NY Times on Mark and John

This article, Who Would Jesus Smack Down, appeared in the Sunday NYTimes on January 11 and soon became one of this week’s most emailed articles, a measure of the article’s public popularity. I would encourage you to read the whole article. One friend called it a ‘fantastic article’ and went on to say, ‘When I think about the Times’ readership reading this article I get excited because it will strike a favorable chord with those who don’t (for whatever reason) like traditional church style and culture.”

Certainly, it is good for those who have formed stereotypical ideas of church and the norms of the Christian life, it is good to have someone like Driscoll and Keller out there turning heads and breaking the molds.

In shaking up some stereotypes, however, the article perpetuates others. I have this irresistible urge to isolate and comment on a few of them.

“But what is new about Driscoll is that he has resurrected a particular strain of fire and brimstone, one that most Americans assume died out with the Puritans: Calvinism, a theology that makes Pat Robertson seem warm and fuzzy.”

Wow. Where does one start with that? Calvinism as a strain of ‘fire and brimstone’? The fire in Calvinism is not simply a deep appreciation for the holy justice of God; it is more the heart on fire and impassioned for the things of a God of grace. There is more warmth and ‘fuzzy’ comfort in Reformed truth than there is fire and brimstone.

“Yet his message seems radically unfashionable, even un-American: you are not captain of your soul or master of your fate but a depraved worm whose hard work and good deeds will get you nowhere, because God marked you for heaven or condemned you to hell before the beginning of time.”

I suppose this is one way of looking at it. But if any who read this blog would like to understand the sweet nuances of what we know as the ‘perseverance of the saints’ I’d sure love to talk with you about it. Tell me what Starbucks and a day and time, and let’s do it.

“Calvinism has somehow become cool…”

That is so, uh, cool! I’m hip again!

At Mars Hill [Driscoll’s church], members say their favorite movie isn’t “Amazing Grace” or “The Chronicles of Narnia” — it’s “Fight Club.”

“Fight Club” is a far better movie than “Narnia.” I don’t understand it, but it has struck a chord with a certain demographic.

“What really grates is the portrayal of Jesus as a wimp, or worse. Paintings depict a gentle man embracing children and cuddling lambs. Hymns celebrate his patience and tenderness. The mainstream church, Driscoll has written, has transformed Jesus into “a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ,” a “neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that . . . would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell.”

I could never put it like that. But no one who loves Christ can be comfortable with the way Jesus is portrayed in must popular and public media.

Eventually the author tries to summarize Reformed theology for the Times’ readers. I want to make some comments on this, but let me say this first; to her credit, the author is attempting to summarize something very complex for an audience that would not have the patience to really hear it opened at length. She gives it a good try, and I don’t know if I could do better in such a short space. She says:

“Human beings are totally corrupted by original sin and predestined for heaven or hell, no matter their earthly conduct.”

Responsible representations of Reformed Christianity note that conduct does matter. We MUST grasp hold of Christ by faith and we must bear fruit in keeping with repentance. These actions do not earn our salvation, but confirm it. Nevertheless, it is not exactly correct to exclude conduct from the picture.

“We all deserve eternal damnation, but God, in his inscrutable mercy, has granted the grace of salvation to an elect few.”

I love to hear the words ‘mercy’ and ‘grace’ here. But ‘few’? Where did that come from? The elect will be, according to God’s promise to Abraham and John’s vision in Revelation, uncountable. Sadly, I find many Calvinists still thinking in terms of few. That’s just not right.

While John Calvin’s 16th-century doctrines have deep roots in Christian tradition, they strike many modern evangelicals as nonsensical and even un-Christian. If predestination is true, they argue, then there is no point in missions to the unsaved or in leading a godly life.

Ironically, of course, many of the greatest missionaries, preachers, and evangelists have been the most passionate Calvinists. And the reality is a deep appreciation of Reformed-tinted grace drives us toward, not away from, godliness.

“Over the past two decades, preachers in places as far-flung as Minneapolis and Washington, D.C., in denominations ranging from Baptist to Pentecostal, are pushing “this new, aggressive, mission-minded Calvinism that really believes Calvinism is a transcript of the Gospel,” according to Roger Olson, a professor of theology at Baylor University.”

Olson is no friend of Calvinism. Curious she would seek him out for comment.

“Calvinism is a theology predicated on paradox: God has predestined every human being’s actions, yet we are still to blame for our sins; we are totally depraved, yet held to the impossible standard of divine law.”

Actually, Christianity is predicated on what some see as paradox. God is one God in three persons. Jesus is both God and Man. Nothing new here.

“Unlike fundamentalists who isolate themselves, creating “a separate culture where you live in a Christian cul-de-sac,” as one spiky-haired member named Andrew Pack puts it, Mars Hillians pride themselves on friendships with non-Christians. They tend to be cultural activists who play in rock bands and care about the arts, living out a long Reformed tradition that asserts Christ’s mandate over every corner of creation.”

This is a far better assessment of what Reformed Christians ought to be.

“Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill.”

This is where the article gets a bit scary. It is Calvinistic to refuse to tolerate opposition? The appeal is made to Calvin’s practice:

“John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness.”

This is the point at which the understandable misunderstandings of Calvinism leave off and the slander of the man John Calvin begin. For a journalist, this is not acceptable and should be corrected or proved. It has been a while since I last studied Calvin’s life, but this much I’m sure of: there was one heretic burned while he was in Geneva, Michael Servetus. I’ve read differing accounts regarding Calvin’s involvement in this, but it seems clear that it was the Geneva council which ordered the execution, not Calvin, and some accounts suggest that he pled for leniency. But even it he had a direct hand in this, to then generalize one incident into a blanket plural statement is unjust.

As to the other assertion, I’ve never heard of that one before. It is so far out of character regarding what I know of Calvin as to be ludicrous. Calvin could be moved to invective when the honor of God was at stake, but not in defense of his own paltry honor.

“Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent.”

All that follows that comment should be taken with a grain of salt. if the author can repeat hearsay about Calvin, she can repeat hearsay about Driscoll. That said, we should note that Mars Hill / Driscoll are independent. There is no ecclesiological accountability as there is in Presbyterian churches. This is, to me, their Achilles heel. A great weakness which could easily undue a great work.

And finally:

“Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.”

An odd statement indeed. Those who most truly understand the doctrines of grace should be the most humble. If we who are reformed have not expressed and lived that humility, then we have not in the least understood the Calvinism we pretend to profess.

I can’t believe what I’ve just done. I’ve interacted with the NYTimes on the subject of Calvinism. Would that have happened without Mark Driscoll (or Tim Keller)? Not likely. Thanks, Mark.