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.
Though Warren is a Calvinist, Horton implies that he is acting like an Arminian. So you are more right than you realize, David, when you said, Horton’s statement was a “more serious charge than it may appear to those who don’t know the Calvinist’s concerns.”
The article misses the irony—and the significance—of the dispute being an internal debate among Calvinists. The author of the article (Hansen) is a Calvinist writing about a conference sponsored by a Calvinist (John Piper) in which the inclusion of another Calvinist (Rick Warren) is being challenged by other Calvinists (Tim Challies, Michael Horton). In fact, the only person mentioned by name that is not a Calvinist is Billy Graham. (To round this out, I should say that I am also a Calvinist.)
The more interesting question that Hansen overlooks is, “Why is the intellectual wing of evangelicalism now dominated by Calvinists?” This is not to say, of course, that there are no theological and intellectual leaders on the Arminian side. But they currently do not receive the same attention or command the same influence as their Calvinist peers. Perhaps this is because the Calvinists are often identifiably Calvinist, while the Arminians are harder to spot. Indeed, the easiest way to tell that an evangelical leader is an Arminian is that you don’t hear them publicly state they are a Calvinist.
However, Hansen is right that there is a move toward separatism. But the separation is primarily occuring between a theological system (Calvinism) and a utilitarian approach to evangelism and ecclesiology. The dominant competitor to Calvinism within evangelicalism is not so much Arminianism as pragmatism (a focus on practical techniques of evangelism, rather than on theology and doctrine). Of course Horton and other Calvinists would likely claim that Arminianism is the default operation system for pragamatism. But as Warren proves, Calvinists can be pragmatists too.
So why does this matter? Why should those who aren’t evangelicals care about this issue? The reason is because we appear to be in the midst of a seismic shift in American evangelicalism—a religious group that is second only in size to American Catholicism.
For several decades after World War II, the groups that dominated were the pragmatists (e.g., the seeker-sensitive movement, the prosperity gospel, Purpose-Driven Churchers). The pragmatists tended to neglect the mind in favor of an emotion-driven experiential form of faith and practice. In contrast, the Calvinists are much more focused on the life the mind and intellectual engagement with doctrine and Scripture. This side of the movement is more likely to produce theologians rather than televangelists, and hold academic conferences on evangelism rather than evangelistic rallies in football stadiums.
Whether this change from emotion to the intellect is ultimately beneficial or detrimental remains to be seen. But it will have a significant impact on American evangelicalism—and thus a significant impact on Christianity in America.
April 21st, 2010 | 9:02 am
The pragmatists have a certain similarity to “spirit of Vatican II” Catholics.
April 21st, 2010 | 9:46 am
Joe: If my Reformed friends are right, it isn’t a conflict within Calvinism, because they don’t see Warren and his colleagues as Calvinists. I can’t adjudicate between you and Mike Horton, but it does seem to me that someone can be so pragmatic in his practice and the way he speaks of it that he can effectively articulate another theology. In which case others would be correct in describing him in terms of his effective theology.
April 21st, 2010 | 10:10 am
David: In which case others would be correct in describing him in terms of his effective theology.
I agree, and that may in fact be true in Warren’s case (I suspect it probably is). But I think Horton jumps to that assumption too quickly. He seems to be resorting to a “No true Scotsman” type of assumption in which no true Calvinist would adopt the pragmatic methods that Warren espouses.
Again, Horton may be right about that. But it seems a bit too easy to assume that pragmatism is inherently Arminian.
But I still think the conflict is not only within Calvinism but that it resembles debates similar to what we see in conservatism. Rick Warren is similar to David Frum in that many people assume that they cannot really be one of their group (Calvinists in Warren’s case, conservatism in Frum’s).
Even if Warren is wrong about his theological underpinnings being truly Calvinistic, it is significant that he identify himself with that movement. It certainly isn’t necessary. In fact, until recently being a Calvinist in Warren’s denomination (Southern Baptist) was viewed as just short of scandalous. For him to feel the need to identify as a Calvinist—and one in the tradition of a Abraham Kuyper—shows that he can discern where the intellectual trends are headed.
April 21st, 2010 | 10:48 am
Going back a couple centuries, the “No true Scotsman” could just as easily apply to Horton. Does he believe in theocracy? 16th and 17th century Calvinism is dead, so who’s to say Horton’s version will beat out Warren’s in 200 years or so? Who knows, maybe the theocrats will make a comeback.
April 21st, 2010 | 10:56 am
Joe,
Thanks again for an insightful post. I found the connections with Warren’s Reformed theology helpful although I am in no position to deal with the issue David raises so I’ll leave you both to it.
BTW, I always prefer Reformed to Calvinist because Calvin really followed Bucer on many issues and thus the Reformed camp to my mind is much larger than the individual whose name always gets connected to it. In the same way, I don’t like Arminianism even though its parlance is probably associated with John Wesley’s founding of the Arminian Magazine.
My point in raising those labels is that if you look for “Arminians” you may not find many because most evangelicals who fall into that camp theologically would not self-describe themselves that way. I, for one, would not. I owe very little to the Reformed Scholastic Arminius who still operated with that methodology even while rejecting many basic Reformed ideas. Ironically, it’s mainly the Reformed or non-Reformed Baptists like Roger Olson who keep talking about Arminians. It’s kind of like Reformed theologians trying to describe Lutherans as holding to “consubstantiation” when no self-respecting Lutheran would allow that term to describe what they mean by “real presence.”
For most of us, historically it would be better to say Wesleyan-holiness, and for me, you would need to add pentecostal to the mix. Once you move into the Wesleyan and pentecostal arena, well, there are plenty of scholars out there who are publishing. To name a few, Ben Witherington, Ken Collins, and Joel Green, all of whom at one time were connected to Asbury Theological Seminary, which was founded as a stronghold of Wesleyan-holiness. Or, John Levison who just recently published a good book on pneumatology. In theology, Amos Yong, a colleague of mine, Tom Oden who is a Methodist, et al. They are out there, but they are not always accorded the kind of prominence.
One more point: the pragmatism charge goes back way beyond the emergence of American pragmatism as a philosophical movement. Charles Finney’s new revival measures were quite controversial to Old Princeton because they essentially rejected the idea that revival was an act of sovereign grace irrespective of human activity. In fact, they went in the opposite direction.
April 21st, 2010 | 12:33 pm
One more thought: the “no true Scotsman” statement reminds me of another story from my seminary days.
We were having a heated discussion in a class on Christianity and culture. The prof was OPC, Machen’s own brand of Presbyterianism. He was attempting to make the case that modern worship music was all too subjective with its focus on the self (“I love you Lord,” etc.) and its lack of theological depth. Things seemed to be going his way until one student (not me) said, “What about the Psalms? Aren’t they pretty subjective with a focus on the self?” This, of course, hit home since OPC folk, like conservative Scots such as Sinclair Ferguson, enjoy singing the Psalms as part of their worship.
The response was that the Psalms, were, well, the Psalms, and that there was a theological richness in them not present in this modern choruses. I wonder, though, if part of the richness of the Psalms is not because they are embedded in a tradition whose vocabulary makes the Psalms rich.
This was a conflict between some PCA students and an OPC prof., so it tends to bear out what you are saying about intra-Reformed debates.
April 21st, 2010 | 11:30 pm
I haven’t read Horton’s specific comments on this, but is it possible that for Horton Calvinism entails more than a particular soteriology? There is a distinctive reformed view of ecclesiology, the sacraments, and worship. Isn’t it a bit ironic that so many baptists who practice the re-baptism of believers, call themselves Calvinists?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact