The Evangelical magazine Christianity Today reports on the latest event to highlight the divisions in Evangelicalism. In Piper, Warren, and the Perils of Movement Building, Collin Hansen reports that John Piper, a leader of the overtly Reformed or Calvinist movement, invited Rick Warren, a leader of the implicitly Arminian movement, to speak at his annual conference.
Many of Piper’s allies are upset with him, because they oppose Warren’s more revivalistic mode and the theology behind it as a serious error. It would be a broad generalization but good enough for our purposes here, to say that the first stress the sovereignty of God and think the second’s emphasis on human action dangerously denies it or diminishes it.
As an outsider, though a sympathetic one who has a lot of ecumenical experience working with Evangelicals, the key sentence for me is this one: After describing the internal conflicts of the past, Hansen says, “Yet today, with these antagonisms diminished, it’s not so easy to identify an evangelical.” He and many (though not all) of the people he’s writing for and about assume that there is such a thing, clearly distinct from other forms of Protestantism and particular, coherent, concrete, and unified enough that the members have not crossed that vague line that separates brothers from allies.
But that Evangelicalism is such a thing is not at all apparent, starting with the descriptions given in articles like this one. The Calvinist leader Michael Horton, for example, says
I believe that his message distorts the gospel and that he is contributing to the human-centered pragmatism that is eroding the proper ministry and mission of the church. Judging by The Purpose-Driven Life. Pastor Warren’s theology seems to reflect run-of-the-mill evangelical Arminianism.
Which is, by the way, a more serious charge than it may appear to those who don’t know the Calvinist’s concerns. But then even he (Mike, whom I know a little, is a tough-minded guy) draws back and concludes, ”None of this disqualifies him from being an evangelical statesman.”
It is easy to see, from the outsider’s perspective, how a long friendship and a common heritage, culture, and ideals can bring all these people together, but hard to see how their theologies can co-existent deeply enough for them to form a movement of the sort they all seem to assume they have.
April 20th, 2010 | 5:36 pm
David,
Yes, yes, yes. I think you are correct about how hard it is sometimes. However, I do think the Evangelical “core” is still present; it is a core that goes back to Wesley and Edwards in the American scene. I would say that the core centers upon human affectivity that must be transformed through revivalist-type conversions. There was a natural law embraced by this core in the sense that both Edwards and Wesley saw a given structure to human nature. They both also utilized Stoic psychology, Wesley through Clement of Alexandria and others while Edwards through Francis Hutcheson and the Ciceronian/Augustinian moves being made in the Scottish Enlightenment.
Part of the issue is that Edwards’ New Light Divinity was accepted by Charles Finney who was posthumously attacked in print by B. B. Warfield in the latter’s book on perfectionism. The Westminster strain, of which Michael Horton represents, has always had a tough time with the Wesleyan side of Evangelicalism. However, the recovery of Edwards by John Piper and the other so-called “New Calvinists” is a good sign that maybe the “core” is recoverable.
April 20th, 2010 | 7:48 pm
Dale Coulter: Very helpful. Two questions:
1) If I understand you correctly, isn’t this Evangelical core to be found at the center of the Calvinist side of the division the article describes, and the other side somewhere on the periphery? (The metaphors are mixed, but I think the point’s clear.) In other words, isn’t it less a unifying center than the possession of one side?
2) Part of core includes the transformation of “human affectivity . . . through revivalist-type conversions.” But my closest friends among the Calvinists (most of them old rather than new) simply aren’t interested in that kind of experience, and in fact seem to think it’s part of the problem with Evangelicalism. I don’t think they would recognize it as the center even if they thought it was a foundational part of the Evangelical heritage.
April 20th, 2010 | 8:46 pm
“Evangelical” is an ambivalent term for the Refomed Christian, David. Most evangelicals these days are Arminian in theology. Calvinists therefore will normally refer to themselves simpy as “Reformed,” and will wear the “evangelical” label only reluctantly, if at all. This is why Mike Horton can say, ”None of this disqualifies him from being an evangelical statesman.”
April 20th, 2010 | 8:50 pm
Perhaps part of the confusion comes from the fact that, at least in the 20th century, the term “Evangelical” is defined more oppositionally than substantially.
That is to say, Evangelicalism (or, as originally termed, “neo-Evangelicalism”) is defined as a subset of Protestantism that is primarily not mainline modernist, and secondarily is also not separatist/fundamentalist.
If that’s true, then there may be no “center” of Evangelicalism, only borders. And that definition is a broad enough umbrella to encompass both arminianism and the Wesleyan holiness tradition, and also Calvinist positions.
I seems to me that the emergence of conflicts over what the “core” of Evangelicalism is and who is closest to it is the a result of the diminishing importance of Evangelicals’ opposition to liberalism as the latter continues to fade away.
It seems to me that various factions are trying to redefine “evangelicalism” as a substantial term in ways that are advantageous to their particular theological identities. I don’t know whether there is sufficient historical ammunition for any one side to win this argument by appeals to the supposed true “tradition” of evangelicalism. Maybe evangelicalism has always been rather mixed up and helter-skelter in its particular theological contents.
April 20th, 2010 | 8:55 pm
David, as far as I can see the “Evangelical” spectrum is no wider or more diverse than the “Catholic” one. Granted, in the Catholic Church there is a magisterially defined official position on almost any subject, but since efforts to purge the Church of dissenting views are rarely made, that really has little effect.
April 20th, 2010 | 9:47 pm
David,
Thanks for the response. I’ll respond by following your order.
1. Affectivity is just as important to Wesley and Wesleyan holiness as it was/is to Edwards. I assume this is what you are referring to. When I wrote that, I was really not thinking of Rick Warren, but of the holiness movement in the 19th century and how it spawned a host of denominations. The two primary theological vehicles of these denominations are the Wesleyan Theological Society and the Society for Pentecostal Studies. This is the “other side” of Evangelicalism that people seem to miss because the George Marsden paradigm writes them out of the picture. For this side, holiness is still critical. If you trace it back historically, it seems to me that Edwards and Wesley were both operating within a virtue ethic model and this is how holiness was conceived.
2) That is what, at times, makes it difficult to be Evangelicals together although I would say that it all depends upon what part of the Reformed tradition your friends stem from. If they are connected to Old Princeton/Westminster, well, it would not surprise me one bit since that stream of Reformed Christianity has dominated the landscape and it has been fairly aggressive in its opposition to the holiness movement. I’m thinking of denominations like PCA and OPC, and institutions like Westminster and RTS. Those associated with this Reformed camp tended to see sacraments and discipleship through catechesis as the primary avenues of conversion. If your friends are Dutch Reformed (CRC/Calvin College and Seminary, RCA/Hope College) then I think they are more open on the whole to the kind of revivalism I am talking about. At least, you don’t have cessationist ideas within the Dutch Reformed like you do in the Old Princeton/Westminster stream. However, they also are most at home in sacraments and catechesis.
So, I guess to my mind the Reformed stream most accommodating to my point is the Puritan congregationalism, which was always pietist and more experientially driven. Let me also point you to the most recent ECT statement where all the Evangelicals, myself included, agreed to this definition: Evangelicalism is a worldwide renewal movement within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church embracing, but not limited to, puritanism, pietism, and pentecostalism..
That definition fits the historical narrative I am trying to provide, and there were Dutch Reformed folks who agreed to it.
April 20th, 2010 | 10:11 pm
“since efforts to purge the Church of dissenting views are rarely made, that really has little effect.”
Perhaps the language here goes contrary to the stated message. Notice that in the Catholic Church there are “dissenting” views, implying the orthodox center.
But Calvinism and Arminianism: In the evangelical world, which is the “center” and which is the “dissent”?
April 20th, 2010 | 11:13 pm
David:
Is this not akin to supporters of both Fellay and supporters of, say, Davies or Aidan Nichols both finding affinity with Ratzinger today even if they fight over ecclessial structures? Or Evangelicals and Catholics in ECT both recognizing each other as brothers while disagreeing? Life recognizes life. I think even Martyn Lloyd-Jones hob-nobbed with Charismatics under the same principal, as did Frank Sheed in his last years!
April 20th, 2010 | 11:56 pm
Joe,
I really resonate with your paragraph. It reminds me of a recent ecumenical experience I had at a Society for Pentecostal Studies meeting that may be apropos here as confirming what you say.
Pentecostals and Catholics have been in a bilateral dialogue since the early 1970s. At the recent SPS meeting, we (Pentecostals) invited Fr. Kilian McDonnell to speak on, well, anything he wanted to speak on. Fr. Kilian is up in years, but he casts a huge shadow within Pentecostal circles as a Catholic charismatic. Before the session was over Catholics like Ralph Del Colle, Peter Hocken, Jeff Gros, and Msgr. John Radano and Pentecostals like Cecil M. Robeck, Del Tarr, and others were sharing with and honoring one another for their mutual contributions. Life was recognizing life.
