny vid Daisy! My daughter in law joined a ladies only gym because she got tired of the bozos hitting on her.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This could make for another bad evening.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Is that like Spaghetti Os?
@ dee:
Umm…In a long list of family adventures in exoctic canned goods, let’s just say haggis and turtle soup are two things that should never be canned….. 😉
I’ve been reading TWW for several months now and I can’t go any longer without posting on one of my pet peeves that this post brings up. Carson, Challis, Driscoll, MacArthur, Mahaney, Mohler, Piper (and I’m probably missing someone) are not Calvinists or Reformed, they’re Baptists, what used to be called Particular Baptist. Calvin would have considered them heretics because of their sacramentology and ecclesiology (at the least). Just because someone holds up a TULIP doesn’t make them Reformed/Calvinist. I realize some people here might not like real Calvinist doctrine either, but let’s not lump teachers/pastors like Driscoll with ones like R. Scott Clark.
End of rant. If this has been brought up before I apologize for being redundant. As I said earlier I’ve been following TWW for several months now (not always reading the comments though) and it’s been a real eye opener for me and answered some questions I’ve had about the about the “Neo-Calvinists”. And yes, I am a Calvinist.
Thank you for your work ladies
@ Sara:
Your words are helpful to all of us. I never experienced the name-calling to the extent that Julie Ann did, but know what it is to not get it that people who claim to be Christians should behave in such clearly un-Christian and self-righteous ways. I agree with her about being upset and angry, and think i never want to lose touch with the rational, spiritually and emotionally healthy part of myself that can’t accept what was done in Christ’s name in the environments we left. Your words are truly a comfort, because it is tempting to think, well, I’m out of the unhealthy church I was in, now I should put the experience behind me. To some extent, that is true, but I’m not sure complete forgetting is possible yet (I have just been out since September of 2013).
@ Mara:
When I clicked on it and listened, I thought how appropriate it is and how well it describes many of our experiences.
A number of folks have said this before, but wanted to share it again. It seems as if you are unaware that there is a distinct theological tradition that refers to itself as neo-Calvinism, and that is a rich and gracious and culturally engaged movement inspired by Abraham Kuyper, the theologican and former Prime Minister of Holland. The “newly Reformed” or hyper Calvinists you critique are, frankly, not neo-Calvinists. Neo Calvinism, the Dutch Reformed folks who think about worldview and “common grace for the common good” are, frankly, pretty different then the names you cite. There are commonalities (they are Reformed, after all) but to use this phrase from Sproul and Driscoll and the Gospel Coalition is confusing. Prominent neo-Calvinists include Richard Mouw and Gideon Strauss and James K.A. Smith and Mary Stewart Vander Leuween and the late Lewis Smedes. A far cry from those you (wrongly) call neo-Calvinists. I think you mean recent Calvinists. Using neo, of course, implies a newly revised sort. There is nothing particular “neo” about those you cite. For those inclined to think about this, here is a set of short pieces showing the difference between the recent rise in “neo-Puritanism” and those who have for nearly a century called themselves, intentionally, neo-Calvinists.
http://vanguardchurch.blogspot.com/2009/04/which-is-new-calvinism-neo-puritanism.html
Thanks for your work, even though this little bit has added some confusions.
@ Muff Potter:
Indeed. Whereas God is the defender of the orphan and the widow.
@ Beakerj:
Renovare is new age nonsense.
@ Byron Borger:
Thanks for those thoughts and that link, Byron. In part because I’m trained as a linguist, I do a lot with taxonomy systems to figure out what things go together and what don’t. I’ve applied this over the years to theologies. So … for what it’s worth … [but be forewarned, dense technical stuff ahead].
It’s been a problem for well over 15 years now, figuring out who is in what “stream” within the very messy mixture of emerging-Emergent-missional-neoCalvinist-progressive-etc. in Western Christianity’s contemporary scene, especially with younger generations for whom there weren’t always preexisting terms that accurately captured their paradigms, values, or theologies.
In the mid-1990s the emerging-GenX-postmodern swarm first came out of the underground tunnels and showed up on Main Street. It seems to have taken at least the first 10 years for key differentiation and sifting out to occur. Let’s call it an “Emerging Babel.” I’d suggest that different groups from within this messy era of what-do-we-call-ourselves? and who-wants-us? kept finding ways they fit and didn’t fit with others. Eventually, many were relieved to finally figure out their new theological tribe, name it, and go off to explore/create their new common culture together. Sometimes they found close and/or distant relative tribal members in the existing theological caves, sometimes not. This post I wrote covers attempts by various bloggers from about 2006-2009 to make sense of the various tribes/streams:
http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/missional-movement-part-one/
But “the name game” has still been confusing for many outside of that entire situation, and also for those inside it who still haven’t yet found their tribe. There hasn’t been a clear taxonomy of who is what, theologically speaking — regardless of what name they call themselves and what labels other attempt to put upon them. There has not been consistency in what people inside that set of streams call themselves and also *refuse* to call themselves despite what others try to call them. For instance, I was part of emerging, but would NEVER EVER EVER call myself “Emergent” for a variety of reasons dealing with its overall profile of theology, celebrities, and activities. But that doesn’t mean others wouldn’t look at my faith and practices profile and call me “Emergent.” And it can raise a lot of eye-rolling ire and exasperation.
So, with the issue of trying to differentiate among neo-Calvinist (little “n”) versus Neo-Calvinist (capital “N”) versus neo-Reformed versus neo-Puritan, it is still often a mess. Who claims to be part of which group — rightly or wrongly by classic or contemporary definitions — and who dis-claims those who do (or might) claim to be part of their group? If I understood what you were trying to note, Byron, it’s that true Neo-Calvinists would disavow that so-called neo-Calvinists (as either self-labeled or so labeled by others) are legitimately within the Neo-Calvinist realm of faith and practice. That seems to be pretty much what Bob Robinson is differentiating in his post that you linked with, and I agree overall with what he’s saying. I also think that Dee and Deb tried to address some of this confusion here at The Wartburg Watch by using the term “Calvinista” to label/describe the so-called “neo-Calvinists” (little “n”) who are actually more “neo-Puritan” than Neo-Calvinist (capital “N”) — though they may not have used all those terms.
I did some taxonomy work along that lines also in this post, to come up with some indicators of the “Calvinista” tribe.
http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/calvinistas/
Meanwhile, on some spiritual abuse survivor blogs and other theological blogs, there are efforts to encourage that kind of differentiation. For instance, to get members of The Gospel Coalition who don’t believe in authoritarianism to repudiate the stances of those who do. After all, how is there integrity when supposedly “good news” is dictated by those with toxically “bad views”? Or to challenge “soft complementarians” to figure out their differences with “hardcore complementarians” because of the apparent damage that’s been done by this cluster of views.
In other words, since it seems that a lot of people are leaving Christendom because of “Calvinistas,” prove that you are not a Calvinista by refusing to remain silent about the toxic actions of those who clearly are.
I don’t expect that the disagreements or confusion over accurate theological tribes will go away anytime in the near future. We may still get overly bogged down by all the “what” details in profiling different streams and tribes, but calling out toxicity is a major “so what” reason that makes a difference. So we need to keep forging ahead with understanding what makes each tribe different from others, even while trying to find common ground for the common good.
Gav Whi wrote:
I strongly disagree. I know some of the speakers in this movement and they are godly servants who understand the gospel message. They stress the love of God, an anathema to today’s worm theologians.
@ Wes:
Thank you for your comment. I am not an insider to the Calvinista crowd but what you say has been conveyed to TWW by a number of seminarians as well as traditionally Reformed people. Thank you for helping us to figure out the difference.
@ Byron Borger:
I also thank you for your explanation. It is sometimes difficult for those of us outside of Reformed circles to understand the differences. Please keep commenting and clearing up any misunderstanding that we, or those we post about, have.
@ brad/futuristguy:
I always knew you were smart!!! 🙂
dee wrote:
This all relates to The Calvinista Question, so please allow a bit of leeway here: This morning I cooked two eggs for breakfast. Then I came back to read Dee’s comment to Byron. Then I remembered an interview I watched last night with James and Oliver Phelps, the brothers who played The Weasley Twins – Fred and George – in the Harry Potter film series.
So: It occurred to me that there are some helpful analogies here.
First, we who may be outside of the Reformed tradition look at the “eggs” in The Calvinist Carton, and don’t know which will turn out to be the good eggs and which won’t be, unless we crack ’em open and take a look. And who knows, there may be a cuckoo’s egg in The Carton that was planted there by stealth to hide in the midst of legitimate chicken eggs. [Okay, don’t make this eggnalogy walk on all fours … as if it could, anyway.]
Second, one of the questions the Phelps brothers were asked is how their real-life Mom tells them apart, being that they are identical twins and all. They said the only difference was that one brother has a mole on his neck. So, even if twins look identical — to an insider or an outsider — there’s still likely some identifying indicators to differentiate between ’em. The people who are around them the most can probably pointed out what may be the only minor differences between them, that keep others from making a major mistake.
Back to Byron’s comment: It helps us outsiders (and/or those who’ve been messed over by some of those considered insiders) when someone else who is an insider gives us clues to spelling out the differences, and which are (in their perspective) the good eggs and the bad ones.
And now it must be coffee time. Again. Hoorah!
Brad
Thank you for explaining this to me. It prevents me from getting egg on my face. (Bad joke, I know)
dee wrote:
Shell of a good yolk?
I know, I know … not the best, but maybe enough to crack us up a little bit.
More coffee. No, less!
Gav Whi wrote:
Hmm… sorry, Gavin, but although I concede my foray through their site was a brief one, I can see nothing in their aims, values, doctrines or anything else that suggests anything new age about them. I’ve read a fair amount of Richard Foster’s stuff back in the day and he doesn’t strike me as new age either.
So unless you have some inside information – say, the minutes of a secret board meeting where they discuss the covert agenda to broaden the misguided worship of the christ-spirit into a full-scale acceptance of human divinity in the age of aquarius – I think you’ll have to be a little more specific.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Oxymoron alert!
@ Gav Whi:
Are you “the” Gavin White of yester-yore? (synonym alert). I thought you’d be commenting a bit more freely on your love of haggis? Just ribbin’…
Gav Whi wrote:
Gavin: with that deeply thought out & piercing analysis, painstakingly recorded line by line so I can follow your reasoning, you have me convinced. Take me to your leader so I can convert to the one true faith please.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I’ve read quite a bit of Foster’s writings too, have not found anything New Age in them either. He does refer to sources within Catholic spirituality, and he draws on Quaker spirituality as well. That, in my opinion, is not the same as Mind Sciences or New Thought, or simply being told to empty one’s mind and worship a spirit other than God. It is one thing to honestly disagree with his sapproach. It is altogether different to claim an entire movement is New Age nonsense without making a case for your position and examining the writings of a particular author, or set of authors, in context. I have been in churches where people were told what not to read and told how to think. I have also been in churches where things were quoted to prove a vast conspiracy and when you actually went back and looked at what was actually said, quotes were often cherry-picked and taken out of context; this is true not only about Foster and Renovere which are under discussion here but a host of other things, from Proctor & Gamble supposedly being involved in Satan worship to a recent sermon at my former church in which my pastor claimed the U.N. could take over any day because of a recently passed Senate Bill to any number of things.
@ dainca:
Dee, hi, and thank you so much for your very thoughtful response. It would have been a singular honor to get to listen to John Stott in person. The church he served before his retirement and death, All Souls, Langham Place, has a sermon podcast, which I still get and which I find very edifying spiritually. I will check out both the author links and the link to the Northumbria Community you mentioned, and thank you again for thinking of me in sharing it. This thread has been extremely helpful, because in the midst of all the hurt and betrayal many of us have experienced in churches, learning how to be a Christian again and to find a spiritual balance are both important. A friend of mine who left our church shortly before I did recommended Terry Wartle’s book “Wounded” which, though geared for Christian caregivers has helped both of us as well. He has written others about Christian spirituality that are still on my to-do list to read.
@ Beakerj:
Exactly .. even a few years ago, I would have bought into the same logic too, even though I had read some of the Foster books and John Stott’s very well-balanced writing and knew better. I strongly believe that exposing false teaching is crucial, but there are some less than helpful books out there that claim to have the truth with a capital T. And while I would still read them, I would agree when the author made a vallid point and disagree strongly when he or she failed to do so. There have been unfortunately instances of Christian “discernment” authors who have misquoted people, taken what a source said out of context, or quoted the source in such a way that it would appear they said the opposite of what they actually said.
@ dee:
Wes,
Your comments about R. Scott Clark and others who do not fall into the neo-Calvinist camp are extremely helpful at this point. You are also correct about many of the neo-Calvinists being Baptist, but I am also wondering about several things not necessarily related to neo-Calvinism but that are still serious with regard to the Christian patriarchy movement;
1. Does the fact that one is a credo-baptist and Presbyterian necessarily protect a church from abusive practices? What would be your response, for example, to Steve Wilkens, Doug Wilson et al in their federal vision teaching? (Clark did an excellent job pointing to the connection between theonomy and federal vision, which sometimes overlap, about a week ago.)
2. Jeff Crippen’s excellent blog “A Cry for Justice” linked to his church, Christ Reformation Church, has pointed out in the past that even some PCA churches have bought into John Piper’s views with regard to women and domestic violence and have in some instances elevated his views above their own statements about Christians and domestic violence.
In the December 17 post to “A Cry for Justice” Crippen pointed out that some of the smaller micro-Presbyterian churches do not do very well at protecting victims of domestic violence and included some church documents on the subject.
I listen to a great many Reformed sermons from sermonaudio.com, from varying viewpoints, and while I haven’t been involved with neo-Calvinism to the extent of many others on this blog, I read a lot and am very passionate about Christians and domestic violence in the church and the Christian patriarchy movement in general after some of Doug Phillips’ thinking began to make inroads into our church. I suppose in that respect I am an outsider and the questions I bring up here are from that vantage point.
@ dee:
I concur. One aspect Roger Olson stresses is discipleship, and living the Christian life. I keep coming back to the Dietrich Bonhoeffer quote he mentioned, “When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die.” I have also seen emphasis in Dallas Willard’s writings on the love of God, as you have. I think where the neo-Calvinists went off the track with the worm theology is that, yes, outside of and apart from Christ we were nothing, but their emphasis on that aspect of their theology leaves out that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”, which paints an entirely different picture.
@ Byron Borger:
Thanks for this very good clarification. I had wondered where Richard Mouw and writers like Michael Horton, Carol Custis James fit along this continuum. If it is true that neo-Calvinism as it was believed and practiced a century ago and somewhat more recently is not what Driscoll, Piper, et al, how do we find a useful categorization for them? It can be a bit confusing, since even the label evangelical can be used to describe practically anything these days, so I wonder if neo-Calvinist is a label that got attached to them or is it just what they call themselves?
@ andrea:
Do you know the garbage Olson puts up with from the occasional student who dares to tell him that he might not be saved because he doesn’t do it the Calvinista way?
@ dee:
I can believe it, I can just hear the discussion in my mind. If I were Olson I would have to pray a thousand times a day that God would help me to be patient — though from his writing I can tell he has tried to reason with many of them. I shake my head and think, well, he’s got a great deal more patience and wisdom to know how to deal with them than I’ve got.
dee wrote:
You mean Traitor and Thought-Criminal?
Julie Anne wrote:
I get it, Julie Anne.
It’s what C.S.Lewis called “The Lure of the Inner Ring”, the knowledge that YOU are part of The One True Way and They’re NOT.
“LET ‘EM ALL GO TO HELL
EXCEPT CAVE SEVENTY-SIX!!!!!”
— Mel Brooks, “The 2000 Year Old Man”, regarding “The First National Anthem”
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Lol! Because unlike them, he doesn’t gag at a gnat and swallow a camel. Unfortunately, there might have been a time when I, because of my fundamentalist views, might have been like one of those students. They may no doubt have been taught not to question anything and one can only pray that something he has said will have made an impression.
@ andrea:
Andrea,
I don’t think that being Reformed/Presbyterian will keep a church from being abusive or cult like. They just have to fit it in or around their confession of faith. I once visited a Presbyterian church (part of a micro denomination) whose main test of orthodoxy seemed to be young earth creationism (I consider young earth creationism to almost be a cult in itself). The FV and Doug Wilson seem to me to be outside (a lot or a little) the stream of historic confessional protestantism and I haven’t kept up on them for several years.
I don’t understand the fascination with John Piper. I read “Desiring God” several years ago and watched some of his videos (my former pastor is a follower of Mahaney and Piper) and I really don’t understand his celebrity status. I find it interesting that in some Reformed circles Piper is in, but N. T. Wright is out, though Wright seems more Reformed to me (but I’m in the early stages of trying to digest Wright).
Patriarchy is not an exclusively Reformed or Neo Calvinist problem. I was introduced to many of the ideas of patriarchy 35 years ago in an Assemblies of God church, of all places. The Assemblies of God is a rather egalitarian pentecostal denomination that licenses women to preach, and one wouldn’t say they are Reformed, Calvinist, or Neo-Calvinist.
By the way, I found Jeff Cripen’s blog through this one. Crying out for Justice has been great help and education for me. And it was not fair of me to group MacArthur with Driscoll; two very different Baptists.
@ Wes:
Hi, Wes, thanks for the clarifications! I had heard that in some of the churches that believed in young earth creationism, you could be excommunicated for holding a different view. My former church, (an independent Fundamentalist Baptist one, so not Reformed) was KJV only and had some similar issues of not accepting anything, including Christian literature, that didn’t use the Kjv. I think it often comes down to authoritarianism and control, and the doctrine, (young earth, Kjv only, etc.) is a way of maintaining it.
I recently finished one of Piper’s shorter books, “A Godward Heart” and don’t understand the fascination with him either. Even when he appears to say good and compassionate things (for instance, to hold up as a virtue his mother’s concern for racial justice), in the next breath he promotes his views of submission in marriage which are extreme and dangerous. Listening to your description of the church you attended where the pastor had read Piper, Mauney, etc. I couldn’t help but think how often churches and pastors place their favorite Christian authors/movements on pedestals and wait for the newest thing to come from the pen of our favorite writer. This was something we condemned the charismatic movement, with the Word of Faith, shepherding and signs and wonders of doing, but it appears we have done the same thing.
Pingback: Wednesday Link List | Thinking Out Loud
Bridget wrote:
My Dear Wormwood:
Remember my previous letter about semantics?
Specifically, redefining words into their “diabolical meanings”?
Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle
Screwtape
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Does said “apostle” see himself as The One Holding the Whip or one of those Feeling the Whip? Because in that sort of Servile State, those are the only two alternatives.
dee wrote:
Isn’t that the Mommie Dearest (i.e. Abuser’s) definition of Love?
That definition really twists the meaning of the word. Like telling a grown person that they have to obey their pastor or elders like a child would a parent. First of all, that is so disfunctional that if I did that with my mom, she would wonder about my mental health.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Even pastors who don’t claim to be apostles teach this and refer to their authority as an umbrella or a covering, and, not surprisingly, women get the short end of the stick.