Nick Bogardus

Time recently did an article on big ideas that are changing the world right now and ranked “New Calvinism” as the third biggest. Though the article itself was a bit snide, I wasn’t so concerned with it as with Mark Driscoll’s response.

“What?!”, you say. Those who know me at all will probably be shocked at this. I have a lot of respect for Driscoll, have read his books, and have been listening to his sermons weekly for about two years. I appreciate all that he has done for the Gospel in one of the most secular cities in America, not to mention how he has served the international Church by speaking around the world and offering his sermons, ebooks, and teaching materials for free. He has inspired a lot of young men (myself included) to, as he might say, man-up and be a Christian man. I’m genuinely thankful for the man and his ministry.

But, I think his response to the Time article was inaccurate in its generality and thereby uncharitable to history, as well as harmful for people who consider themselves Reformed. For comparison, see Thabiti Anyabwile’s wise and even-handed response to the Time piece.

First I want to deal with how he was inaccurate and uncharitable in his generalities. Then, more importantly, I want to look at why this is actually harmful.

Here is what Driscoll said:
“Four Ways ‘New Calvinism’ is So Powerful
1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
3. Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.”

To begin, Time only declared that New Calvinism is ‘an idea changing the world’, but he added the word “powerful”. Is “powerful” a helpful goal, measurement, or distinction for the church? I don’t remember the Bible saying that churches or Christians were to be “powerful”. Attractive in how we live our lives? Yes. Bringing about change by service and selflessness? Yes. The word ‘powerful’ seems out of place to me.

First, I’ll briefly look at each of his points.

1. Can we really say that Old Calvinism was either fundamental or liberal. Was there really no middle ground? Could they be both at once? And is it really fair to say that Old Calvinists separated from culture and WEREN’T missional? George Whitfield, who preached thousands of sermons to millions of people on two continents would disagree. [Sidenote: Can someone please explain to me what exactly “redeem the culture” means? It sounds like a catch phrase and when I hear catch phrases I’m forced to wonder what someone is hustling in with it.]

2. Did old Calvinism really flee from the cities? Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones preached in London. Horatius Bonar was in Edinburgh. I don’t think it’s fair to say that they “fled” from cities.

3. Again, Spurgeon spoke quite a bit about the Holy Spirit. This is kind of what bugs me about Driscoll’s generalizations; Spurgeon is one of his heroes and yet, in saying the things he does, he does little justice to the man.

4. Really, were they all suspicious and did they all burn bridges? And do the New Calvinists really love all other Christians and build bridges between them? Something tells me that unfortunately there are a lot of people who would disagree.

Now, here is why I think Driscoll’s words are harmful.

1. It sets up an unnecessary dichotomy by separating the ‘new’ from the ‘old’. In doing so he disengages his own people (Calvinists) from the past, because who wants to be lumped in with guys who were synchronistic, non-missional, isolationist freakshows? It also enables critics to say, “See! We were right about those Calvinists!”. It trips up your own team and it gives ammo to the critics.

In the public realm, in some kind of brand marketing, this would make sense. “We” are the new thing, “we” are important, “we” are better than the old stuff. But I’m not sure that’s how we’re to act in the Church. We’re not to make much of ourselves. We’re actually supposed to point, first of all, to Jesus and, if we’re humble, to wise saints who’ve gone before us. (Again, these are odd words of Driscoll to say the same month he is doing a blog series on past saints.)


2. The attitude of simplifying the contrasts between New and Old are also alarming to me. He has officially drawn a line and raised a flag as the face of New Calvinism. As, Thabiti pointed out, this seems more divisive than anything. To me though, I wonder about any intentions for marketing.

For example, the Emergent church movement came out, set up their site/community, and then created a whole industry that made money off of the movement; book publishers, speaking engagements, conferences, etc. Raising a definitive flag or label makes me wonder what might be sold under it’s umbrella, and at what cost.

3. In finely defining a New Calvinism movement, he has also just ensured it’s death. The clock is now ticking until this ‘fad’ goes the same way as The Prayer of Jabez, and hot on the heels of the Emergent Church.


All in all, I think he did more harm than good and that younger people who might identify themselves as Reformed or even New Calvinist, should learn from it. I think it would’ve been more wise for him to say nothing, to leave his identification as “a Christian who is a Calvinist from the same vein as the greats who’ve gone before us”, rather than separating himself from them.


As for me, I would totally wear this shirt. :)

It is probably a result of my immaturity and inexperience that I need to add an addendum to my last blog. I was trigger-happy, fired a few shots at the problem, but ended up missing the target. Let’s see if I can get it with a little more patience.

What I was driving at was that, as is evidenced by eight years of Republican rule and now 30 days of Democrat rule, they are not our Savior. The “if only Bush wasn’t in power, the left wing would be more responsible” people have just been met with the cold water of this stimulus package. As I said, we just traded one money pit for another. Both sides of our government have their agendas, and those agendas have gigantic holes in them through which those truly in need fall through. As Christians, the government cannot be our Savior.

The immovable silence I mentioned is evidence that we are not saviors either. Our causes may be noble but they will often be driven by circumstance or convenience and marked by inconsistency.

It’s an expensive reminder that aside from Jesus, anything we put our trust in - be it a government, money, a job, a spouse, family, our talents, our looks, our intelligence - will fall face down an infinite distance from being our Savior. Those things might be good things, but they are not ultimate things. We all need the Ultimate thing, the One who was rich but became poor, the One who isn’t swayed by circumstance and who is always consistent; the One looks at the depth of our own poverty and fickleness and loves us in spite of them. He is the only thing that truly stimulates, changes, and brings hope.


.

I’ve had an image in my head for two weeks. I don’t remember exactly how it came about but I can tell you the things that birthed it. Here’s a warning in advance for anyone who is trigger-happy either way at a mention of the name of our President: I’m going to mention him first simply because I think the example is indicative of a larger trend, so I promise it will be brief and we’ll move on quickly from there.

The New York Times carried an account of a town hall-style meeting that Obama did in Greensboro, NC.

“Speaking at a town hall-style meeting here before a few thousand people, Mr. Obama was asked by a young man about the role that Jesus Christ and his teachings played in Mr. Obama’s life.

He began his response with a broad statement of faith: “I’m a Christian. What that means for me is that I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins, and, uh, and, and, uh, his grace and his mercy and his power, through him, I can achieve everlasting life.”

Invoking the golden rule, he also said he believed in treating all people of all faiths (as well as non-believers) with dignity and respect, and he noted that his mother was “not a believer as I am” – but was also the kindest person he ever knew.

“I’m sure she’s in heaven,” he said.

“I think it’s very important to think that you do not have to have the same faith as me to be a moral person – there are a lot of Jewish people who are as moral, or more moral than I am, there are a lot of Muslims who are decent kind people,” Mr. Obama said. “I don’t think they are any less children of God.”

My next dose of fuel came with a seeing a recent Barna Group Survey that contained these findings.

“Evidence of people’s willingness to part with church teaching was shown in other data from the survey regarding what people believe. Among individuals who describe themselves as Christian, for instance, close to half believe that Satan does not exist, one-third contend that Jesus sinned while He was on earth, two-fifths say they do not have a responsibility to share the Christian faith with others, and one-quarter dismiss the idea that the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches.”

And, more alarmingly astonishing, the Barna survey contained these “implications of the research”.

“The Christian faith is less of a life perspective that challenges the supremacy of individualism as it is a faith being defined through individualism. Americans are increasingly comfortable picking and choosing what they deem to be helpful and accurate theological views and have become comfortable discarding the rest of the teachings in the Bible. “

“Faith, of whatever variety, is increasingly viral rather than pedagogical. With people spending less time reading the Bible, and becoming less engaged in activities that deepen their biblical literacy, faith views are more often adopted on the basis of dialogue, self-reflection, and observation than teaching. Feelings and emotions now play a significant role in the development of people’s faith views - in many cases, much more significant than information-based exercises such as listening to preaching and participating in Bible study.”

Now, those pieces are loaded with things we can talk about and dissect, all of it harrowing news for the Church. I want to keep it simple and point out the combination of relativism and moralism that appears in those reflections of American Christianity. From Obama one second having a somewhat orthodox statement of faith and changing it minutes later to deny the exclusivity of Christ, to survey findings that make plain the average Christian’s combination of Biblical illiteracy and emphasis on good deeds and ethics (the result of “Deeds not Creeds”), we need to see something evolving that other, more intelligent, and articulate men have dubbed “Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism”. It’s like Oprah meets good ol’ American can-do spirit.

I would tack onto these examples the emphasis in the American Church over the past two decades or so for politicizing social justice issues - many of those issues being the reason the left-leaning portion of the Church voted Democrat this past election and why much of the right-leaning portion voted Republican before them.

Quickly of course, I need to include the disclaimer that I am in no way saying that treating people with dignity and respect is a bad thing; nor am I saying that being good or ethical are things unimportant to Christians; nor am I saying that it’s a bad thing that large portions of the church champion their chosen social justice issues. My concern is when those things are championed at the expense of, or unhitched from, the anchor, foundation, and centrality of Christ and the truth of the Gospel. My concern is what is reflected in that survey.

This is where the image in my head comes in. What I’ve pictured in my head is an army; one like you would see in Braveheart or Lord of the Rings with rows and columns. Usually when you’re given views of a battlefield in those movies you see a certain organization to it all; archers here, catapults there, calvary on the hill. But, what I imagine is a field of banners - row after row in every direction, banners. Though it looks organized - the army has a colorful array of flags - everyone seems to have their own banner or agenda. Worse yet, the troops are naked and unarmed. They are prepared to charge into battle with no organization, no plan, no swords, no shields - nothing but blind zeal (maybe).

My concern is that what is reflected in that survey is that Christians, large portions of the Church, treat Christianity more like a cause to rally behind rather than a vital faith with an eternal source and an eternal consequence. We might be busy and we might be loud, but we are illiterate, insubordinate, and apathetically tolerant. We might be busy, but we aren’t training disciples.

A.W. Tozer, with his typical surgical precision, said it well:

“Another substitute for discipleship I would mention (though these do not exhaust the list) is zealous religious activity.

Working for Christ has today been accepted as the ultimate test of godliness among all but a few evangelical Christians. Christ has become a project to be promoted or a cause to be served instead of a Lord to be obeyed. Thousands of mistaken persons seek to do for Christ whatever their fancy suggests should be done, and in whatever way they think best. The what and the how of Christian service can only originate in the sovereign will of our Lord, but the busy beavers among us ignore this fact and think up their own schemes. The result is an army of men who run without being sent and speak without being commanded.”

So, what do we do about this? What do we do as a largely illiterate, insubordinate, unprepared group of believers? My humble suggestion would be to constantly be teaching ourselves and training ourselves. I propose beginning with a look at Ephesians 6. That is what I hope to do in some small way with a coming blog series on Ephesians 6:10-20.

Maybe you’re like me and you’re (mildly) young, anxious, and revved up to save the world; and you’re ready to run into the thick of it in cargo shorts and converse. These stats and this passage should, like a loving parent, say, “Slow down, William Wallace.” Maybe you’re older and tired and think your days of action are behind you. Those stats and this passage should compel you to open your closet, move the boxes, and dust off that helmet that you once knew so well. Or, maybe you have no idea what I’m talking about and I sound like a raving, face-painted madman. “Army? Banners? This dude must have had a BB gun and a wild imagination as a kid. I’m a Christian. I just need my sandals and acoustic guitar, man!” Well, then I hope those stats and this passage stir you to get in the game.


(Please feel free to add comments or questions because I’m doing this for myself as much as anyone else.)

I’m a little late posting about this book (it came out last year) because, well, Amazon doesn’t ship to M*ngolia. For all of 2008 I kept a running list of books I wanted to get when we came back to the States and Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck was near the top. I finally picked it up after Christmas and read it in about two weeks.

I really could not recommend a book more highly for my generation at this moment than this one. Like Phil Johnson, I found myself saying “Wow.Wow.Wow.” in every chapter.

The book is written by a young pastor and one of his congregants (who happens to be a sports writer) who, as the title says, should both be ‘emergent’. The book is a wonderful combination of entertaining, thoughtful, concise, profound, analytical, encouraging, humble, and corrective all at once. I sincerely believe this should be required reading for Christians between the ages of 18-35 or for anyone interested in the current state of the Church. It is a book that goes against the prevailing wind of our culture and against many of the loudest voices in Christianity and, in doing so, it challenges what you (as a Christian!) believe in a way that is both prophetic and pastoral. I say prophetic because the book challenges and corrects current errors in The Church with clarity and vigor in a way that points people to Jesus; and I use pastoral because it is done with a deep care and love for God’s people.

As a bit of a teaser, here is a sample of some of my favorite quotes:

—

“[Regarding the emergent church’s emphasis ‘the journey’] Because the journey is an experience more than a destination, the Christian life requires less doctrinal reflection and more personal introspection. The postmodern infatuation with journey feeds on and into a preoccupation with our own stories. If my parent’s generation could be a little stoic and not terrible reflective, my generation is introspective at a level somewhat between self-absorption and narcissism. We are so in-tuned with our dysfunctions, hurts, and idiosyncrasies that it often prevents us from growing up, because maturity is tantamount to hypocrisy in a world that prizes brokenness more than health” (34).

“Young people will give their lives for an exclamation point, but they will not give their lives for a question mark, not for very long anyway. Once the protest runs out and the emerging church has its own blogdom, and conferences, and church networks, and book deals, there will be no exclamation point, and all that’s left will be ethical intentions and passionate appeals for kingdom living. This will not sustain a movement - the protest will for a while, but once that’s gone there will be no great vision of God, no urgent proclamation of salvation, no eternal judgment or reward at stake, just a call to live rightly and love one another. That message will sell on Oprah, Larry King, and at the Oscars, but it won’t sustain and propel a gospel-driven church, because it isn’t the gospel.” (127-28)

“The main problem in the universe, according to many emergent writers, seems to be human suffering and brokenness. Make no mistake, suffering and brokenness are a result of the fall, but the main problem that needs to be dealt with is human sin and rebellion… Christians don’t get killed for telling people that God believes in them and suffers like them and can heal their brokenness. They get killed for calling sinners to repentance and proclaiming faith in the crucified Son of God as the only means by which we who were enemies might be reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10).” (194-95)

“[Regarding all the angst and shame about the church’s track record when it comes to the arts:] I’m still a little unclear as to the reason. Is it because churches aren’t displaying art on their walls? Neither are insurance companies, but nobody is up in arms about that. My hunch is that there is this feeling that churches aren’t adequately “supporting” artists (musicians, writers, visual artists) in their midst. However, I don’t exactly see churches “supporting” software designers, salesmen, or farmers either. That’s not the church’s purpose. And it seems that the artists who are making the most noise about “not being supported” are the ones who may not have the talent to really cut it in the marketplace anyway. I don’t know of any working artists (musicians, actors, writers, painters) who complain that their church doesn’t “support” their efforts. Art is tough. Making a living at art is tough. It’s tough on families and marriages. That’s simply the nature of the game.” (143)

—

You can buy it new, buy it used, download a chapter online.

I’m curious if you’ve read the book as well. What did you think? What did you gain from it or disagree with?