There have been many write ups on the so-called “New Calvinism” sweeping through the evangelical landscape, and much attention has been paid to highly organized leadership behind it. It seems that what Emergent Village was trying to accomplish through networking and organizing with other like-minded leaders and ministries through blogs, books, and websites, the New Calvinists did with much more success. The reasons Emergent failed to gain the kind of traction and influence within Christian thought comparable to that of the New Calvinism include their strong antipathy towards hierarchy, a lack of funding, and few unifying qualities between its leaders. The New Calvinism, on the other hand, utilized a number of influential ministries whose infrastructure was already in place and whose leaders were more than willing to work with one another. Their agreement on certain truths has produced a unity much envied by others who seek to challenge and shape the arid landscape of evangelical Christianity.
Who are the leaders and the ministries of the New Calvinism? If you asked a group of New Calvinists you might get slightly different lists, but here is one that most might agree see as representing a broad appeal:
John Piper of Desiring God Ministries
Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Mark Dever of 9Marks Ministries
John MacAurthur of Grace Community Church
RC Sproul of Ligonier Ministries
CJ Mahaney of Sovereign Grace Ministries
Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church and Acts 29 Ministries
Ligon Duncan of First Presbyterian Church—Jackson, MI
Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian
Phillip Ryken of Wheaton College and Tenth Presbyterian of Philadelphia
Michael Horton of Westminster Seminary, CA and the White Horse Inn
DA Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Other names could be added and perhaps one or two subtracted, but these are names that almost every New Calvinist is familiar with to one degree or another. And what an impressive list it is! The years of ministry experience are legion and the effectiveness of their ministry has been felt by many. Despite the differences they might have with one another the overriding concern is for a high view of Scripture that contains the message of the gospel they faithfully try to preach. It is no wonder such a strong and influential movement has arisen on their shoulders.
But this can present some problems too. While the followers of these leaders and ministries can and do experience unity from the broad agreement they share with one another, they can also experience a dreadful kind of disunity when one of the leaders does something that seems questionable on some less weighty matter. There have been ongoing discussions about the place of mercy ministries that come alongside the poor or disabled and where they fit in with the priorities of teaching and evangelizing. There have been many discussions about the limits of “contextualizing” one’s message to one’s audience and what degree of propriety should be used when speaking from the pulpit. And now it seems there is quite a serious problem when you might invite someone to speak at a conference that doesn’t have bona fide New Calvinist credentials.
John Piper’s decision to invite Rick Warren to speak at this years Desiring God conference is truly remarkable. The divergence between the two pastors is significant in style and substance, but according to Piper’s explanation there seems to be a similar heartbeat for the glory of God underlying both of their approaches to ministry. It seems Piper’s intention is to explore this divergence at his conference and see how such a similar starting point could lead to such different directions. It should be all very interesting… unless of course you think Warren is a heretic.
The outrage at Piper for inviting Warren by some New Calvinists is astonishing considering the fact that part of the Reformed resurgence is built on the fact that it is the plain preaching of Scripture that creates disciples, not fancy eloquence that rest on the personality or even the wisdom of the speaker. No matter how inadequate a preacher may be, the Spirit is what makes the message hearable to the hearers. Yet, looking over some of the comments on New Calvinist blogs there is much appeal to their leaders to publicly rebuke Piper or expose Warren or to call for some sort purification through separation. Each personality becomes a rallying point for their hopes of some kind of censure against Warren or Piper. The jealousy for these men’s reputations cannot be missed.
All this serves as evidence to show that the New Calvinism is infected with the some of the same problems that beleaguered the church of Corinth where reverence for human leaders lead to a factious spirit that utterly missed the person and work of Christ and his intentions for his body. Paul plainly rebukes this mentality as idolatrous. The growth we experience comes from God and the instruments he uses to accomplish this are “nothing.” One whose faith rests on the wisdom of a human teacher is as pathetic as the one who builds his house on the sand. Worldly and immature are those who are jealous for the reputation of their teachers and see their spiritual identities formed by their ministry, says Paul. It is of course not wrong to hold certain teachers in high regard. It is a good thing. But as one of the New Calvinist pastors has said, “When a good thing becomes a God thing, it’s a bad thing.”
There is a lesson to be learned here for the larger body of Christ. When we build the church on personalities and leaders we are not building on Christ. Just like how Emergent Village taught us (among many other things) not to despise and reject hierarchy within our ecclesiology the New Calvinists can teach us that it is Christ and his gospel that truly builds the church—not the fancies and prowess of talented leaders. However, unlike Emergent, the New Calvinism has the self-correcting resources to right the ship and we should all pray that it does.
April 6th, 2010 | 8:46 am | #1
I’m not sure it’s the “New Calvinists” who are attacking Piper here. After all, a lot of the attacks on Piper also indict him for hanging out with the likes of Mark Driscoll, who himself makes the list of New Calvinist leaders. My guess is that most of the New Calvinist types (I’m tired of that moniker already) are mostly in agreement with Mike Horton and Piper in that they regard him as a sincere Christian but have strong reservations about his approach to ministry. On the other hand you’ve got the discernment ministry/watchblogger crowd who can scarcely restrain their invective at the best of times and couldn’t be happier to have so high profile a target as John Piper on whom to unleash their fury.
April 6th, 2010 | 8:50 am | #2
Adam said this:
and then:
This is exactly right.
There are two things that need to be said about that:
[1] It is undeniable the New Calvinists see the issue as some kind of sola scriptura issue, as if they were the ones who had finally ovecome the stigma Paul rebuked the Corinthians for in 1 Cor 1.
[2] It is a measure of one’s own personal santification to see the degree to which one considers point [1], contexts it against that list of men you provided (which is an utterly-sound list), and is able to supress a donkey-like laugh.
The massive advantage that the New Calvinism has had over the competing ideologies so far is that it has men with compelling public personas who live as if what they have preached so well is true — that is, they have a charisma, ironically, based on authenticity. These other fellows and other movements we might contrast them against are only authentic in their skepticism and they write and speak as if the first draft was the best draft.
I appreciate your final sentence much, but while “the movement” may self-correct (because Mohler, Piper, MacArthur et al. are men of good conscience), I would say plainly that when it does, it will leave behind the watchbloggers and the sycophants who are neither in the world nor even rightly not of the world: they are in the bunker and of the bunker, like the servant with one talent who buried it out of fear of his master.
Thanks for writing this, Adam.
April 6th, 2010 | 9:19 am | #3
The thing about being a “New Calvinist” is that Calvinism hasn’t really soaked into the bones yet. If you go about loudly vaunting the sovereignty of God , but then get your knickers in a twist every time somebody missteps, you haven’t fully absorbed the Calvinist teaching about God using His ordinary means to carry out His sovereignty.
April 6th, 2010 | 9:39 am | #4
There are two competing factors at work within the New Calvinism/Reformed movements. Firstly, there’s an authentic desire noted by Frank and yourself for a high view of scripture and the sovereignty of God, and a natural attraction to leaders espousing those teachings. Secondly, there is a very modern consumerist factor at work which makes ‘New Calvinism’ a brand or ‘lifestyle choice’ that is stamped on all sorts of things.
In the latter context, some of the carping is not unlike that of music fans who blame some band or other of ‘selling out’.
April 6th, 2010 | 10:19 am | #5
I think Jared is at least partly right. “New Calvinism” is really a lot of over-lapping circles. The watch/blog matrix could not tolerate many of the other names on your list, but many liked John Piper. The Warren invitation disappointed them.
April 6th, 2010 | 11:08 am | #6
Frank sez:
The massive advantage that the New Calvinism has had over the competing ideologies so far is that it has men with compelling public personas who live as if what they have preached so well is true — that is, they have a charisma, ironically, based on authenticity.
That is very true but it also is a potential great weakness. Often the “New Calvinist” movement spends lots of time listening to one another talk or reading books written by one of these men with recommendations by the others. You end up with the same group of men speaking to the same conferences over and over again, recommending very similar books over and over and end up with a Reformed myopia. Much of the reaction to Warren’s invite is that he is “not one of us!” It is healthy to sneak out of the Calvinist ghetto now and again to see what else the church is talking about, not just to critique but to engage and learn.
April 6th, 2010 | 11:23 am | #7
“No matter how inadequate a preacher may be, the Spirit is what makes the message hearable to the hearers.”
That assumes the “message” in question is the right message (i.e. the Gospel once delivered). The Spirit doesn’t make a false message hearable. Paul had something to say about false gospels as well.
So the concern from some (not all) regarding Warren would seem to be more along the lines of substance, not style. Or do I misunderstand your point, Adam?
That said, there’s no denying that plenty of Christians are getting thoroughly overwrought about this issue. Tim Challies had a good post on it.
April 6th, 2010 | 11:43 am | #8
Sido said:
As true as that might be, I don’t think there’s really that much of a danger that people will only read the same books. I think the danger is that people think reading books are the end in and of themselves. If I had a nickle for each guy who has read [insert Puritan here] who doesn’t live like him, I could buy Montana at a premium price. That is: there is not end to the reading and writing of books.
I reject the idea that one will be “too narrow” if one reads thoroughly one’s own stream of theological heritage — but I would say that if all one does is read and does not seek to live and die as if it was all true, that person is in real trouble.
April 6th, 2010 | 11:50 am | #9
“I think the danger is that people think reading books are the end in and of themselves.”
Along the lines of “justification by podcast”? Justification by library?
April 6th, 2010 | 11:53 am | #10
Art,
I agree that the “he’s not one of us” kind of thinking is a real danger, however, I don’t think we can downplay the very real theological issues that create such camps in the first place.
There is a reason that I respect most of the men on the list, and it’s not about the camp (I hope) but it’s about their commitment to the truth of Scripture.
Not saying that my motives are as pure as the driven snow, but my intention, at least, is to be theologically driven.
April 6th, 2010 | 12:22 pm | #11
Juggy –
Exactly. the new sacrament.
April 6th, 2010 | 1:46 pm | #12
Darius,
I think when you talk about “substance” you are talking about the content of Warren’s overall message and whether it is true or false? If so, then I have never really understood what it is exactly that makes his message false. There are a number of comments I’ve read that have said that Warren teaches “another gospel” with the words “plain and simple” or “period” after them. But I see no evidence of this. Even in Challies post that you refer to all I can see is that Warren fumbles with the text and sends mixed signals about what he intends to be in front of certain audiences. I can see how these are concerning. But much of it comes back to the speaker and his habits. Those are fair game, but this doesn’t get us even close to showing how Warren preaches a false gospel. Paul certainly was concerned about preaching a true gospel, but he took great pains to show if in fact one was doing so.
I was listening to one of Tim Keller’s messages this morning that was about Jonah. His “gospel” was simply that Nineveh would be judged. That’s it! And yet, somehow, the Spirit was able to bring people to a place of repentance. That is the beauty of the Spirit’s ministry among us. He transcends us, making our inadequate statements effective in a way that guides the hearer into truth. Personally, I am not a fan of Warren’s preaching or his books. I think some of his colloquialisms sound silly and his propensity to reduce everything to an acronym irritating. But I don’t for a minute think he is teaching a false gospel.
April 6th, 2010 | 1:55 pm | #13
Adam,
I was pointed to this as Warren’s false gospel, a gospel of works-righteousness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzeETJTE1W4
But the second part of the video doesn’t seem to be about justification at all–it’s about rewards in heaven.
The first part is more concerning. At best, he’s poorly expressing the idea of “lordship salvation”, and “faith alone saves, but faith that saves is not alone”. At worst, he’s actually teaching works-righteousness. It’s hard to tell without context.
April 6th, 2010 | 2:00 pm | #14
Good points, Adam. I probably should have said this in my comment, but I’m not one of those who is calling for either Piper’s or Warren’s head. I have actually ripped people who have. I haven’t read or heard enough from Warren to make a strong case either way (I’ve heard more ABOUT Warren than actually FROM him). But I AM wondering when seeker-sensitivity style begins to approach a false gospel… obviously, it depends on so many things.
Maybe you’re right, maybe it’s all about the color of Warren’s carpet, so to speak. If so, then people need to get out more.
April 6th, 2010 | 2:22 pm | #15
As far as historical creeds go, we do need to discern Warren’s version of soteriology. That is, he doesn’t have to be a Calvinist to speak at Piper’s conference, but he ought to affirm the truth found in the Apostle and Nicene Creeds. What is unquestionable is that Warren’s ecclesiology and philosophy of ministry is vastly different from many of the “New” Calvinists (count me in as a disliker of the term). We must separate soteriology from ecclesiology in these conversations.
And for that matter, Jim Belcher’s new book, “Deep Church” does a good job laying out these issues as it relates to emerging and reformed streams of church.
April 6th, 2010 | 2:24 pm | #16
2 Quick Thoughts:
1) How cool is it that Tim Keller comments on blogs?
and
2) Good dialog!
April 6th, 2010 | 3:01 pm | #17
Juglum,
Interesting video. I would say that what he says in the beginning is in agreement with James 2. Faith without works is dead. The kind of “faith” Warren is talking about there is the kind that demons could have. That does not conflict with sola fide as it is understood in its best form. The other stuff about life being a test… well, I think one might be able to draw that from the parable of the talents. It wouldn’t be the way I put it, but I just don’t see the “another gospel” at work in his teaching. I’d have to something beyond a mere anecdote that shows a pattern of teaching that is utterly false and damaging to Jesus and grace.
April 6th, 2010 | 4:18 pm | #18
Great post and discussion so far!
I wonder how relevant the content of Warren’s talk is to the discussion? I mean, from the video linked in the post, it almost sounds like Piper is using this as an opportunity to call RW out and get him to show his theological cards…
Even more, where does the fact that Piper is inviting Warren to a public conference, rather than to preach to his congregation, fit into this whole messy discussion?
April 6th, 2010 | 4:47 pm | #19
the issue to me in Warren is that he is so good at matching the message to the audience. fantastic if you are a salesman, but disconcerting when you are to be taking the proclamation of God, from God to the world.
thing is, i absolutely expect him to be primed and polished in October, probably even sound a bit like Edwards. then we can all sit around and say “wow we were wrong about that guy”.
except last Sunday when he presents Jesus as a cure for broken relationships, fear and uncertainty, and a history of past failures. with a Jonas Bros. chaser.
the message is clearly that if we choose, God can be on our side.
but what if instead the only sides are God’s and the not God’s side. what if it isn’t really about us?
what if the real purpose of the church has nothing to do with creating a large effective group of people working for social and temporal improvement in this earth?
April 6th, 2010 | 5:24 pm | #20
Perhaps the Warren-Piper controversy illustrates a reason for Calvinism’s success: it is coherent. You can tell what’s orthodox and what’s not, coming to strong conclusions.
The criticism of Piper shows that it is *not* a cult of personality: if a big name does something wrong, he gets called on it. (Whether his invitation was wrong I don’t know, but he can’t just say “I’m John Piper so it’s OK and expect critics to quieten down. It’s like science, where the novice can catch out the Nobel laureate in an algebra error and point it out.
The Emergents, on the other hand, don’t seem to have any coherent theology or system. They’ve got an attitude, and attitudes aren’t as powerful as ideas.
April 6th, 2010 | 7:21 pm | #21
There are some interesting posts going on in this blog.
As someone not entirely familiar with the blogosphere on this issue, but quite familiar with the conservative Reformed penchant for rooting out anything that is not forensic justification backed up by a strong doctrine of election, I think such pronouncements of “works righteousness,” as the video suggested, to be just a tad bit over the top. It’s like any view that does not espouse the above is simply not the gospel. I have personally heard one member of the “New Calvinist” list say–in a less guarded moment–that if you’re not Reformed you really do not believe the gospel. I can appreciate the honesty of that statement even if I disagree with it theologically. I just wish it were not couched in the language of “defending” sola scriptura as though there is not a huge theological paradigm being placed upon scripture by the Reformed–just like everyone else.
The other side of the coin is that anyone who does not espouse those perspectives with a high degree of theological specificity (you know you better have all of your terms correct!), gets called out for having the appearance of being works-righteousness oriented.
It’s all a little difficult to take sometimes. Of course, every part of Christianity has its problems, but, again, I wish we could all just get along in the evangelical world. Come on, let’s hold hands and sing that grand old hymn, “you’re my brother, you’re my sister, so take me by the hand. . . .” Who’s with me?
Thanks for the blog Adam as well as the responses from everyone else. I appreciate the attempt to sort through it, really, I do.
April 6th, 2010 | 10:10 pm | #22
And Joe Carter, David Koyzis, myself and a few others are simply asking that everyone name it something else, because “new calvinism” is to close to neo-calvinism!
April 7th, 2010 | 3:38 am | #23
[...] The New Calvinism’s Personality-Driven Life 7 April 2010 No Comment http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/04/the-new-calvinism%E2%80%99s-personality-driven-life/ [...]
April 7th, 2010 | 3:38 am | #24
[...] Nano-Blog link here: http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/04/the-new-calvinism%E2%80%99s-personality-driven-life/ [...]
April 7th, 2010 | 5:08 am | #25
The list of ‘new-calvinists’ you provide is a strange list. The only thing they have in common is a certain calvinist/reformed view on justification. When it comes to baptism and the church they differ vastly and some of them are definitely not calvinistic in a way that Calvin would recognize or the historic reformed churches would accept.
April 7th, 2010 | 8:31 am | #26
Good point Markvan H. They are all Reformed in their soteriology, but, truth be told, that’s what has kept the Reformed camp together since it has never really been together ecclesiologically speaking. Just think of what happened in England between congregationalists, Anglicans, and Presbyterians. It’s why the Westminster Standards never really deal with the nature of the church. The Westminster Confession on the church is sufficiently vague enough to keep everyone on board regardless of their ecclesial preferences.
April 7th, 2010 | 8:59 am | #27
I like this article by Rev. Kevin DeYoung titled “Why Do the New Calvinists Insist on Complementarianism?“
April 7th, 2010 | 11:19 am | #28
I have firm convictions about Scripture and the doctrines of grace, but I’m afraid many Calvinists, old and new, have no idea how to disagree charitably. That fact says more to me about them than their soteriology does.
Maybe Piper made a mistake, maybe he didn’t. Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me either way, because I agree with Adam; the gospel isn’t at stake here. Perhaps it would be helpful to meditate on this passage:
John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. (Mark 9:38-40)
I realize the Bible teaches a lot of other things that complement that passage, but none of those other things should diminish the force of Jesus’ admonition.
April 7th, 2010 | 11:40 am | #29
Its silly for people to dislike Warren just because he teaches Mormons, Jews, and Muslims to be more effective in their conversion of others. Why do they care so much that he sought to appeased the Muslims in his inaugural prayer. Who cares if he publicly apologized for backing Prop. 8 in California? I think that these New Calvinists are just jealous of Warren’s popularity. Who cares if Rick warren pleases any audience that he speaks to. Remember when he spoke to the crowd of 8,000 Muslims? He said, “I am not interested in interfaith dialogue, I am interested in interfaith project.” In other words, He doesn’t want to try to convince them of the truth of Jesus Christ, he just wants to team up with them to “do good.”
Imagine Paul standing before the Areopagus in Athens and telling them that he want’s to work “with” them to change the world. Imagine that! That would be horrible! Yet, that’s our good friend Rick Warren. The chameleon, who changes to become like his audience. He’s not trying to win people for Jesus Christ, he’s trying to be the most popular kid on the street.
“What sorrow awaits you who are praised by the crowds, for their ancestors also praised false prophets.”- Jesus Christ (Luke 6:26)
When you stand before 8,000 Muslims and tell them that Islam is a good religion, you are denying the Christ! Rick denies him all the time. Maybe these New Calvinists don’t like the fact that Piper is giving creedence to a man who denies the savior. Maybe that’s it!
April 7th, 2010 | 11:41 am | #30
the gospel is very much at stake here!
April 7th, 2010 | 12:27 pm | #31
Louis: the gospel is very much at stake here!.
I would agree with you if the analogy you painted in comment #29 held, but I don’t think it does.
First, when Paul stood in Athens, he was a lone voice in a sea of Greeks, Romans, etc., none of whom had heard much, if anything about Christianity. After almost 2,000 years, I think a little has changed. With over 1.9 billion Christians on the planet now, we have become the sea. My point is that Rick Warren can make statements like that precisely because he knows that Christians are the sea now, and there are plenty of water drops that proclaim unequivocally Jesus is Lord. If anyone thinks that Warren’s turning on a faucet to talk about working together for common cause someone stops up the Niagara Falls of messages proclaiming Jesus is the way, then I am not sure where he is living.
Second, there are a host of evangelism strategies, not all of which involve a direct proclamation of Christ in word. New Tribes Mission, an evangelical parachurch missionary agency that specializes in sending missionaries to unreached people groups, is a good example of the kind of strategy that Warren at times employs. They train their missionaries first to learn the tribe and tribal language by working for years within the tribe before ever talking about Jesus. This is because translation always has the potential for great confusion. In fact, the direct confrontation does not always work so well with Islam as many missionaries will tell you.
Third, it is not patently false to claim that Islam is a good religion if one is thinking of it on a scale compared to other religions. Is not a form of monotheism better than a form of polytheism? Are monotheists not closer to the truth about the one God? Are not some of the moral precepts of Islam better than the the immoral lifestyle of many non-religious folks? My point here is that good is a term of value, and how you use it depends on the scale.
April 7th, 2010 | 4:46 pm | #32
Dale,
WOW, really?
since we are all Christians now we can stop the quibbling over who do you say Christ Jesus is? and get down to supplying tennis shoes and sandwiches?
second, these are not unreached people groups, these are Christ denying people groups, and i doubt we are to tell them they are closer than some others.(third)
April 7th, 2010 | 5:35 pm | #33
Not to mention that Rick invited these 8,000 Muslims to join him in the peace plan. In other words, he’s professing that these Muslims have the ability to perform the “P” of the peace plan. “Promote reconciliation”
First, notice Warren’s intentionally ambiguous “Promote Reconciliation” instead of saying “Preach the Gospel.” In this way, he can keep evangelicals happy by telling them that “promote Reconciliation” means reconciling people to God through Jesus and at the same time he can tell Muslims that they too can “promote reconciliation with God” by promoting Islam.
Also, notice that Warren believes that Muslims can “reconcile” men to God.
Now, should anyone who believes this be invited to speak at any Christian conference? I say no!
“And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” 2 Cor. 11:14
April 7th, 2010 | 10:25 pm | #34
What is the deal here? This seems like more poo pooing of anyone who might have strong feelings about this issue. (And the multitudes who have been abused by Rick Warren’s followers SHOULD have some feelings, and grace and compassion ought to be extended to them. If you haven’t experienced this, well then God bless you! You cannot possibly know what it is like!)
“Each personality becomes a rallying point for their hopes of some kind of censure against Warren or Piper. The jealousy for these men’s reputations cannot be missed.”
No, that’s not really true. Those who are calling for some kind of rebuke or censure are the very ones who are being accused of NOT allowing these men *enough* respect and deference.
It is not jealousy for the reputations of these men. That’s their own job. It’s jealousy for the WORD and Christ’s CHURCH, and the sheep that will be harmed by men who should know better, by their endorsement of false teachers. It is because we love the church that He loves! How long will people keep misrepresenting the situation?
April 7th, 2010 | 11:04 pm | #35
MacArthur should not be grouped with New Calvinism.
April 8th, 2010 | 8:59 am | #36
Wow. This post is so misleading on so many levels. Starting with the reasons mentioned by many already.
I love the assessment that critics are just jealous of their reputations. What better way of self-justifying and failing to look at one’s faults than to claim that your critics are just jealous. Classic.
But here is the best apologetic against your assessment. John MacArthur recently and prophetically wrote:
“In the first quarter of 2009, Time magazine ran a cover story titled ’10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now.’ Number three on their list was ‘The New Calvinism.’ All of this, obviously is strong motivation for evangelical and post-modern pragmatists to jump on the Calvinist bandwagon. (Why wouldn’t those who think of religion as a product to be marketed-as well as those addicted to popularity-want to get into the fastest growing demographic?)
“Prepare yourself for a wave of erstwhile Emergents and evangelical pragmatists to run to the crowd and declare themselves the true representatives of neo-Calvinism. They will bring every pragmatic tool in their arsenal and will exert all their energies toward making ‘the New Calvinism’ seem even more stylish-until the glow fades and something else becomes stylish, and they will run after that. The sober, biblically minded remnant in their midst need to remain on guard.”
And now we can see it happening. Discernment is a gift. Some people have it in abundance (MacArthur) and we need to listen to them to guard the purity of the church (IMO).
April 8th, 2010 | 10:51 am | #37
The sad reality in all of this dispute is that the true Calvinist wants Christ preached at all costs. Warren is NOT preaching Christ he is preaching God. When you leave Christ out of God then you have a heretic and why invite a heretic to a Christian, Christ centered seminar? There is no problem in people being invited to speak anywhere other religious people speak, there is a problem when you are trying to teach, preach, encourage and enlighten people on the truth of Jesus Christ. Inviting Warren to speak muddies the waters of the true reason for the Desiring God seminars, even tho it does fit the name. Perhaps the name should be changed to Desiring a true relationship with Jesus Christ. No one is hating Warren, the opposite in fact, concern and heart break over his being lost to the fact that Christ is the center of universe, not a purpose liven life. Piper seems to be searching for something in his life, perhaps he has spent too much time on his branches and not enough time on his root development. If i am hosting a seminar I would not be inviting anyone who is not in union with the purpose of Christ. Warren has preached to lost people and has not included Christ at all. How is this beneficial to any one needing a right relationship with God? How can Piper justify it on that principle? If you just want to gather speakers to make noise then invite people like Warren, if you want to Preach Christ then invite people who will honor the truth and hold fast to it just like Daniel did as the Lions threatened to destroy him. When S M and A were in the fiery furnace they did not waver from truth, they held fast and God dwelt with them in His truth, perhaps today that furnace is turned up a little too hot for the like of Piper and others who would fear ‘disunity’ and ‘unpopularity’ at the cost of watering down the truth of Christ. Christ is the center of this situation and some of the people, Warren in particular, leave Christ out of what he has created and controls. It is Christ or nothing.
April 8th, 2010 | 11:35 am | #38
I agree with this comment:
“The list of ‘new-calvinists’ you provide is a strange list. The only thing they have in common is a certain calvinist/reformed view on justification. When it comes to baptism and the church they differ vastly and some of them are definitely not calvinistic in a way that Calvin would recognize or the historic reformed churches would accept.”
MacArthur should not be on this list along with some others.
April 8th, 2010 | 12:06 pm | #39
MacArthur is too pure for it, eh? That is what I was talking about when speaking of followers being jealous for their leaders reputations. The last few comments demonstrate that well.