There was a particular moment toward the end when many young Pentecostals began to ask how they could get involved in ecumenism. I thought God must be smiling on that day.
I am new still to this whole ecumenical enterprise, but it seems to me that one of the challenges within evangelicalism is to somehow bring together (or hold together) the sacramental and revivalist streams. If we can do this around a theology of conversion, then we might be able to call a truce on the remaining differences. This is also, I think, a larger ecumenical challenge. The Catholic Church has done a very good job holding its mystical strain together with its sacramental strain, but there are always tensions like between Cistercians, on the one hand, and Dominicans on the other. I’ve heard the joke among Catholic friends that you don’t go to Dominicans for spirituality. They are both sacramental, but Dominicans tend to shy away from mystical encounters while some Cistercians embrace them so much you wonder if they think the sacraments are all that necessary.
April 21st, 2010 | 1:43 am
I agree that movement-wise Piper and Warren do seem to have unbridgeable differences, but I have a guess as to why they might “join forces.”
I grew up in a so-called “health and wealth” and now consider myself simply a charismatic evangelical. I am more in line with Arminian thought (I’m no Calvinist), but I follow many Calvinist proponents, including John Piper and Mark Driscoll. In fact, I find that aside from Calvinism, Piper & Co. are actually much more in line with “my side” than many who claim to be on my side.
Theology and dogma aside, I think much of it has to do with the way the Gospel is currently being presented. Many of the modern Arminians have turned EXTREMELY postmodern in their (re)presentation of the Gospel (much of the time to ill effect).
I think the lines get blurry as far as what exactly Piper and Warren find in common, because I think the lines are blurry as far as what they disagree with among those on their own “teams.” (Postmodernism tends to “blur” things!)
That’s not really a clear point, but what I’m trying to say is that although there are huge differences between the Calvinists and the Arminians, many new cultural issues have surfaced that have made the theological debate about so much more.
Perhaps it’s like how many libertarians are joining with the conservatives to confront this liberal administration. Both have significant disagreements, but they find commonality in their opposition, and have enough things they agree on to not feel guilty about a partnership.
April 21st, 2010 | 2:55 am
Craig,
Point taken, somewhat — but my point was also that unless the authoritative center position is at least somewhat enforced having a center is not much more useful than not having one. And in those places where I am reasonably familiar with the Catholic Church (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, UK, US), the center is defended only rarely, and least of all where it matters most: the parish clergy and the pews. It’s not enough to discipline a high-profile academic theologian when his views are then still being preached from the parish pulpits.
April 21st, 2010 | 8:31 am
[...] David: I’m a big fan of Collin Hansen, but his article that you refer to in Christianity Today contains some unintentionally misleading points—and misses the true change that is taking place within evangelicalism. For example, he quotes Michael Horton saying that, “Warren’s theology seems to reflect run-of-the-mill evangelical Arminianism.” What the article fails to mention is that Rick Warren identifies himself as a Calvinist. Warren has also said: Theologically, I am a monergist and firmly hold to the five solas of the Reformation. It’s pretty obvious from the book that I believe in foreknowledge, predestination, (see chapter two, “You Are Not An Accident”) and, especially, concurrence — that God works in and through every detail of our lives, even our sinful choices, to cause his purposes to prevail. [...]
April 21st, 2010 | 8:37 am
The “authoritative center position” will still have long range cumulative effect, much like gravitational force wrt other basic forces in modern physics. While not very publically visible or fastmoving, the faithful endure. And have more children.
The ecclesial petri dishes of Evangelicalism or Anglicanism provide useful lessons to the Catholic Church.
April 21st, 2010 | 8:53 am
Dear Wolf Paul:
True. And this is a cause for embarrassment and disappointment.
I don’t want overly hasty disciplinary measures. But it seems some discipline of some people is overdue. I have never understood why some can disagree with virtually every point held by the Catholic Church, yet call themselves Catholics and claim to speak for Catholicism. Why bother, when there is a huge and thriving Protestant world to join?
April 21st, 2010 | 9:40 am
Dale: My thanks again. Now that you mention it, my Calvinist friends are almost all of the PCA/Westminster type, or what my late friend Peter Toon called “High Church Evangelicals.” They are more definite in their theology, and therefore more exclusive (they’re not high on Catholicism, certainly), but that’s one of the things that makes them such attractive friends and allies.
And on the other hand the other type you describe also seem to be more open to liberalism, so I wonder how useful that openness is. Is it more a desire to blur lines than to find a principled form of inclusion, for example?
Wolf Paul: I think the situations are very different, but that’s the subject of another post, and pretty much irrelevant to the point I was trying to explore here.
Joseph Sunde: A helpful point. Common opposition explains a lot of alliances, but it’s not a real basis for a common identity of the sort Evangelicalism is supposed to be. That’s what strikes someone who admires both wings but wonders how much they really have in common, especially since they argue so much about who defines their movement.
Joe: Life does recognize life, and I’d add that like recognizes like. There is something that holds believers together across what have been and could be sundering differences, and that is a very good thing, especially as Christianity loses its cultural predominance. But I suspect that the “like” in Evangelicalism today is more like that between traditional Lutherans and Calvinists than that between members of a single movement.
April 21st, 2010 | 12:25 pm
David,
You ask a good question, which reminds me of a story. I remember asking one of my professors at a Reformed seminary what he thought of pentecostals. His response was that they were irrationalists in line with Schleiermacher. So there’s your liberal connection, and I have not even addressed what happened to New England congregationalism or its modern denominational representative in the Church of Christ Congregational.
There is a general suspicion of pietist traditions because of what came out of German Lutheran pietism, among other historical developments, it seems to me. So, the battle is to hold together piety and theology, or, as you put it, a principled form of inclusion.
I think it’s possible. Jim Packer is a good example of a kind of puritan evangelical who has solid theology, but also charismatic leanings. And he’s a good Anglican. Maybe I could draw an analogy with Orthodoxy for a moment. If all dogmatic statements within the Orthodox churches ultimately intend to safeguard deification as the central doctrine, then I think it could be fair to say that and evangelical theology could be constructed in support of a theology of conversion that remains the core. This is how piety and theology could go together. Packer has already moved in that direction with Knowing God in which knowing is an experiential dynamic. Well, that’s my guess at how to get at your question anyway. But it’s still a guess on my part. . .you know. . .thoughts in process.
April 21st, 2010 | 5:57 pm
Not to be too needy, but I am hoping to see that response soon, Mr Mills.
April 21st, 2010 | 11:37 pm
Michael Horton has commented on this matter at the White Horse Inn weblog:
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/442.html
At the beginning of his very interesting comments, he writes that
April 23rd, 2010 | 10:11 am
[...] and Reformed) has a good summary of the recent debate over the Warren invite. David Mills over at First Things has just added a thoughtful take on it. Since both of these quote some of my comments from this [...]
April 25th, 2010 | 10:18 pm
[...] Coulter, who contributed to Not So Easy to Identify an Evangelical, has written a related piece on The Westminster Captivity of Evangelicalism on his weblog Renewal [...]
April 26th, 2010 | 2:38 pm
Sorry, a minor point, but I just wanted to do offer a thought about Dominicans and spirituality and/or mysticism. In contrast to the comment above, I wouldn’t mind at all to go to some (many) Dominicans for spirituality or mysticism. Thomas Aquinas’ Corpus Christi, Meister Eckhart, Henry Suso, even John of St. Thomas on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit! Well, sorry for being a bit pedantic…
But here are some items that might be interesting on the subject (both more popular and more scholarly):
http://books.google.com/books?id=JJndnLori9wC&lpg=PA26&dq=Dominican%20Spirituality&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=x6gBElBgymYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dominican+Spirituality&ei=q9rVS5mjEYjgygTf_ajWCQ&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=r4S_4eczbGAC&pg=PR11&dq=Thomas+and+Albert+Classics&lr=&ei=ItvVS_DUCY_yzQTY1tW9CQ&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ga815P6vxygC&lpg=PA120&dq=Dominican%20Spirituality&pg=PA120#v=onepage&q=Dominican%20Spirituality&f=false (p. 119)
http://books.google.com/books?id=9A-RF38eK3wC&lpg=PA104&dq=Dominican%20Spirituality&pg=PR2#v=onepage&q&f=false
OK. Dominicans are not only scholastics, even the same guys! :-)
April 27th, 2010 | 6:22 pm
[...] and Reformed) has a good summary of the recent debate over the Warren invite. David Mills over at First Things has just added a thoughtful take on it. Since both of these quote some of my comments from this [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact