God's Glory is God's Love and Nothing Less

The “Chief End of Man”…God’s Glory…Yes and Amen (But…)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/04/the-chief-end-of-man-gods-glory-yes-and-amen-but/

by Roger Olson

April 4, 2014

Comments

Recently I re-read Jonathan Edwards “Dissertation on the End for Which God Created the World.” And I watched and listened to John Piper’s address about why the evangelical church needs Edwards’ “God-entranced vision” today. (It’s on Youtube.)

Some people would be surprised to hear that I agree ALMOST entirely with Edwards and Piper about this subject. First, yes, I agree, whole heartedly, that everything, without exception, is created for God’s glory and that everything’s chief end (purpose) is God’s glory. Edwards’ and Piper’s “God-entranced vision” is needed by evangelicals (and others) today…with a few important qualifications. (The devil is always in the details.)

The Westminster Shorter Catechism says that “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” I say “amen” to that. We do not exist for ourselves; nothing exists for itself. Everything was created for God’s glory and exists to glorify him. As Edwards acknowledges, there are subordinate “ends” (purposes) for things, but the chief end, purpose, of whatever exists, has being, is God’s glory.

I sympathize with Piper’s (and others’) concerns about contemporary evangelical Christianity in America. We have fallen into various forms of human-centeredness. “Moralistic, therapeutic deism” is one of them. Another is worship and preaching that focuses on creation and human “success in life” (happiness, fulfillment, prosperity, etc.). I do not recognize much that is called “evangelical” as that.

So what is my problem with Edwards’ and Piper’s vision (they are basically the same) of this “God entranced vision?” They and I part ways over some very important details.

1

First, INSOFAR as they imply that sin and evil and hell are “designed, foreordained and governed” by God for his glory I demur. These are PERMITTED reluctantly by God and he uses them to glorify himself.

How so? Because God’s glory is his love. Even Edwards seemed to acknowledge this in The Nature of True Virtue by defining “true virtue” as “benevolence toward being.” Love does not coerce others into loving oneself. Sin, evil and hell are permitted by God as part of his consequent will, not “designed, foreordained and governed” by God as part of his antecedent will. But they still exist to glorify God–not because God planned them for his self-glory but because their existence is the result of his love for creatures which glorifies him. A God who permits creatures to resist him is more glorious than one who meticulously controls every thought and intention and decision and action of every creature.

How does hell glorify God? Not by being NECESSARY for the display of God’s justice in wrath (Edwards) but by being God’s painful refuge for those who reject him.

(For you Edwards experts out there…yes, I know Edwards also said that God “permitted” sin and evil to enter his creation, but he clearly MEANT “efficacious permission.” He clearly meant that the fall and all its consequences were planned by God and rendered certain by God according to a great plan and scheme to glorify himself by displaying his justice through wrath.)

2

Second, INSOFAR as they (Edwards, Piper and their ilk) imply that POWER takes precedence over LOVE in God’s glory, I demur.

God’s glory IS his love–first his innertrinitarian love between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and second his love flowing out from the Trinity toward creatures.

God is glorious BECAUSE he is perfectly loving as well as perfectly powerful. BUT, since love is his essence, he can restrict his power (but not his love).

To be sure, Edwards believed in God’s love, but he MEANT God’s self-love and then, secondarily, his love for the elect. Piper tries to rescue God’s love even for the non-elect by saying he gives them “temporal blessings” on their way to hell. That’s absurd, of course. It is the same as saying he give them a little bit heaven to go to hell in. Wesley said that is such as “love” as makes the blood run cold. I agree.

My point is that, in my view, anyway, while Edwards and Piper are correct to emphasize God’s glory as the chief end, purpose, of everything, they are wrong to empty God’s glory of meaningful love and focus it on power. Power without love is not glorious.

Church father Irenaeus is famous for saying that “the glory of God is man fully alive.” So, yes, everything in creation exists for God’s glory, but God’s glory is not narcissistic. It is his perfect benevolence and ability to display it and give it to creatures.

As my friend Austin Fischer says in his wonderful book Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed (Wipf & Stock) “Love is not a cog in the glory machine.” But in our opinion, Edwards and Piper make it just that.

Rather, as Scripture itself testifies, “God is love.” God IS love. That is God’s glory.

So, let me say again, loudly this time: TRUE ARMINIANS ALSO BELIEVE GOD’S GLORY IS THE CHIEF END OF EVERYTHING. But we disagree with Edwards and Piper about the NATURE of God’s glory. Yes, it is his beauty and perfection, but his beauty and perfection are his perfect love, his benevolence toward being–his own and creatures’.

continue to -

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

      

Why High Calvinism is Impossible: The Importance of Language

Why (High) Calvinism Is Impossible

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/03/why-high-calvinism-is-impossible/

by Roger Olson

March 16, 2014

Comments

By “impossible” I don’t mean, of course, “doesn’t exist.” I mean “exists but doesn’t work.” By “doesn’t work” I mean “cannot be believed consistently and coherently.”

In brief, my argument is that belief in the Bible as God’s Word and motivation to engage in its exegesis presupposes belief that God is trustworthy, that God cannot deceive. But this assumes that God has a stable, enduring, eternal character that is “good” in a way analogous to our highest and best intuitions of “goodness”—whatever their source may be.

Put another way, negatively, if one believes that God’s goodness is nothing like our best intuitions of goodness, that God’s goodness is possibly compatible with anything capable of being put into words (i.e., ultimately and finally mysterious), then there is no good reason to trust him. Trust in a person, even God, necessarily requires belief that the person is good and belief that the person is good necessarily requires some content and not “good” as a cipher for something totally beyond comprehension and unlike anything else we call “good.”

Put in technical language, if “good” applied to God is equivocal and not even analogical, then it is useless for describing God. If “God is good” is qualified with “but his goodness is completely different from ours” (meaning our highest and best ideas of goodness), then it is meaningless.

Not all Calvinists say that God’s goodness is completely different from ours. Paul Helm, for example, in The Providence of God, argues that “goodness” attributed to God cannot be totally other than goodness attributed to human beings (even as an impossible ideal). Unfortunately for him, I believe, he does not follow that insight through consistently but undermines it by attempting to combine assertion of God’s essential goodness with belief in double predestination.

I argue that belief in double predestination is simply logically incompatible with the claim that God is good—unless “good” is emptied of all meaning so that it is a useless cipher for something we don’t know.

But if God is not good in some way analogous to our highest and best intuitions, insights, into “goodness,” then there is no reason to trust the Bible. And if there is no reason to trust the Bible (because God, being not good in any sense meaningful to us, might be deceiving us), then there is no clear motive for intense biblical exegesis.

Every devout, evangelical Christian believer I have ever met or heard of approaches Bible reading and study (including exegesis) with the assumption that the Bible is true (even if not strictly inerrant)—that it does not misidentify God and God’s will for us. But built into that assumption is that God, the Bible’s author (by inspiration of the human authors) is good (which is why he is trustworthy and cannot deceive). But belief that God “designs, foreordains, and governs” hell for the reprobate who are chosen by God for hell for his glory without regard to any truly free choices they make undermines belief in God’s goodness. So does belief that God “passes over” some he could easily save (because election to salvation is unconditional and saving grace is irresistible), damning them to hell, for his glory.

There is no conceivable analogous human behavior that we would call “good.” The very concept of “good” rules out such behavior. (To say nothing of Jesus’ own goodness and the New Testament’s commands for us to love our enemies and do good to them.)

My point is, of course, that there exists a contradiction between two Calvinist beliefs: 1) that the Bible is inherently and unconditionally trustworthy, and 2) that God, its author, is not good in any sense meaningful to us. Belief “1″ assumes that God is good in a sense meaningful to us—comparable with our highest and best intuitions of goodness. Belief “2″ (necessarily implied by double predestination) empties belief “1″ of foundation.

Therefore, any exegesis of the Bible that ends up portraying God as not good, which high Calvinism (belief in double predestination) inexorably does, cannot be believed because it self-referentially turns back against the very reason for believing the Bible. In order to be consistent one must choose between belief in the Bible as God’s Word and belief in double predestination.

This is why I say with John Wesley about the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 “Whatever it means it cannot mean that.”

* * * * * * * * * * *

Follow Up to Why (High) Calvinism Is Impossible

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/03/follow-up-to-why-high-calvinism-is-impossible/

by Roger Olson

March 19, 2014

Comments

Suppose someone said “God is sovereign but God’s sovereignty is different from our ideas of sovereignty. God is sovereign but possesses only the power of persuasion.” Someone else objects saying “But wait. There is no meaning of ‘sovereignty’ known to man that is compatible with having only the power of persuasion.” The first person responds, “Oh, but you are assuming a human idea of sovereignty; God’s sovereignty is higher and better than any human idea of sovereignty. We can’t project our ideas onto God; we must learn from God what ‘sovereignty’ means.” The second person says “But wait again. When you say God is ‘sovereign,’ then, we have no idea what you mean because the word ‘sovereign’ becomes equivocal. It is compatible with anything.” The first person responds, “Well, God is mysterious and his ways are higher than our ways.”

In other words, two can play this game. The Calvinist believes God predestines people to eternal torment in hell apart from any truly free decisions they make (since he “designs, foreordains, and governs” all creaturely decisions) and could rescue them from it (because election to salvation is unconditional and grace is irresistible) but doesn’t say “God is good,” even though there is no OTHER meaning of “good” compatible with such behavior. This is no different from, say, a process theologian saying “God is sovereign” even though there is no OTHER meaning of “sovereign” compatible with total lack of power other than power of persuasion. In both cases we really have no idea what the words mean.

Almost all Calvinists insist that God is NOT the “author of sin and evil.” Why? Because that would be incompatible with being “good.” SOME Calvinists challenge that and ask why God can’t be good AND the author of sin and evil? The other Calvinists really have no answer to that because they have already emptied “good” of all meaningful content by saying it is compatible with God predestining people to hell (as described above).

Words cannot mean whatever we say they mean (contrary to the character in Alice in Wonderland). This is the whole point of saying that theological language must be analogical and not equivocal. High Calvinism makes “good” equivocal. Then, “good” becomes possibly compatible with anything and everything–including deceiving others. If God’s “goodness” is so elastic and equivocal, then there is no reason to expect that it could NOT be compatible with God deceiving us in which case we have no good ground for trusting the Bible.

I am convinced that all objectors so far have missed the point entirely. What scenario in human existence and experience can you think of in which something like predestining fellow human beings to eternal torment in hell apart from any free decisions they make would possibly be compatible with “goodness?” What scenario in human existence and experience can you think of in which refusing to rescue a fellow human person from eternal torment when one could rescue him is compatible with “goodness.”

If you say “Well, whatever God does is automatically ‘good’ just because God does it,” then you have made my point for me. We don’t have any dependable understanding of what that might exclude. In that case “good” MIGHT include deceiving us in God’s “Word” such that the reality is exactly the opposite of what it says–viz., that salvation is by works alone rather than by grace alone.

continue to -

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

      

The Bible: Jesus Son of God Tour 2014 Songs & Videos

http://thebibletourexperience.com/

Not For A Moment (After All) - Vertical Church Band w/ Meredith Andrews

Write Your Story by Francesca Battistelli Lyrics

Francesca Battistelli - Strangely Dim (Official Lyric Video)

Jesus Savior - Music Video from Movie Son Of God - Legendado

Meredith Andrews - "Pieces" [Official Music Video]

Strong God - Meredith Andrews - Lyric Video Strong God

Película "Son Of God" (HIJO DE DIOS) | Jesus Savior - CHRIS August

Jason Gray- Nothing Is Wasted (Official Music Video)

Francesca Battistelli - Beautiful, Beautiful (Official Video)

Be Born In Me(Mary) - Francesca Battistelli

Jason Gray - Remind Me Who I Am

I Believe - Natalie Grant

Chris August - "Center Of It" (Lyrics)

MEREDITH ANDREWS - DRAW ME NEARER LYRICS 

The Bible: Son Of God Tour - "You Love Me Anyway"

Sidewalk Prophets- Help Me Find It (Official Lyric Video)

Your Great Name by Natalie Grant with Lyrics (HD)

Natalie Grant - Films and Music Inspired by THE STORY "Alive

Sidewalk Prophets - "The Words I Would Say" with Lyrics

Jason Gray - I Am New

Meredith Andrews - Revelation Song - HQ MEREDITH ANDR

Son of God: Music Inspired By Epic Motion Picture. Full Soundtrack

Chrisitan Orthodoxy, Fundamentalism, Conservative Evangelicals, and Emergent Faith

The Difference between “Orthodoxy” and “Fundamentalism”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/03/the-difference-between-orthodoxy-and-fundamentalism/

by Roger Olson

March 20, 2014

Comments

Something that dismays me is the common confusion between “Christian orthodoxy” and “fundamentalism.” There are probably many reasons for it, but I think the common one (among Christians, anyway) is that people “burned” by fundamentalism run from orthodoxy due to an over reaction. Some people I know almost break out in hives when they hear “orthodoxy” used in a positive, prescriptive way–as in “There are certain beliefs that are normative for all Christians.” They can only hear that as fundamentalism. The result is a kind of Christian cognitive relativism that reduces “Christianity” to warm fuzzy feelings or ethical behavior divorced from doctrine. But from its very beginnings Christianity included (not reduced itself to) certain basic beliefs. These are spelled out in the early Christian fathers’ “rules of faith” (Irenaeus and Tertullian most notably among them).

What are the differences?

Fuller Seminary president E. J. Carnell (1950s) famously quipped that “Fundamentalism is orthodoxy gone cultic.” (The Case for Orthodox Theology) Of course, that by itself doesn’t go very far toward delineating the differences. So I’ll try to do that here.

Orthodoxy is belief in the universal doctrines (dogmas) of Christianity rooted in Scripture and commonly held and taught by all the church fathers and Reformers. They are what author Gary Tyra (in Toward a Missional Orthodoxy) calls the “Christological verities.” They include the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (incarnation of God), Trinity, salvation through Christ and his cross, and salvation by grace alone.

Fundamentalism is (among other things): adding secondary and even tertiary beliefs to basic Christian orthodoxy as NECESSARY for authentic Christian identity (e.g., premillennialism, biblical inerrancy, young earth creationism), insisting that salvation depends on belief in a long list of doctrines including ones NOT PART OF basic Christian orthodoxy, and refusing Christian fellowship with other Christians who are “doctrinally polluted” or “doctrinally impure” because they do not believe everything on the fundamentalists’ long list of essential doctrines.

So Where's the Confusion?

Anyone should be able to see the difference between Christian orthodoxy and fundamentalism. But confusion arises BECAUSE so many fundamentalists are influential in conservative Christian circles and cause confusion by claiming their long list of doctrines as identical with Christian orthodoxy. And even some moderately conservative evangelical theologians contribute to the problem by labeling any belief espoused by fellow Christians that they happen to disagree with as “heterodox” which means “not quite heresy but for all practical purposes heresy anyway.”

This habit of fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals to expand the list of orthodox doctrines to include secondary beliefs and exclude anything they strongly disagree with contributes to many moderate evangelicals confusing “orthodoxy” with “fundamentalism” and running from the former out of (right) fear of the latter.

We moderate to progressive evangelicals need to embrace classical Christian orthodoxy BECAUSE it is biblical (not for its own sake as if it were true independently of Scripture). We need to call out fellow evangelicals who either:

1) expand “orthodoxy” beyond its proper scope to include their pet doctrines, or
2) reject orthodoxy because they confuse it with fundamentalism.

* * * * * * * * * *
Addendum
* * * * * * * * * *

As long as we're on the subject of dogmatic differences let's throw in emergent Christianity as well which is a recent development amongst evangelical churches wishing to reverse the stress on "right beliefs" (orthodoxy) to a stress on "right behavior" (orthopraxy). This isn't necessarily bad because it leads out with a soulful heart convicted by the Holy Spirit into the Christian practices of love and grace, forgiveness and healing, hope and strength, ministry and outreach. However, as Dr. Olson will note below, Christian doctrine must lead all while also acknowledging that mere head knowledge without WORKS of faith is empty head knowledge leading to (or revealing) an unsanctified (if not lost) heart.

Hence, having participated in an emergent mega-church and witnessing the vast multitudes of people coming through its doors to there find spiritual healing was a blessing too manifest to behold. Here were broken, lost souls desperate for God and fellowship, love and grace, inner peace, and personal fortitude, against a life full of pain and suffering, remits and regrets, torn fellowships, toxic addictions, harmful dependencies, and  broken relationships. And there finding all the Christian graces in spades through an emergent church which had lowered its dogmatic barriers so all may enter who wished. Without reprisal, gossip, or graceless convention.

A place that offered spiritual healing and safety. A place that protected its congregants against the harsh speech of surrounding churches. A place where God's love could be sought and found. A place that held ONE communion table (or Eucharist). ONE fellowship with full equality. And ONE spirit of grace toward all (although voting did require membership by the swipe of a pen to paper and nothing more.... Even so, active participation in a small group fellowship or church outreach ministry is continually encouraged). But there was also found a fellowship that taught the doctrines of the bible - or, in this case, giving to those well-known orthodox doctrines an emergent perspective. Such as allowing women into active leadership. An open communion table without a membership requirement. An appreciation for Christianity's Jewishness. An open Bible and open faith. Preaching God's love to all, as they are, whomever they are. And, a Jesus-centric faith. Through all, in all, and over all, the Spirit of the Lord reigned and wrought great miracles. It was revival at its finest. Intoxicating and life changing. And it unnerved the conservative evangelical churches in the area.

Now whether "belonging" was a high priority on the list of fellowship requirements I cannot say. But as a progressive evangelical become an emergent Christian (and now a post-evangelical as emergent Christianity begins to fade away), I had there observed this emergent (or progressive evangelical) church spending each Sunday morning in 25/30 minutes in worship and another 50 minutes teaching the Bible even as it continues to do so today. It was exhibiting all the consequential behaviors and elements of belongingness (if that's a word). The front doors were wide open to all who would enter. The barriers lowered or removed as much as could be possible. And a place of spiritual ministry and healing could be found abundantly. It was a Holy Spirit place of sanctuary. Of worship. Of gathering. Of fellowship. And of ministry. And it was of God and God ordained, blessed, and Spirit-breathed. It was where you would want to be to find healing and re-energizing back into the folds of the world to serve and to witness through a sacrificial life and loving heart and mind.

Hence, the task here at Relevancy22 is one of continuing the traditions of Christian orthodoxy both in doctrine and in practice, but in a post-evangelical sense of renewal and revival. We here believe that it is important to divide God's Word aright while importantly distinguishing where a dogma or religious belief departs from that understanding. Especially so because too many Christians today come in with so very little Christian background requiring teaching and training. Hopefully Relevancy22 provides a starting point to those lives ungrounded in biblical thought and spiritual reflection. And it is left to you the reader to think through any salient points which may be helpful to your life, witness, ministry, and outreach.

Now may the Lord bless you and keep you as He leads you forward by His love and grace into a holy service unto a broken world needing His Son and divine love.

R.E. Slater
April 4, 2014

* * * * * * * * * *

“Belong, Believe, Behave?” Or “Believe, Behave, Belong?”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/03/belong-believe-behave-or-believe-behave-belong/

by Roger Olson

March 24, 2014

Comments

I’m not sure who first suggested the idea, but some years ago someone associated with the “emerging church” movement said that churches need to move from a policy of requiring right belief and right living for belonging to offering belonging followed by believing and behaving. For some postevangelical Christians this has become a hallmark of the difference between emerging (or emergent) churches and traditional evangelical churches.

While I sympathize with the impulse behind “belong, believe, behave,” which is, I assume [means], inclusion over exclusion, I also have some qualms about the policy. I fear it can, and often does, lead to one of two problems. First, the church may drop belief altogether and permit doctrinal pluralism so that everyone believes differently and there is no real cognitive content to the church’s Christianity. In that case, the church would seem to be little more than a cozy club of people who like each other or, at the most, together look fondly upon a cross without any agreement about what it stands for. Second, insofar as the church holds onto some semblance of orthodox doctrine (however defined), it may relegate full belonging to a small coterie of leaders who must believe and behave first and then belong.

Important to deciding about this is defining “belong,” “believe,” and “behave.” What does it mean to belong? What does believe include? What does it mean to behave?

In most “traditional” evangelical churches (setting aside fundamentalist ones), “belonging” means membership. And not everyone who wishes can join in that sense—of possessing the status of full member. Many traditional evangelical churches have some category like “associate membership”—whether called that or not—for people who do not fit the criteria for full membership but are considered to belong to the community anyway. But only full members can vote on church business and serve as officers of the church. Full membership, in such churches, usually requires some belief and some behavior.

Is it possible to “belong” to such a church without conforming fully to the criteria of belief and behavior? Yes, in most cases. I know a man, for example, who honestly expressed some doubts about his new church’s doctrinal and ethical standards for membership. He attended and participated long enough for the church to recognize him as belonging without membership. The church came to see the depth of his Christian faith and commitment and embraced him with the exception that he cannot vote on church business or serve as an officer of the church.

I’m not sure what “belong, believe, behave” means if not that or something like that. And yet it seems to me that is a very common practical policy (as opposed to written down policy) among traditional evangelical churches.

On the other hand, if the man mentioned above openly declared that he did not believe in the church’s core doctrines and would speak against them, the church would be well within its rights to exclude him (in all matters other than allowing him to attend public worship services).

Sometimes I think that “belong, believe, behave” is an overreaction to sectarian fundamentalism—churches that really do exclude people who don’t conform to a long list of criteria for membership. I don’t think that’s typical traditional evangelical church life, though.

Unfortunately, in my experience, some emerging/emergent churches have dropped any doctrinal standards or criteria for membership other than (perhaps) church pastoral staff. And some have dropped them even for pastoral staff.

Now let’s turn to the words “believing” and “behaving.” Does any Christian church really practice belonging in the full sense without any expectations of believing and behaving? I would ask churches that say they do to tell me what they would do if an openly racist person (e.g., a white supremacist) started attending and wanted to belong (in whatever way that church defines “belonging”). Would they embrace the person as truly and fully belonging without conditions—such as changing his or her beliefs and behavior about minorities? Or does “believing” and “behaving” just mean persons who wish to belong do not have to have a full understanding beyond doubt or question about orthodox doctrines and struggle with some temptation into which they occasionally fall? If the latter, then, in my experience, most traditional evangelical churches accept people like that.

Again (as I’ve said about many things here before), it seems to me that the “belong, believe, behave” approach is largely an overreaction to sectarian fundamentalism in which people have to at least pretend to believe in a long list of doctrines without mental reservations and live a perfect life in terms of traditional (especially sexual) morality. If the idea that we are all flawed people is what “belong, believe, behave” means, then I am fully on board the policy. But if it means dropping all expectations and criteria for full membership, then I doubt any church actually does that (even if they claim to), and I would oppose it.