April 8th, 2010 | 12:42 pm | #40
[...] at First Things Adam Omelianchuk has contributed The New Calvinism’s Personality-Driven Life where he writes: There have been many write ups on the so-called “New Calvinism” sweeping [...]
April 8th, 2010 | 12:44 pm | #41
I am just as dangerous to the purity of the church as Rick Warren.
So much so that I probably shouldn’t be allowed to comment here. Wouldn’t want to sully the purity of the Christian interweb.
April 8th, 2010 | 1:23 pm | #42
AdamO: “MacArthur is too pure for it, eh?”
I clicked on the link you provided and saw that it was for the T4G 2010 Conference.
It’s interesting to note that 2 of the featured guests are pro-Manhattan Declaration (Mohler and Ligon Duncan) and 2 of the featured guests are anti-Manhattan Declaration (MacArthur and R.C. Sproul).
I assume they can put those differences aside just like they do with the credo-baptism vs. paedo-baptism issue.
April 8th, 2010 | 1:51 pm | #43
I still don’t think you should group MacArthur with New Calvinism.
New Calvinism is spearheaded by Driscoll, Piper, The Resurgence, etc. and MacArthur clearly is not in the same grouping as Driscoll or The Resurgence.
I would not be so quick to label him or even Sproul for that matter as one.
April 8th, 2010 | 1:55 pm | #44
Rachael, that is ridiculous. You are not preaching to and leading tens of thousands of people – apples and oranges my dear.
April 8th, 2010 | 2:24 pm | #45
This post doesn’t make any sense to me. The New Calvinists are the ones who are flocking to embrace Warren for sake of peace and unity.
Piper, JT, Driscoll, ya’ll.
It’s the old Calvinists – Sproul, Horton, Duncan, MacArthur, etc. who have warned that Warren’s teaching and ecclesiology is out of bounds, not just for Calvinism, but even within the Evangelical realm.
I just don’t see New Calvinists taking the stern stances, so the article doesn’t match up with what I’m reading.
April 8th, 2010 | 2:25 pm | #46
I wouldn’t be quite so quick to mash the “shun” button as some here. As far as I read in 2 Corinthians 5:11-6:13, Piper seems to be reaching out to a brother in Christ whom he honestly believes to be in error, to try and salvage his faith and correct his doctrine. This seems to be church discipline on a national scale, bringing Warren before a crowd of discerning, Reformed theologians and asking him to explain himself and submit to questioning. That’s… well, I have to admire both Piper and Warren’s courage. Piper for having the courage to brave the gauntlet of having “disappointed” so many fans by associating with someone they (apparently) consider two steps from the antichrist. Warren for having the guts to step in front of this crowd and take the piercing questions that will no doubt make it to the stage.
Again, I’m willing to wait and see here. I could be very wrong, and it could turn out to be an endorsement of a watered-down Gospel in the name of pragmatism and leading people to a caricature of Christ, which is what I -do- think Warren does. Let’s wait and see, though, without the histrionics.
April 8th, 2010 | 3:43 pm | #47
Evan Weeks: “Let’s wait and see, though, without the histrionics.”
Too late for that. The histrionics of hysteria and shrieking and moaning have already occurred because Piper invited Warren.
April 8th, 2010 | 5:02 pm | #48
So … what is the difference between the New Calvinists and the Old Calvinists?
April 9th, 2010 | 3:17 pm | #49
I think you meant to say that Ligon Duncan preaches in Jackson, MS (Mississippi), not Jackson, MI (Michigan).
April 10th, 2010 | 3:48 pm | #50
[...] that Calvinism, per se, is on the rise, First Things , a Catholic propaganda magazine and blog, among others has sought to hash out a Leadership of the [...]
April 23rd, 2010 | 6:51 am | #51
[...] John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and Mark Dever, among others. I have also seen Michael Horton on a list or two. Regardless of whether the “New Calvinism” is actually new, and some bloggers [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact