The Insistence of God in Times of Change (Characteristics of Neo-Fundamentalism)

Painting the Canvas that is me...

As a follow-up to the recent article, "My Journey Out of Inerrancy to a Broader Hermeneutic," written in response to Jonathan Merrit's article, "The Troubling Trends in America's 'Calvinist Revival',"comes Scott McKnight's and Bob Robinson's follow-up articles pertaining to the emergence of puritanism into neo-Calvinism. The question they ask is, "Are we correct in associating neo-Calvinism with Abraham Kuyper? Or, the neo-Reformed movement with the larger Reformed movement? Or even if, what we are seeing in parts of the conservative evangelical movement may perhaps be an aspect of neo-Puritanism?"

McKnight continues to think this present movement is both part of the Calvinist and Reformed traditions but does also think (as proposed by Bob Robinson) that the Puritanism of yesteryear found under the Great Awakening may also be part of its central core of beliefs and tenants.

To all this Brian McLaren takes offense over usage of the term neo-Reformed because of the label offending the larger Reformed tradition's grander moves to enlarge itself and be more progressive with society at all times of its reformed - and reforming - history. Instead, Brian says to call or horse by its color - which in this case is a resurgence amongst conservative evangelicals as a 21st century movement of Neo-Christian Fundamentalism (see the last article below for more on this).

So what is Puritanism?

A quick glance at the dictionary will describe it as a movement known for its extreme strictness in moral or religious matters, often to excess. A religious body of beliefs espousing a rigid austerity. Which of course is what this blogsite here has been observing these past many years as the evangelical Christian church is becoming fragmented across its many fellowships and denominations. Some moving towards a conservative rendering of their faith while others are more accepting of societal norms and standards, causing the church to re-adjust formerly conservative attitudes towards a kinder, gentler liberality, or tolerance, towards all peoples, movements, and religions.

And what are the causes for this general disaffection within today's churches?

Generally it is the observation here that the pronounced postmodern movement away from secular modernism has been its main reason, especially as this era itself is being propelled along by global communications and technologies joining hands with dissimilar people groups, ethnicities, nationalities, cultures, and religions. The modern day church is therefore caught within this epistemological chasm of profound change and is experiencing a variety of reactions to it. And not unexpectedly does it choose not to change or adjust its standards, rules, or attitudes. But instead seeks the refuge of inaction and silence within a past era of yesteryear's more familiar beliefs and traditions.... Even to the point of unwisely sanctifying them. At which point the church ceases to be missional and becomes instead an insulated time capsule floating through the ether pretending nothing has changed but this wicked world as it awaits God's judgment and heaven to come.

Supposedly, this very typical religious reaction has worked well in the past (though church history will demonstrate otherwise) and more recently, for a generation or two, even now. However, with the Millennial generations moving forward at light speed away from the church of the 50s and 80s, the body of Christ must now confront its lethargy and re-determine its religious, if not spiritual, identity. Whether it will be one of a bygone era, or one founded upon a postmodern day missional church movement. The monumental changes that confronts its does now confront it across all of life, thinking, affection, and goodwill. And that by its resistance and inaction to today's present challenges the church is now experiencing an even greater sense of absence and alienation. One that is producing a divide of estrangement and disloyalty, if not the deepening feeling of outright treason within itself and towards society in general. As a result, the general emotions of fear, distrust, and uncertainty, grip the church against its longer traditions of trusting in the God of the church to lead and direct.

And yet, unable to adapt or change, the church resists. And by resisting is willfully changing its sense of understanding of God, the Bible, and mission - even though it is certain that those outside its hallowed institutions are the ones more guilty of this charge. And so, it remains guarded, if not confrontational, to any interests seeking to divest it of its inherited traditions, customs, beliefs, and morals. But to the stout-hearted believers within the body of God this is not acceptable.

The Insistence of God

Thus, here at Relevancy22 we are more interested in showing by many hands and many voices biblically acceptable, and appropriate ways, to relent of modernism's fearful grip. To positively embrace the profound changes being experienced by postmodernism's deconstruction of the past. And to find the very God of Scripture to be very near - and very present - with His church in this world we live. Especially in the storms of change and upheaval. That God is larger than our encrusted beliefs. That God is more enduring than any institute or religion of man. That God Himself is joyfully embracing today's profound challenges in ways that will recharge and spiritually re-awaken once again His slumbering church to His presence and persistence. Some would even call this movement of God upon the hearts of man His spiritual insistence. An insistence that would embrace His presence with His missional heart in the awakening blossom of a global redemptive movement more at a loss when change is not profoundly occurring than when it is.

A divine insistence that dreads not the future but dreads looking back on its past as if it were more sanctified than it really was. A past that needed God's healing to its brokenness and failures as any future will also need of God's healing graces. It is a certainty then that the experience of life is one that will always test its life-givers and demand that they be both wise and loving. Discerning and gracious. Courageous and merciful. Adventurous and forgiving. And it is in the Spirit-life of Jesus, who Himself was undaunted by the Cross, and the more determined to embrace it in the apocalypse of God's salvation, who proceeded apace against temple and institute to find the lost sheep of His folds. Even so, let us follow our Lord's path, embracing rightful change and attesting to the power of Almighty God. Amen.

R.E. Slater

May 28, 2014
updated June 6, 2014

continue to -

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

      

* * * * * * * * * *

The Great Awakenings

First (c.1731-1755)

Second (c.1790-1840)

Third (c.1850-1900)

Fourth (c.1960-1980)

The Great Awakening

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening

The term Great Awakening is used to refer to several periods of religious revival in American religious history. Historians and theologians identify three or four waves of increased religious enthusiasm occurring between the early 18th century and the late 19th century. Each of these "Great Awakenings" was characterized by widespread revivals led by evangelical Protestantministers, a sharp increase of interest in religion, a profound sense of conviction and redemption on the part of those affected, an increase in evangelical church membership, and the formation of new religious movements and denominations.

TERMINOLOGY

The idea of an "awakening" implies a slumber or passivity during secular or less religious times. Awakening is a term which originates from and is embraced often and primarily by evangelical Christians.[11] In recent times, the idea of "awakenings" in US history has been put forth by conservative US evangelicals.[12]

FIRST GREAT AWAKENING

Main article: First Great Awakening

The First Great Awakening began in the 1730s and lasted to about 1743, though pockets of revivalism had occurred in years prior especially amongst the ministry of Solomon Stoddard, Jonathan Edwards's grandfather.[1] Edwards's congregation was involved in a revival later called the "Frontier Revivals" in the mid-1730s, though this was on the wane by 1737.[2] But as American religious historian Sydney Sydney E. Ahlstrom noted the Great Awakening "was still to come, ushered in by the Grand Itinerant",[3] the great British EvangelistGeorge Whitefield. Whitefield arrived in Georgia in 1738, and returned in 1739 for a second visit of the Colonies, making a "triumphant campaign north from Philadelphia to New York, and back to the South."[4] In 1740, he visited New England, and "at every place he visited, the consequences were large and tumultuous." Ministers from various evangelical Protestant denominations supported the Great Awakening.[5] In the middle colonies, he influenced not only the British churches, but the Dutch and Germans.[6]

Additionally, pastoral styles began to change. In the late colonial period, most pastors read their sermons, which were theologically dense and advanced a particular theological argument or interpretation. The leaders of the Great Awakening, such as James Davenport, Jonathan Edwards, Gilbert Tenant and George Whitefield, had little interest in merely engaging parishioners' intellects; rather, they sought a strong emotional response from their congregations that might yield the workings and experiential evidence of saving grace.Joseph Tracy, the minister, historian, and preacher who gave this religious phenomenon its name in his influential 1842 book The Great Awakening, saw the First Great Awakening as a precursor to the American Revolution. The evangelical movement of the 1740s played a key role in the development of democratic thought, as well as the belief of the free press and the belief that information should be shared and completely unbiased and uncontrolled. These concepts ushered in the period of the American Revolution. This contributed to create a demand for religious freedom.[7] Although the Great Awakening represented the first time African Americans embraced Christianity in large numbers, Anglican missionaries had long sought to convert blacks, again with the printed as well as the spoken word.[8]

SECOND GREAT AWAKENING

Main article: Second Great Awakening

The Second Great Awakening was a religious revival that occurred in the United States beginning in the late eighteenth century and lasting until the middle of the nineteenth century. While it occurred in all parts of the United States, it was especially strong in the Northeast and the Midwest. This awakening was unique in that it moved beyond the educated elite of New England to those who were less wealthy and less educated. The center of revivalism was the so-called Burned-over district in western New York. Named for its overabundance of hellfire-and-damnation preaching, the region produced dozens of new denominations, communal societies, and reform.

In addition to a religious movement, other reform movements such as temperance, abolition, and women's rights also grew in antebellum America. The temperance movement encouraged people to abstain from consuming alcoholic drinks in order to preserve family order. The abolition movement fought to abolish slavery in the United States. The women's rights movement grew from female abolitionists who realized that they too could fight for their own political rights. In addition to these causes, reforms touched nearly every aspect of daily life, such as restricting the use of tobacco and dietary and dress reforms. The abolition movement emerged in the North from the wider Second Great Awakening 1800-1840.

THIRD GREAT AWAKENING

Main article: Third Great Awakening

The Third Great Awakening in the 1850s-1900s was characterized by new denominations, active missionary work, Chautauquas, and the Social Gospel approach to social issues.[9]The effects of such an awakening are immeasurable. It resulted in the addition of approximately one million converts to the churches of the United States. It tied the gospel with social work in a manner that had not been seen in this country before. It prepared the nation for the blood bath it would soon experience in the war years of 1861-1865. It gave birth to the great revivals which swept the armies of the South during the days of the war. The Y.M.C.A. (founded in 1844) played a major role in fostering revivals in the cities in the 1858 Awakening and after. The revival of 1858 produced the leadership, such as that of Dwight L. Moody, out of which came the religious work carried on in the armies during the civil war. It gave impetus to the creation of the Christian and Sanitary Commissions and numerous Freedmen's Societies that were formed in the midst of the War.

FOURTH GREAT AWAKENING

Main article: Fourth Great Awakening

The Fourth Great Awakening is a debated concept that has not received the acceptance of the first three. Advocates such as economist Robert Fogel say it happened in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Others call this time theCharismatic Movement. At that time the "mainline" Protestant denominations weakened sharply in both membership and influence while the most conservative religious denominations (such as the Southern Baptists and Missouri Synod Lutherans) grew rapidly in numbers, spread across the United States, had grave internal theological battles and schisms, and became politically powerful. Most of these organizations still stand today. There is no consensus on whether a fourth awakening has actually taken place.[10]

American Puritanism (I)

by NYU

Uploaded on Sep 19, 2010
Featuring discussions of typology; John Calvin; Arminianism; materialism and idealism;
phenomenal vs. noumenal; Puritan "plain style"; the form of the Puritan sermons;
the Great Migration; William Bradford; and John Winthrop.

The Influence of Puritanism on American Literature

* * * * * * * * * *

Puritanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritanism

The Puritans were a group of English Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries, including, but not limited to, English Calvinists. Puritanism in this sense was founded by some Marian exilesfrom the clergy shortly after the accession of Elizabeth I of England in 1558, as an activist movement within the Church of England.

In modern times, the word 'puritan' is often used to mean 'against pleasure'.[1] Historically, the word was used pejoratively to characterise the Protestant group as extremists, similar to theCathars of France and, according to Thomas Fuller in his Church History, dated back to 1564. Archbishop Matthew Parker of that time used it and "precisian" with the sense of the modern "stickler".[2]

Puritans were blocked from changing the established church from within, and were severely restricted in England by laws controlling the practice of religion. Their views, however, were transported by the emigration of congregations to the Netherlands (and later to New England), and by evangelical clergy to Ireland (and later into Wales), and were spread into lay society and parts of the educational system, particularly certain colleges of the University of Cambridge. They took on distinctive views on clerical dress and in opposition to the episcopal system, particularly after the 1619 conclusions of the Synod of Dort they were resisted by the English bishops. They largely adopted Sabbatarian views in the 17th century, and were influenced bymillennialism.

In alliance with the growing commercial world, the parliamentary opposition to the royal prerogative, and in the late 1630s with the Scottish Presbyterians with whom they had much in common, the Puritans became a major political force in England and came to power as a result of the First English Civil War (1642–46). After the Restoration of 1660 and the 1662 Uniformity Act, almost all Puritan clergy left the Church of England, some becoming nonconformist ministers. The nature of the movement in England changed radically, although it retained its character for a much longer period in New England.

Puritans, by definition, were dissatisfied with the limited extent of the English Reformation, and the Church of England's tolerance of practices which they associated with the Catholic Church. They formed, and identified with, various religious groups advocating greater "purity" of worship and doctrine, as well as personal and group piety. Puritans adopted a Reformed theologyand, in that sense, were Calvinists (as were many of their earlier opponents), but they also took note of radical views critical of Zwingli in Zurich and Calvin in Geneva. In church polity, some advocated for separation from all other Christians, in favour of autonomous gathered churches. These separatist and independent strands of Puritanism became prominent in the 1640s, when the supporters of a Presbyterian polity in the Westminster Assembly were unable to forge a new English national church.

go to this link here for a fuller discussion on Puritanism -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritanism

* * * * * * * * * *

What to Call the So-Called New Calvinists?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/05/28/what-to-call-the-so-called-new-calvinists/

by Scot McKnight

May 28, 2014
Comments

My friend, Bob Robinson, has made a good case for seeing the New Calvinists as Neo-Puritans. I don’t think we can know this for sure, but it is indeed possible that on this blog that group was first called the Neo-Reformed, but a commenter said they are not really Reformed since they are mostly Baptists and not officially connected with the Reformed denominations. Then another friend said you can’t call them Neo-Calvinists since that’s Kuyper.

Neo-Puritan is a good moniker, but that might work even better for the likes of J.I. Packer. So maybe “neo-reformed” with a lower case R? Anyway, Bob Robinson makes the case for Neo-Puritan and I have reposted this with his permission.

What do you think? Perhaps you are tempted to say “no labels,” but that is not the reality in which we live. Ordered existence is the instinct for all of us, and this is about making sense not “othering.” Here’s Bob Robinson’s case:

So What’s Wrong with Neo-Calvinism?
http://www.re-integrate.org/2014/05/27/whats-wrong-neocalvinism/

by Bob Robinson

May 27, 2014

In response to the rise of the new Calvinists, we need to make sure we know who we are talking about.

For the past five years, there has been a lot of discussion about the rise of a new group of Calvinists. Groups like The Gospel Coalition are encouraging and celebrating how a new generation of believers seem to be embracing Reformed theology. In a recent lecture at the bastion of “Old Calvinism,” Westminster Seminary, John Piper defined the New Calvinism.

As this new Calvinism has become more prominent, there have also arisen critics. For some in the Old Calvinism camp, the predominance of Baptists (John Piper, D.A. Carson, Albert Mohler) in the New Calvinism has raised questions about the concept of Covenant: the Baptists don’t practice paedobaptism. Also, the New Calvinism holds what they call the “Complimentarian” view of women, while Old Calvinism has moved toward egalitarianism.

The Missional movement, which is largely Arminian, has also criticized the New Calvinism.

Scot McKnight is a former professor of mine at TEDS while I was also studying under one of the key leaders of the New Calvinism, Don Carson. Scot has written some scathing critiques of the New Calvinism’s insistence that the Gospel must be defined primarily by the salvation of individuals.

Jonathan Merritt just wrote a piece at Religion News Service (“The troubling trends in Americaís Calvinist revival”) saying,

“They've been called the young, restless, and reformed or neo-Calvinists, and they are highly mobilized and increasingly influential. Their books perform well in the marketplace (see John Piper or Paul David Tripp), their leaders pepper the lists of the most popular Christian bloggers (see The Gospel Coalition and Resurgence), and theyíve created vibrant training grounds for raising new recruits (see Reformed Theological Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary).

This brand of Calvinists are a force with which to reckon. But as with any movement, America’s Calvinist revival is a mixed bag from where I sit, there are several troubling trends that must be addressed if this faithful faction hopes to move from a niche Christian cadre to a sustainable and more mainstream movement.

Notice that Merritt called them the young, restless, and reformed or neo-Calvinists.

The young, restless, and reformed refers to the best-selling book written by Collin Hansen, Editorial Director for The Gospel Coalition and is a good identifying tag for this group.

But what are we to make of this identification of them as neo-Calvinists?

Well, that is a misnomer. What Merritt and others are addressing is not Neo-Calvinism, but Neo-Puritanism.

I Know Neo-Calvinism, and that’s not Neo-Calvinism.

I think these New Calvinists should not be called “Neo-Calvinists,” but rather “Neo-Puritans.”

Back in 2009, I wrote a series of posts at my blog Vanguard Church on the nuanced differences between Neo-Puritanism and Neo-Calvinism.

Scot McKnight picked up on this terminology as he has interacted with people over the years. In a comment on a blog post by David Fitch in which Fitch was critiquing New Calvinist Mark Driscoll, Scot wrote,

“A former student of mine, Bob Robinson, told me a few years back that he had read a careful church historian who thought NeoPuritanism was more accurate. Jamie Smith also pushed back against using the term Reformed for this group; Vince Bacote thinks NeoCalvinist is not fair to Kuyper; Ken Stewart’s book proved to me again the Reformed movement is too big for this new development of mostly Baptist Calvinists.

So there is some protection of terms here and I have now myself landed on NeoPuritan as the heart of this movement. Puritanism is, of course, personal zeal before the Lord for holiness and, also, zeal for reforming church and society according to biblical (and not ecclesiastical) teachings. So I agree, we should probably start using NeoPuritan.”

It seems high-time to make clear the difference between Neo-Calvinism and Neo-Puritanism again.

Why? Because, first, with all the hoopla over the new Calvinism, people need to understand that the terms Calvinist or Reformed are much broader terms than any one particular group within the movement. Second, because with all the notoriety the new Calvinism is getting, especially in contrast to Old Calvinism and Arminianism, we need to make it clear that there is another group of Calvinists, a group that has called themselves Neo-Calvinist for 100 years, and has also gained some prominence in North America recently. This group has similarities to the other group, but there are some marked distinctions.

The Emphases of Neo-Puritanism

Puritan, Jonathan Edwards

Now hear me carefully: I don’t use the term Puritan in any derogatory manner. When this term is used, some hear puritanical, with all the caricatures of staunch religious strictness. That is not what I’m referring to.What Merritt (and others commenting on the recent surge of Calvinism) are talking about is what we should call Neo-Puritanism.

Neo-Puritanism is a resurgence of the ideas of John Owen, Richard Baxter, and of course Jonathan Edwards (John Piper’s favorite, and now the favorite of many who enjoy Piper’s enthusiastic writings).

Neo-Puritanism appropriately enlarges our view of God’s authority and thus our view of evangelism, worship, and the church’s role in society. It is very concerned with theological issues like the reality of sin and its destruction in both individuals and society, Penal Substitutionary Atonement and Justification as the means for individuals to be saved, and the Five Points (TULIP) of Calvinism.

It is very active in the religious cultural clashes in todayís American society, especially the issues of gay marriage and abortion. Neo-Puritanism sees the answer to societyís woes as starting with personal piety and then it moves out toward society, seeking to influence the culture to live by the pious standards in which Christians live.

But this is not Neo-Calvinism, so for Merritt and others to call it that only confuses matters.

The Emphases of Neo-Calvinism

Calvinist, Abraham Kuyper

Grace restoring natureî is the central insight of Neo-Calvinism. The gospel message for this group is best summarized by four chapters Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Consummation.Neo-Calvinism dates all the way back to Abraham Kuyper, the 19th Century Dutch cultural leader who famously said, ìThere is not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!

This is where neo-Calvinists differentiate themselves from the Neo-Puritans.

They insist that there has not been enough attention paid on the first and last chapter. Acknowledging that the cross is the climax of Redemptionís story, neo-Calvinists insist that focusing just on Fall and Redemption (i.e., personal sin and salvation) neglects the deep implications of the cross to the cosmic story of Godís redemptive plan.

While both Neo-Calvinism and Neo-Puritanism are both concerned about personal piety and cultural influence, they come at these things from different angles. Neo-Puritanism focuses on the sovereignty of God in salvation. Neo-Calvinism focuses on the sovereignty of God over creation. Their Calvinism has a changing the world comprehensiveness, seeing that the implications of the redemption found in Christ infiltrates all spheres of society so that the ultimate end of God’s plan is the restoration of His creation.

Ray Pennings, Executive Vice President of the Neo-Calvinist think tank Cardus, wrote an excellent piece entitled, Can we hope for a neocalvinist-neopuritan dialogue?: Forging a public theology relevant for our times. In that article, he offered this insightful nuance:

“Neo-Puritanism is slanted more towards individual piety and churchly revival, and Neo-Calvinism is slanted more towards corporate activism and cultural renewal.”

I recently asked Ray Pennings to expand on the important distinctives of Neo-Calvinism. He told me,

“Neo-Calvinism doesnít neatly fit into the emerging ëold ñ newí Calvinist paradigm. Hence, I find the Neo-Puritanism / Neo-Calvinism distinction to be more helpful. There is a profound difference in their approach to the gospel. Neo-Puritans focus on the personal nature of salvation and see the church as primarily a salvation-factory, the workshop of the Holy Spirit in which the Word is sovereignly applied to the hearts of the totally depraved and they are brought into a vital relationship with God. The meaning of this for the rest of life is understood to be secondary and a by-product of a faithful life which has the church and the covenant community as its primary focus.

“Neo-Calvinists on the other hand, focus on the church as the recharging station for the people of God and focus on the work of the spirit taking the witness of Godís people into their everyday lives. In practical terms, preaching and church life focuses on equipping the people of God for their comprehensive callings.”

Two Streams of Calvinism

Now, I must emphasize that these are two streams of Calvinism, so there is certainly overlap. Tim Keller, who leans toward Neo-Calvinism is one of the leaders of the Neo-Puritan group The Gospel Coalition. While The Gospel Coalition has become much more vocal about a Neo-Puritan agenda, they have also just launched a new section of its website on Faith and Work (appropriately called “Every Square Inch,” the famous quote from Abraham Kuyper). On the other hand, a prominent neo-Calvinist college ministry conference, Jubilee, not only addresses the complexities of vocation as ministry with speakers like Andy Crouch and Anthony Bradley, but also proclaims the means of salvation from speakers like Tullian Tchividjian (who had a blog at The Gospel Coalition until recently).

As Ray Pennings told me,

“As with any bi-modal contrast, the differences here are highlighted in a way that might obscure the fact that many would reject these labels as reinforcing an either-or approach when a both-and is more appropriate. Nonetheless, any careful observer of the church and cultural life of those associated with these different groups should recognize that this debate has real every-day consequences. The character of preaching, the priorities in personal and church life, and the engagement with society and culture does look different depending on how one approaches these issues, making “Neo-Puritanism” and “Neo-Calvinism” descriptive terms that should be used in a helpful way to understand the contemporary Reformed and Presbyterian scene.”

Click to enlarge

Bob Robinson is the Executive Director of The Center to Reintegrate Faith, Life, and Vocations. Bob is also a Content Editor for The High Calling. Read Bob’s articles in the (re)integrate online magazine, follow Reintegrate’s tweets at @re_integrate and Bob’s personal twitter at @Bob_Robinson_re.

* * * * * * * * * *

Gangstas of Love or Neo-Christian Fundamentalists?

Neo-Calvinist, Neo-Reformed, or…

Neo-Fundamentalist?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/zhoag/2014/06/02/neo-calvinist-neo-reformed-or-neo-fundamentalist/?utm_content=bufferc071f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

by Zach Hoag

June2, 2014

Comments

Labels are inevitable. We need need to understand and identify things. But labeling is difficult. Sometimes we assign a label and unintentionally or unnecessarily implicate individuals or groups who don’t really fit our intended description.

Such is the case with the conservative/evangelical Calvinistic-Baptist and Presbyterian resurgence that is busy championing the twin causes of the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation and damnation, and fixed complementarian gender roles in the church and home. You know, the ones coalesced by institutions like Southern Seminary, The Gospel Coalition, the Acts 29 Network, Sovereign Grace Ministries, and Together for the Gospel. How do we label this group?

Some call them Neo-Calvinists. Some call them the Young, Restless, and Reformed. Some call them Maurice. WAH-WAHHH.

(Not really, but that would be a lot easier.)

And most have been calling them, simply, Neo-Reformed. That was my label for the movement up until a few months ago – when I became sensitive to the fact that the label unnecessarily lumps other Reformed individuals and groups into this rather particular emphasis on a controlling, wrathful God and the practice of keeping women subordinated to men in most areas of life.

So, I thought that Neo-Calvinist might be more accurate since it’s the particulars of Calvinist theology that this movement is really on about, not the broader scope of the Reformed tradition.

But then Bob Robinson wrote last week that Neo-Calvinist is already taken! And indeed it is. The Kuyperian Calvinists (TKC) were pretty “Neo” at the turn of the 20th century, and those who occupy this tradition now are not emphasizing the same things as the TGC types. The Kuyper folks emphasize God’s sovereignty over creation and culture, while the TGC types emphasize his sovereignty in salvation and damnation (and, apparently, in making sure that only dudes get lead pastor jobs and gay people can’t get married). Bob suggests that we should call the latter group “Neo-Puritans.” But I honestly just don’t think that’s going to stick.

So I have a suggestion. And it’s one that I am becoming increasingly convinced of in light of what I believe are serious theological and practical (not to mention, legal) problems with the movement in question. I think there’s another label that is more appropriate for this group and its emphases.

Neo-Fundamentalist.

This was somewhat confirmed for me in Brian McLaren’s recent response to Tim Challies calling him a false teacher. Brian began by describing that Tim is not properly labeled “Reformed”:

First, I should say that “Neo-Reformed” is probably a better name than “Reformed” for folks in this camp. Reformed Christians of the broader designation don’t seek to think and say exactly what Calvin and the other Reformers thought and said, as the Neo-Reformed tend to do. Instead, they look at how creatively and insightfully the Reformers responded to issues in their context and they seek to respond to our very different context enlightened and inspired by the Reformers’ example.

Even though I’m a happy outsider to the Neo-Reformed system of belief, I have high regard for the broader Reformed tradition – which includes theological giants like Barth, Pannenberg, Bosch, Boesak, Newbigin, and Moltmann. (I know, not any women on the list – that’s a problem in all theology, but thankfully it is beginning to change.)

So, ok, Neo-Reformed can work. But it still implicates the broader Reformed tradition, and the people that McLaren himself looks up to. It’s confusing. And it still doesn’t get to the heart of what the movement in question is all about. It still doesn’t pinpoint the main issue. Brian continues:

Of course, when he calls me a false teacher, he is speaking from his vantage point as an articulate, committed, zealous, and sincere Christian fundamentalist. (I mean “fundamentalist” not in a pejorative sense, but in the tradition of J. Gresham Machen, to whom the author refers.) From that vantage point, he speaks the truth as he sees it.

Yes! That’s it! This movement of conservative/evangelical Calvinistic-Baptist and Presbyterian Christians is most accurately a revival of 1920′s fundamentalism, the historic movement led by the likes of B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and the Hodge brothers at old Princeton Seminary. This self-proclaimed fundamentalist surge was overwhelmingly Calvinistic and unabashedly devoted to the sovereignty of God in salvation and damnation as the essence of the gospel. Concurrently, it was linked to a near-obsession with the inerrancy of Scripture (the verbally and plenarily inspired variety, if you’re keeping score), which led to dogmatic systematic theologies and strict applications in ecclesiology and ethics – including the strong subordination of women in the church and home.

This self-proclaimed fundamentalist movement hinged upon antagonism with “modernist” and “scientific” cultural norms that they felt challenged the authority of Scripture. For decades afterwards, it resulted in antagonism and division in the church as well, as more centrist and progressive people (not to mention liberals) were ousted from the “faithful” fundamentalist movements. Of course, we have all manner of church controversy and splitting occurring right now over similar issues, but interestingly, the conservative entrenchment that calls anything outside of its bounds “liberalism” has its roots in this historic fundamentalist surge.

The inability to see any third way is a uniquely fundamentalist characteristic.

And that is precisely the characteristic that has come to define this current movement of conservative/evangelical Calvinistic-Baptists and Presbyterians.

Here are some other emerging characteristics within this Neo-Fundamentalism (not necessarily universal at all points):

• Characteristics of Neo-Fundamentalism:

• Heavy-handed (male) authority structures.
• Rationalist/Modernist approach to interpreting Scripture.
• Emphasis on a controlling, wrathful God.
• Emphasis on the sovereignty of God in salvation and damnation as the essence of the gospel.
• Retains the practice of keeping women subordinated to men in most areas of life (otherwise known as "fixed complementarian - not equalitarian - roles of men and women in the home, business, and society).
• Anti-Science, Anti-Modernism
• Antagonistic posture toward evolutionary science (and other scientific disciplines).
• Antagonistic posture toward psychology and psychiatry.
• Intolerance of/active opposition to feminism and LGBT rights.
• Christian/church privilege at the expense of legal/safety concerns (e.g., protecting child abusers in the church from law enforcement, defending businesses refusing service to LGBT, anger over lost “rights”/”persecution” in the culture).
• Denial of systemic racial and gender injustice in Christian institutions or broader culture.
• Hostility toward any theological variance from the all-controlling God who sovereignly damns the non-elect to eternal torture in hell.
• Preaches antagonism and division within the church universal (or body of Christ once known as the church Catholic).
• Emphasis on dogmatic systematic theologies with strict applications in ecclesiology and ethics.
• Conservative entrenchment that calls anything outside of its dogmatic boundarys “liberalism” and has its roots in this historic fundamentalist surge.
• An inability to see a third-way.

Again, these things are not true of many denominational Reformed or Calvinistic Christians, especially of the more centrist or progressive variety. And they are not true of the growing contingent of centrist and progressive evangelicals. We certainly have some Neo’s here, like the Neo-Anabaptists. And there are some good old Holiness/Wesleyan folks in our midst too. And the weird charismatic Wesleyan/Anabaptists like myself.

But honestly, I like to simplify us centrist-progressive folks with a more accurate and compelling label.

I call us…the Gangsters of Love.

How Not to Confuse Christian Evolution with a Naturalistic Worldview

Eternal

The "classic rendering" of an natural worldview can sometimes be described not unlike how Dr. Olson in his article below would like to describe it in his classically arranged set of arguments. These few, shorthand arguments form a thin, summary basis for a much larger, and better versed, set of arguments by many a theologian and philosopher. However, for readers of Relevancy22 (or even the blogsite Biologos), some important/salient points re Christian evolution should very quickly standout:

First, the Christian evolutionist does not, and cannot, entertain a naturalistic worldview. Nor do I think Dr. Olson is saying this of  the Christian evolutionary worldview, though he leaves it unstated. As such, his point is the same one that a Christian evolutionist would make in understanding "life" - and "very creation" itself - as having its beginning point in a Creator God. A God whose is creation's heavenly Author and divine Redeemer within, abroad, and alongside of it. This would be the historically Christian orthodox worldview. But for the naturalist worldview any sense of a God, or divine Creator, will not be part of its philosophical foundations.

Two, a Christian evolutionary worldview must utilize the strictest of scientific methods devoid - as they are - of any "metaphysical" import. This is what makes science "science." One devoid of personal beliefs and ideological conjectures. However, afterwards - at the point of completion and discovery of scientific results - the scientist is then free to personally theorize, or conject, their "worldview" on the matter - be it a naturalistic worldview or that of a Christian one.

Three, a Christian evolutionary worldview must have a teleology or purpose or meaning behind it. Otherwise, by mere definition alone, evolution as a process would be meaningless and devoid of purpose. Curiously, some evolutionary (non-Christian) scientists now think that even within the frameworks of scientific evolution they are beginning to see a teleology within its bones (see here, and here, and here, and the sidebar on "science and teleology" here).

Fourth & Fifth, the idea of evolution as simply being defined as "survival of the fittest" is most fittingly a misnomer preferencing popular folklore over exactness. It belies the strong idea found within evolution of eusociality, or "super-cooperation" (cf, "Eusociality and the Bible," Part 2). What this means is that for the "fit to survive" it will necessitate "cooperation, and even sacrifice, of the fittest for its survival." This important idea would also negate any arguments for altruism except on the grounds of narcissism.

Sixth, unfortunately nihilism seems always to be associated with the idea of evolution... that everything runs "downhill," as it were, towards disunity and destruction. But this would be a misunderstanding of the very idea that evolution upholds... one that would "mutate" towards an ecological efficiency and survival against causation. Thus the reverse is actually more true: "That given the evolutionary construct of the universe, nature will always strive to 'live/survive' in as efficient a manner as possible under any given circumstance of chaos or random disorder."

Moreover, even as "evolution" as a scientific theory was being birthed so too was the philosophical idea of "nihilism" arising from the hotbeds of German Idealism (or Hegelianism). However, an idea like evolution - if it is to survive its detractors and philosophical era - must morph, and progress, in its essence beyond the philosophies of its day. And so, though nihilism is no less true then it is now, nor should it be a sufficient descriptor of evolution as a holistic science even as it was back then.

Seventh, being self-absorbed - or living hedonistically - runs afoul of the principles of eusociality as found within evolution.

Eighth, it has been observed that "humanism is the nihilistic version of evolution" but this is not the Christian idea of evolution, nor even the naturalistic view of evolution. Humanism is simply the preferred idea of some who wish to look at evolution in this shorthanded manner by linking it with nihilism.

For more discussion about "Science and Evolution" please refer to the many sidebar topics under the same title, as well as to the sidebar pertaining especially to "science and religion" which was more recently created to discuss how "religion intersects with science."

The What and Why of Sin

When mentioning nihilism the question of sin arises... just what is it? Why is it? How does it affect the God-ordained process of evolution? Infect it? Disturb it? Or move against God's holy movement of evolutionary creation?

In essence, when creating creation God gave to it chaos and random disorder in His wisdom and mercy. We see this everywhere we look from the macro level (classical physics) to the micro level (quantum physics). From societal relationships with one another to turmoils within ourselves (Romans 5-7). From our relationship with God Himself to even nature itself (ecologically). Everywhere we look there is chaos and disorder. We feel it. We sense it. We move at its behest even as we have learned to live with it. We do not know of a time, a place, nor a relationship, that isn't filled with it until coming to Christ Jesus and finding God's atoning grace through His Son who brings peace to its attenuated disorders in our lives.

However, is this kind of chaotic universe made of God or made of sin? I would submit that it is made of God to His glory and honor and that into its chaos arose sin to conflict its disorders. That death was already present with creation's creation. That we see this in the structure of an atom as a particle moving towards annihilation. But so too was the idea of life present with creation's creation. Because with an atom's annihilation comes rebirth and renewal. That death is the other side of life, even as life is the other side of death. That each requires the other in eternal communion, liveliness, and mutual sustainability.

So then, was this chaotic universe sinful? No. It was what God created. Holy. And that by divine decree by His wont-and-will when there was no sin. And not because of sin. The caveat here is that sin was an unknown thing/principle until the moment of creation's enactment. But when enacted sin too arose. But not at the surprise of an all-knowing Creator. But as a metaphysical reaction to the Creator's imputed liberty that He birthed within the heart of creation. That it was nature's very indeterminacy, even as it was man's very free will, that were the effective causations for sin to arise as a metaphysical principle (and not as an ontologic entity).

From the human perspective, the idea of "choice" is just that... a choice, a decision, a response, as much as is possible within a living entity's effectuating environment, if any such being can have any kind of choice at all against the predilections of his or her's constitution, past background, present circumstances, or future possibilities. And it is here, within this framework, that we may discover a "graduated response" towards either order or disorder (thinking in binary, classical terms). Whether it be divine, human, social, or ecological (or, God-ward, us-ward, other-ward, or creation-ward). Within these relationships rests an infinite number of opportunities to enact goodness and not evil. Love and not hate. Communion and not disunion. Fellowship and not antipathy. In all four areas of creation's sublime relationship to God and itself.

But this thing that we call "sin" would strive against God's "good" creation and be that "force, or principle, or causation, or inaction, or antipathy, or conscious-or-unconscious act, etc," that would remain forever-and-always unsubmitted to God's holy fies and fires. And thus, sin's imprint can be seen or felt in its own disorders, disunions, disturbances, turmoils, restlessness, emptiness, brokenness, etc,... while always resisting a greater sense of peace, satisfaction, restfulness, fulfillment, completeness, or fellowship with God and with itself as a whole.

As such, sin requires God's steady provisioning, nurturing, tending, care, or response of divine redemption to re-enact His aspired fellowship with creation (and creation's fellowship with both itself and its God). It demands an active Creator purposely planning, countering, checkmating, defeating, healing, and redeeming a broken, fallen, unsubmitted creation. That this indeterminate, free willed, creation is a complex set of anticipated junctions or disjunctions that once knew "shalom" (the Jewish concept for "heavenly peace, blessing, and order") at its inception, and at once fell from this divine shalom just as immediately. That is, with liberty came its opposite response of resistence, refusal, bondage, and so on. With union, disunion. With peace, turmoil. With blessing, breakage. With fulfillment, strife.

Why Classic Christianity Must Be Re-Expressed in Postmodern Terms

One of the reasons I write and maintain a reference site such as this is to "uplift" older ideas of Christian orthodoxy to a newer, self-reflective plane of postmodern Christian orthodoxy or, post-evangelical Christian orthodoxy. I am not content to simply quibble over older ideas, or regurgitate them as Christian pander acceptable to most. It is important that today's postmodern Christian understand why the Christian faith must be uplifted unto a higher plane than one of pessimism or popular sentiment. That today's postmodern church must importantly carry forward the exegetical, expository, and philosophical traditions of past Christian orthodoxy in its theological tasks, endeavors, and missional witness.

Fellow Christian brothers like Dr. Olson serve as a helpful springboard in performing this task. His sense of Christian theological history is immense and needs to be profoundly regarded. His, and other well-versed theologian's sentiments, go a long way in helping the church maintain its rightful balance of orthodoxy as versus popular shrift and folklore. So when reading his and other's commentaries and observations it behooves the postmodern Christian to ingest what is being said in order to then uplift those theological thoughts into a postmodern framework of theology that is relevant and renewing of a church wishing to push forward without knowing how, or why, or in what manner, it might accomplish this missional witness.

And thus, to these voices must come other specialist voices that are also biblically grounded. Voices which may also share in the church's experience of redemption while providing updated, relevant, contemporary theologies from a spectrum of ideas that the past historical church could not entertain until this present time in the history of the church. Ideas that will eventually cause Christian orthodoxy to appropriately re-invent itself yet again against a larger stream of witness and discovery, discussion and debate. This is the value of irenic scholarship and a literate church. But it is also a slow, wary process. One requiring a cautious give-and-take between the old and the new. Between tradition and orthodoxy. Between truth and error. And it is into this process that today's postmodern Christian must go with sword and shield, God and Bible, Spirit and Son. Even so may the Lord bless all who would serve and tell of their glorious Creator-Redeemer. Amen.

R. E. Slater

May 27, 2014

related discussions - 

Why a Christian Evolutionist Cannot be a Naturalist
(or, the False Divide between Science and Religion)



Index to past discussions -

Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"

* * * * * * * * * *

If I Were a Naturalist….

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/05/if-i-were-a-naturalist/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rogereolson_052714UTC010503_daily&utm_content=&spMailingID=46016873&spUserID=Nzg4MDU4NjI4MjkS1&spJobID=443510322&spReportId=NDQzNTEwMzIyS0

by Roger Olson

May 24, 2014

Comments

Recently I posted a three part series about the Christian worldview. I asserted that it is a much neglected worldview–both among Christians and non-Christians. I also said that public schools in America tend to secularize students by allowing many other worldviews, quasi-religious as they are, privileged status over against the Christian worldview. I argued that many Christians in the natural sciences live by two worldviews that are incommensurable with each other: the Christian one and a naturalistic one. I did not mention that “methodological naturalism” is, in my opinion, good and necessary in science laboratories. But that is different from believing in naturalism–that nature is all there is.

Something in my musings about all this brought some people here to debate with me. They claim the naturalistic worldview is the only one compatible with modern science, empiricism and reason. And that it has all the resources we humans need including a firm basis for ethics.

I can’t disprove naturalism and won’t even try. What I can do is point out problems in it and explain why I could never be a naturalist in the worldview sense of the word. (“Naturalism” can also, of course, mean study of nature or love of nature.)

The Burden of Discernment

Please forgive me if what I am about to say sounds prideful and self-promoting. I have many weaknesses, but one of my strengths, that can often be a burden, is ability to see the logical outcome of ideas. Sometimes I regard it as a gift; at other times it is almost a curse. Other people seem to be able to accept ideas, messages, proposals as they are without immediately seeing where they will lead if pressed to their logical conclusions. My gift/curse is that I look at an idea, message, proposal and immediately see not only it but its logical outcome–where it will inevitably and inexorably lead if taken to its logical conclusion.

That is, of course, a major reason and explanation for why I so adamantly oppose Calvinism. I know many Calvinists who do not embrace its logical conclusions. One of my seminary professors once said to me “Roger, you shouldn’t press everything to its logical conclusion.” He was a “moderate Calvinist” and could not defeat my logical arguments about where even that would lead if pressed to its logical conclusion. (He believed in “single predestination” and denied “double predestination.”) But he did not think it appropriate to always look to an idea’s logical conclusion as part of evaluating it. I did and I still do.

I don’t find this habit to be optional; for me it is automatic and essential. It just happens. I look at an idea and, without even wanting to, see its logical outcome. And I have great difficulty separating the idea from its logical outcome. (Now, please don’t think I’m claiming some kind of infallibility! I have been wrong about the logical outcome and changed my mind or suspended judgment as a result of dialogue and debate or just further study. I am not claiming to have a super-power! I’m just explaining that logically analyzing ideas is such an ingrained habit that I now find it nearly impossible to suspend.)

I think this explains much of the tension that occurs between defenders of Calvinism and me. I cannot just accept a paradox; I have to try to resolve it. For me a paradox is always a task, not a comfortable resting place. That is not to say I can resolve all paradoxes; it’s only to say I find all paradoxes to be challenges to further inquiry.

The Metaphysics of a Natural Theology

So what does all this have to do with naturalism? First, let me explain clearly what I understand naturalism to be. In this sense, naturalism is a worldview that “sees” reality “as” a closed network of mathematically describable causes and effects such that every entity and event is in principle explainable by the natural sciences. In other words, nature as understood by modern science, is all there is. Not that modern science currently understands all of nature. Only that “reality” does not include anything above or within nature that is not ruled by natural laws that are in principle (not yet in fact) discoverable and exhaustively describable by modern science.

Of course, not everyone who claims to embrace a naturalist worldview agrees with all of that; that is simply how I understand the worldview I call “naturalism.” And I think any deviation from it tends to make the worldview less “naturalistic” and opens the door to something transcendent to nature and even possibly supernatural.

One way of examining a worldview is to imagine oneself as believing it, then imagine oneself being absolutely logical about it, taking the worldview to its logical conclusion, and see where it leads. What ELSE would I have to believe if I adopted naturalism as my worldview?

I am NOT saying: This is what all naturalists believe. I AM saying: This is what I would have to believe if I were a naturalist.

First, I would believe that life is purely accidental and therefore devoid of any transcendent purpose or meaning. It’s only meaning would be what I invested in it; it’s only purpose would be what I purposed.

Second, I would believe that what I believe is determined by natural forces and therefore is not a matter of truth. Ideas would only be chemical interactions in brains and therefore not of any importance except with regard to how they function–to promote my personal happiness or not.

Third, I would believe that survival of the fittest is the most basic law of nature and that helping the weak only serves to corrupt the gene pool. I might have compassion and empathy for those in my tribe, but I would not see any reason to have compassion or empathy on those outside my tribe without any connection to myself.

Fourth, I would believe that my own happiness is the standard of my behavior. I would see no reason for genuine altruism. If I chose to be altruistic it would be because it makes me happy.

Fifth, I would resist moral outrage as a waste of energy. I would embrace anger instead of moral indignation and outrage and realize that when people do things I think are bad it only means I don’t like what they do.

Sixth, I would embrace nihilism as the only logical view of reality consistent with my naturalism.

Seventh, I would try to live “the good life,” whatever I might decide that to be, but I would realize that it doesn’t really matter if I life a totally self-centered life even at others’ expense so long as I am not thereby disadvantaged.

Eighth, I would regard humanism as a form of specieism and completely unwarranted. I would probably live with the illusion that human beings, especially I, are/am higher and better than animals because it would be advantageous.

This is what I would believe if I embraced a naturalistic worldview devoid of anything transcendent. When I meet a naturalist who DOESN’T believe these things I believe he or she is simply being inconsistent.

How is the God of 5-Point Calvinism Not Worthy of Worship?

Do Arminians and Calvinists Worship the Same God?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/05/do-arminians-and-calvinists-worship-the-same-god/

Roger E. Olson

May 21, 2014

Comments

This question never dies. While most Christians on both sides of the divide say yes, some on both sides say no. Because I have openly admitted here that consistent Calvinism turns God into a monster and makes it difficult to tell the difference between God and the devil, some have assumed I believe the answer must be no. However, I have never said that Arminians and Calvinists worship different Gods. I have said that if it were revealed to me in a way I could not doubt that the God of consistent, five point Calvinism is the one true God over all, the maker of heaven and earth, I would not worship him because I would not think him worthy of worship.

What makes God worthy of worship is God’s perfect goodness combined with his greatness. God must be both great and good to be worthy of worship. Garden variety Calvinists do believe God is good as well as great. A few have stepped out of the pack and have said that God is the creator of sin and evil. I think they are more logically consistent than their fathers who are garden variety Calvinists. Of course, even they affirm God’s goodness but only by believing that God is freely good and that whatever God does is automatically good just because he is God. Or, in some cases, they defend their belief in God’s goodness by appeal to a “greater good” that justifies God creating sin and evil. In that case, of course, sin and evil aren’t all that bad.

Observing Theological Inconsistencies

The vast majority of Calvinists have always denied that God is the author of sin and evil and have affirmed that sin and evil arise from creatures’ natures and wills (angelic and human). They appeal to God’s permission, as do Arminians, to explain why and how God is not the author of sin and evil.

The “crunch” comes with the question of whether God “designs, ordains and governs” sin and evil and everything else we consider awful, bad, horrendous, etc.—such as childhood death from agonizing illness or accident. From an Arminian perspective it’s difficult to see the difference between affirming that God is the “author” of all that and that God “designs, ordains and governs” all that [as a distinction that a Calvinist does, and will, make. - res].

[As an example,] Calvinists typically accuse Arminians of “felicitous inconsistency” and at the same time use that to explain how and why Arminians are fellow Christians. The inconsistency they think they see in Arminianism is that Arminians affirm both that salvation is gift and that it must be freely received. To Calvinists this makes the human decision to respond positively to the offer of grace “the decisive factor” in salvation. Of course, Arminians never say that and we deny it... [it more rather rests upon the nature of God's prevenient grace. - res]. Most Calvinists hear us and say “Well, that is the good and necessary consequence of what you believe.” But, for the most part, they do not excommunicate us from Christianity due to our perceived inconsistency. Inconsistency is not heresy.

I say the same about garden variety Calvinism. It is inconsistent. When they say, for example, God is not the author of sin and evil (and all their consequences) but that God “designs, ordains and governs” everything without exception I accuse them of inconsistency. It’s a “felicitous inconsistency” and I choose to focus on the fact that they believe God is not the author of sin and evil. Those who go so far as to say God IS the author of sin and evil sully God’s character to the point that I cannot embrace them as brothers or sisters in Christ.

Reflecting on Theological Inconsistencies

What I have said, and do now say, is that if I were a garden variety Calvinist I would not be able to live with the inconsistency and would have to go all the way to affirming that God is the author of sin and evil and all their consequences. If I were a Calvinist I would join the ranks of those who step out of the pack and say that God is the creator of sin and evil (or at least their author). That is no different than Calvinists who say that if they were Arminians they would have to believe Christ did not die to save us but only to give us an opportunity to save ourselves (which is what they think Arminian theology logically implies).

When I say that Calvinism makes God monstrous and makes it difficult to tell the difference between God and the devil I am talking about from my perspective—not what all Calvinists actually believe. I am talking about the logical implications of Calvinism.

So here is a parable (not an allegory) to illustrate why I think Calvinists and Arminians worship the same God in spite of very different pictures of God’s involvement with sin and evil.

Imagine…a motley group of resistance fighters inside an enemy occupied country. All of the fighters are followers of a great national hero who organized them, gave them their “marching orders,” directs them from his exile, sends them representatives with messages, and promises to return to help them defeat the occupying enemy and drive them from the country. The exiled leader is the resistance fighters’ common hero; all of them believe in him and are committed to his cause. But they have very different “pictures” of what he is like. Some of them think he is a socialist who will abolish differentiating wealth once he is in power. Others think he is a democratic capitalist who will abolish government control of the economy and allow free enterprise. His messages to them imply both. Some of the resistance fighters think the leader knows something none of them know about economics and that somehow the two approaches will be combined. However, others think that’s nonsense and point to passages in his written messages to them that, to them, strongly imply their own belief about his plans.

In the meantime, during the occupation and their leader’s exile, the resistance fighters agree to disagree about economics and social policy. They stand together to follow their common leader and fight the evil occupiers of their country.

However, one night, around their campfire, leaders of the two sides fall into argument about the hero. One says to another that when the hero returns and defeats the occupation and drives the occupiers out, he will take away all private property and establish a communist regime. The other responds “No, you’re wrong. When he returns he’ll establish democracy and free enterprise.” Both say to each other “If you’re right about him, I will not support him when he returns and establishes what you say he will. But I’m not even worried about that because I know you’re wrong.”

A young freedom fighter listening to the two leaders debate turns to one of them and says “Wait! You don’t support our leader even now! What are you doing here?” The accused resistance leader responds “No, you’re wrong. I do support him. He’s just not what you think he is and you’ll see that you’re wrong when he returns. But if you could convince me you’re right, that he is a communist, I would stop fighting for him now because that’s no better than the enemy occupying our country right now. But fortunately, you’re wrong about him, so I will stay and fight alongside you.”

The young freedom fighter, a communist, responds “Well, then, you are not loyal to our leader!” The accused resistance leader says “No, you’re wrong. I am as loyal to him as you are if not more so! Your problem is that you cannot distinguish between your image of our common leader and our leader himself. We must agree to disagree about our hero’s economics out of our common loyalty to him and our common resistance to his and our enemy—the occupying force.”

Now (parable over, interpretation starting…), both sides within the resistance group believe in and follow the same exiled hero/leader and look forward to his return and victory over their common enemy. There’s no question about that. The only question is about his economic philosophy and intentions. Both sides are certain they are right about that, but neither side can prove it (beyond doubt or question) to the other side’s satisfaction. [Thus], both sides have reasonable interpretations of the exiled hero’s messages even though they think the other side’s interpretation is fraught with inconsistencies.

continue to -

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"