So, to get more specific and practical: What should a Christian church require for “belonging” in the full sense of church membership (including holding office and/or teaching)? At minimum a Christian church should require members to believe in (if not fully understand) the doctrines of the incarnation (deity and humanity of Christ) and Trinity. I would add also belief that all people stand in need of salvation which is by grace alone by faith and cannot be earned. In addition, members should affirm that Jesus is the risen Lord who left the tomb empty, lives forever more and will return in glory.

What should a church require for “behaving?” At minimum, a Christian church should require members to affirm repentance for sin and desire to live a Christ like life with the help of the Holy Spirit and the community of God’s people. The person should be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit or in the name of Jesus Christ.

Anyone who cannot affirm those beliefs (even with mental reservations) and desire to live that kind of life should not be given full membership in any Christian church. However, that is not to say they cannot belong in some sense of the word, depending on whether they are perceived to be moving in the right direction. A person who flagrantly denies those beliefs and rejects repentance and living a Christ like life should not even be allowed to think he or she “belongs” (even as they are allowed to attend).

What Attracts People into the Young, Restless, Reformed Movement?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/03/what-attracts-people-into-the-young-restless-reformed-movement/

by Roger Olson

March 14, 2014

Comments

That is probably the question I’m asked most often when I talk about the “new Calvinism” that has swept up thousands of Christian young people in the last twenty to thirty years. There’s no doubt this has been and is a religious phenomenon. Most recently even the New York Times has taken notice; a few years ago Time magazine mentioned it as one of ten great ideas changing the world. Everyone seems to be talking about it even though it’s not exactly new.

I first became aware of the Young, Restless, Reformed Movement (YRRM) before anyone thought to give it that moniker. I was teaching theology at Baptist-related Bethel College and Seminary (now Bethel University) in Minnesota. John Piper had left the faculty to take the pulpit at nearby Bethlehem Baptist Church about a year before I arrived. He was still much discussed by students and faculty alike and seemed to have been a polarizing figure on campus. People tended either to love him or despise him. I had read his article about “Christian Hedonism” in HIS magazine (the now defunct publication of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship) before then and had met Piper when I first visited Bethel a few years before joining its faculty. (I still have that article in my files! I tore it out of the issue thinking maybe someday it would be important to have. Little did I know….)

Not long after taking my teaching position at Bethel I began to hear colleagues calling certain students (mostly males) “Piper Cubs.” It wasn’t long before I could identify them myself. They tended to quote Piper a lot and be passionate about Calvinism. One told me I wasn’t a Christian because I wasn’t a Calvinist!

Over the following years (approximately 1984 to 1999) I witnessed the beginnings of the YRRM. It was born and then grew and coalesced around Piper’s pastoral conferences at Bethlehem Baptist Church. Sure, there were other champions of “Reformed theology” among conservative evangelicals. Among them were one of my own seminary professors—James Montgomery Boice, pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. But none seemed to capture the attention and devotion of Piper—especially among the youthful crowd.

Sometime during the 1990s I recognized a parallel, sociologically speaking, between the budding YRRM and an earlier evangelical phenomenon—one I had also witnessed without joining during my seminary and graduate school days. That was the Bill Gothard “Basic Youth Conflicts” seminar movement. Those old enough will remember with me the popularity and passion of that movement. When I was in seminary some students were noted for quoting Gothard and talking enthusiastically about his teachings. It seemed Gothard (and his surrogates and followers) had all the answers to life’s problems and the main one was “God’s chain of command.” Anyone who resisted the message was treated as ignorant or unspiritual (or both).

The Gothard movement grew and spread and was “all the talk” among evangelicals throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s. It finally somewhat fizzled out in the 1990s while leaving a lasting impression and legacy.

One thing I noticed about fellow seminarians and others who followed Gothard and promoted his message as “the solution” for every behavioral problem was their lack of critical thinking. They did not seem open to any criticism, however gentle, of the man or his message. As I watched and listened to them carefully, and often attempted to engage them in dialogue about the Gothard message (which I regarded as overly simplistic if not downright dangerous), I noticed a common tendency to equate Gothard’s message with God’s truth and reject any opportunity to sit back, consider it critically, and question its ultimacy.

It seems to me that many “Gothardites” (all that I met) were reluctant to think for themselves; they seemed to need someone like Gothard, an evangelical guru or pope, to think for them. In their eyes and to their ears he had all the answers. His message became their ideology and crutch, a substitute for the risk of critical thinking for themselves. They struck me as immature (even those in their middle years). They were uncomfortable with any ambiguity or uncertainty; they craved someone like Gothard to put the mess of life into some order for them so they wouldn’t have to deal with it themselves.

In my opinion, for what it’s worth (and this is admittedly mere opinion based on my own observation and reflection), there is a certain kind of personality that craves the comfort of absolute certainty as escape from ambiguity and risk and they find it in religion or politics of a certain kind. The religion and/or politics that attracts them is ideological in nature—absolutistic, logical (or seemingly so), simple and practical. 

It ties up all loose ends and leaves nothing important out. It explains everything around a central unifying theme whether that be “God’s chain of command” or “the glory of God” or “American exceptionalism” or “reverence for life” or “feminism” or “self-esteem” or “prosperity.” Of course none of these actually do explain everything; they only seem to because the person following the ideology puts blinders on to shut out everything the shiny ideology doesn’t explain.

The common feature of this personality is passionate commitment to a finite person or movement and its central idea to the exclusion of objectivity and critical thought. Such persons flee from reading anything critical of the ideology. They cast aspersions at those who disagree or dare to criticize. The ideology is the key to unlock life’s mysteries—for everyone. They never say “This appeals to me and I find it helpful.” They must say instead “This is the one necessary truth for everyone for solving life’s problems.”

Years ago Eric Hoffer identified this as the “true believer” syndrome.

Does this exhaustively explain the YRRM? No. But I think it goes far toward shedding light on why so many people are so passionately attracted to it and then tend to grow out of it over time—as they encounter more of life’s complexity and find that it cannot be fitted into a simple formula.

Another explanation for its popularity, however, is simply its faddish nature. There’s another personality type that is simply the follower of the crowd. Calvinism is popular on college and university campuses and in evangelical youth culture generally so many get caught up in it just because it gives them a “place” to belong. There’s a lot of energy and enthusiasm there and many passionate leaders of the movement are attractive, articulate and, to all appearances, spiritually alive (without necessarily being ecclesiastically committed, by the way). The crowd follows such people.

None of what I have said here discounts the possibility that the YRRM is also a work of the Holy Spirit. I believe the charismatic movement of the 1960s was that, but I also know from personal experience that many people who “joined” it did so to find comfort and community and refused to think critically for themselves about it. When certain features of the movement were challenged many of its followers resisted angrily and labeled the critics unspiritual. The same is true of the “Jesus People Movement” of the 1970s. It, too, was a work of God, a genuine renewal of spiritual vitality, but many people got caught up in it because it was popular without ever considering its darker sides or thinking critically about the nonsense that often appeared within it.

My point is that, in my opinion, there are ideological and faddish dimensions to the YRRM that help explain its popularity. By no means does that detract from the good that it does. The passion for missions, for example, is certainly a benefit. But the lack of self-criticism and tendency to take itself so seriously and passionate commitment to it as a movement (and especially to its leaders) all point to ideology. And the shallow avoidance of ecclesial commitment on the parts of many of its followers points to faddishness.

Will the YRRM die away as did the Gothard phenomenon? (Not that it is gone entirely, but it is certainly not the phenomenon it was.) I am not sure, but I suspect so. Something else will replace it—in a few years.

The church ought to encourage absolute devotion and loyalty to Jesus Christ alone and critical thinking toward all his appointed and self-appointed representatives and spokespersons and their messages—especially insofar as they tend to be totalizing.

continue to -

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"