Reformed Theology vs. the Reformed Attitude

I read with interest an online interview that Danny Fast did with Rob Schlapfer from The Discerning Reader and Christian Counterculture. I say I read it with interest because Rob has been a pretty staunch defender of Calvinism/Reformed Theology and now it appears he is abandoning Calvinism. Here are a few salient comments from the e-mail exchange between Danny and Rob:

3. (Question from Danny) In a letter published with your permission to Michael Spencer you said "We are abandoning Calvinism" and "The 16th century is over. We're not wasting any more time with such a dead issue." I think many of us, probably more who are Calvinists, and who enjoy the work of DiscerningReader and ChristianCounterCulture would like you to expand on this

(Rob's Answer) We need to focus on the world that is actually confronting us today. The students we deal with have needs that are real and cannot be helped by talking about abstract theological issues that were fought over centuries ago. One can talk about the reality of God's sovereignty (and all the related themes) without talking about Calvinism.

Calvinism is a great study for historical theology. But it is not the gospel — in ANY way. For awhile I thought we could deal with it along the periphery, all the while moving people on to being followers of Jesus and lovers of His Word — not being "Reformed." But most Calvinists can't do that. They have to identify with their cause. So we are leaving it well behind. Our cause is Christ and his kingdom. Not Reformed Theology.

(Question from Danny) 7. Final question. In Michael's letter you said "Besides, "Reformed" people are an embarrassment to the name of Christ." Can you expand on this as many may have taken it as an insult.

(Rob's Answer) I think I have written about this many times over the years. Reformed people have a reputation within the Christian community — and outside, even — that is easy to survey:

judgmental
self-righteous
arrogant

Why do you think Lance Quinn added all those appendices to the new edition of P&Rs "The 5 Points of Calvinism"? About a "kinder gentler Calvinism"? He wrote to tell me: it was because Calvinists tend to be nasty, mean-spirited people. One always has to qualify the 5 Points with some appeal . . .

The main reason we have discontinued the vast majority of Reformed books is becasue the people who buy them are disproportionately mean, nasty, hateful, judgmental and EMBARRASSING to the faith. We have had ENOUGH dealing with them. I am actually a very laid-back, easy-going guy. People who know me would tell you that. But this work has taken my blood pressure off the charts.

People who are offended by this ought to do some serious pondering here. Because it is just an empirical fact.

I'm one of those people who loves Reformed theology and the whole Reformed tradition, yet I also find myself agreeing with Rob in large measure, and, dare I say, I have to confess that I have fallen into some of the sins that Rob talks about here. Still, I thought I would share some of my own journey in the Reformed world to see if it is helpful to anyone else.

I was first exposed to "Reformed" theology through someone who was judgmental, self-righteous and arrogant. I was a Baptist at the time and when I first met this person they jokingly said "I hate Baptists - bwaaahaaahaaa - just kidding." I soon found out that this person was a Presbyterian who loved the Reformed faith. Since they knew I was going into the ministry they sought to convert me to Calvinism at every turn. They gave me books by R. C. Sproul and would ask "friendly" questions which usually turned into invitations for debate. Needless to say, I wasn't biting.

My next exposure to Calvinism came in seminary at Columbia Biblical Seminary and Graduate School of Missions. Columbia is not "reformed," it is an eclectic school with a broad range of folks - Reformed, Arminian, Covenantal, Dispensational, Presbyterian, Baptist, Bible Church, Independent, etc.. The "reformed" folks I met there were on a crusade similar to the person I just mentioned. Some of them were angry about it, and many were condescending toward those who weren't reformed. The professors who were reformed weren't, but the reformed students certainly were. Looking back, it seems to me that the reformed students weren't in a majority, although thye made up a significant minority, and they felt like they had to hunker down and defend themselves. So, they were always arguing and debating and generally turning people off.

Trouble was, I started reading some things at that time from reformed biblical scholars and began to see that there were some pretty good arguments for this stuff. But, even though I was warming up to reformed theology from a biblical standpoint, I couldn't bear the thought that I might become one of them.

My seminary career at Columbia was cut short and over the next few years I moved back into close proximity to the one who had first introduced me to reformed theology. At some point I decided that the whole system of theology had to be wrong because of the type of people it produced. So, I sought to disprove it. I read books by Arminians, one by a guy who was taking the Barthian position on election, and other things, in order to counter the reformed arguments. To be fair, I also read a couple of books by Calvinists. In reading these books I became convinced that Calvinism was correct, so I switched my theological allegiances.

Doug Wilson says that when someone becomes a Calvinist, they enter the "cage" stage, which means this is a stage where they should be locked in a cage and kept away from the general public. I was moderately cage worthy at the time. I didn't want to be like the other "bad calvinists" I had met, but I was in love with this stuff and wasn't afraid to tell you.

I did have a time where I kind of viewed everything through the lens of the TULIP and was quite zealous. My zeal lead me to Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. I went there, ostensibly to get better grounded in the reformed faith, but what I got was very different than what I expected to get.

It was at RTS that I got exposed to what Rob, via Lance Quinn, calls "a kinder, gentler, calvinism." I've tried to compare my exposure to reformed theology at RTS with my exposure to it at Columbia and the best way I can summarize it is this: At RTS, everyone was reformed and knew it, and didn't need to defend reformed theology against attacks from fellow students or faculty members - therefore, we seemed more relaxed about the whole thing and more willing to be self-critical. This wasn't the case with the reformed folks I met at Columbia (again, I'm speaking of students here). At Columbia the reformed folks were always on the defensive and/or attack. At RTS we attacked ourselves.

My biggest influences at RTS came from Richard Pratt, Al Mawhinney and Reggie Kidd. All of them were committed to the reformed tradition and all of them knew that the reformed tradition wasn't the last word in Christianity. Pratt was particularly influential. He would say things like "a final theological formulation is nothing more than a lack of imagination." This was his way of saying that the TULIP and the Westminster Confession weren't the last word in matters of theology. Lest I get him in trouble, he does affirm and agree with these things, but he knew that they weren't the last word. Pratt also said "I will have more trouble with someone who agrees with every jot and tittle of the Berkhof or the Westminster Confession than with someone who becomes an Arminian." His reason was that if you agree with every word from Berkhof or the Confession, you have come dangerously close to elevating those documents to the same level as Scripture. We must always keep in mind that these are man's summaries of the Bible, not the Bible.

Frank James was another good influence at RTS. He always spoke kindly of the theolgical opponents of reformed theology and would say that they have some good points. In one class with him, I had two major papers to write - one on the holiness of God and one on the nature of man. James said that, in theological debate, as long as someone wrestles honestly and diligently with those two issues he is happy with where they come out.

What I am saying is that at RTS we got reformed theology without the attitude. For that reason there are many reformed types who don't think we are pure enough. But, this helped ground me in a way I hadn't imagined. I came away from seminary more in love with the theology itself - I'm still as rabid of a TULIP guy as I was when I went in, I love the Westminster Standards and really, really love covenantal theology. On the flip side, I came away with a far bigger view of God and came away realizing that the TULIP, the confession and all of our theology doesn't come close to scratching the surface of who He is and how great He is.

Furthermore, I came away seeing the theological formulations as signposts pointing us to Christ. When I travel, the goal is to get to the destination, not to stop and admire all of the signs along the way. The signs are necessary - you'll get lost without them, but they aren't the destination.

I think this is what Rob was getting at, and I agree. Although I find myself defending reformed theology in my blog alot I hope that Christ comes out greater than Reformed theology. When Rob says that we can talk about the sovereignty of God without talking about Calvinism, I agree. John Frame said something to that effect when he said that most folks will accept reformed doctrine if we will not use all of the reformed buzzwords.

Still I find myself defending "reformed theology" and "Calvinism" on this blog because I want to set the record straight when I can. When someone says that "reformed theology" errs on a particular matter, if I am convinced that "reformed theology" accurately summarizes what the bible teaches on that particular matter, I will defend it - not so much to defend the tradition, but to defend the biblical teaching. As much as I would like to do so, it's difficult to not use the buzzwords at times.

I do think that, for the most part, the reformed tradition provides a rich resource for the church as a whole and I commend it to anyone - not so that we can exalt the tradition itself, but because much of it reflects biblical teaching.

But, we who defend this tradition have to remember that the T in the TULIP applies to us. Too often we believe that the T in the TULIP stands for the total depravity of arminians, or the total-depravity-of-people-who-spuriously-claim-to-be-reformed-but-aren't-because-they-aren't-as-pure-as-I-am. The T applies to all of us and it guarantees that we reformed types are as sinful as our opponents.

I think that, if we could grasp this, then people like Rob wouldn't have to lose sleep dealing with Reformed customers. A few years ago the Credenda/Agenda folks did an issue called "A Farewell To Calvinism," which I recommend highly. I'll close with a quote from that issue by Jonathan Edwards which explains why I will often use the term "calvinist" or "reformed" to describe myself, all the while sharing Edwards disdain for being considered to rely on Calvin:

They say, moreover, that the keeping up such a distinction of names, has a direct tendency to uphold distance and disaffection, and keep alive mutual hatred among Christians, who ought all to be united in friendship and charity, though they cannot, in all things, think alike. I confess, these things are very plausible; and I will not deny, that there are some unhappy consequences of this distinction of names...However the term Calvinistic is, in these days, among most, a term of greater reproach than the term Arminian; yet I should not take it all amiss, to be called a Calvinist, for distinction's sake: though I utterly disclaim a dependence on Calvin, or believing the doctrines I hold, because he believed and taught them; and cannot be justly charged with believing in every thing just as he taught.

Jonathan Edwards
The Freedom of the Will

Hat Tip - Mark Horne

Comments

[Steve]

Sorry I meant eisogesis (as opposed exogesis) is READING things into scripture that aren't there.

[Steve]

I like the point you make about arrogant, self righteous and judgemental. I have a guy close to me who is more and more becoming extreme in his calvanism. I have watched him change over the last few years and I would now charactrise him exactly as the above, arrogant, self-righteous and judgmental. I think partly it is a function of his personality but I would even go so far as to call him a Pharisee. He is divisive in the Body of Christ and now feels that if there is not controversey then God is not really doing anything worthwhile in the situation. I saw a word recently that is curious to me in this episode. The word is I think, 'eisogesis'. It means things into scripture that are not there. This is where he is at. Everthing he touches in scripture is bent to fit TULIP and he makes breathtaking leaps to achieve some of his positions. It so sad to watch this person elevate himself to the position of always right.

[Kay B.]

I would truly like to know when happiness became a theological mandate. J. Piper's "Christian Hedonism" is a case in point. I would also like to know why John Piper is considered reformed in his beliefs, and why R.C. Sproul has John Macarthur at his conferences.

[Marti A]

Re: The Lord's Prayer:
In prayer we sinners are inclined to attempt to enlist divine aid for your own agendas. The Lord's prayer is a corrective in that we acknowledge the Almighty smarter than we are, His honor more important, and His agenda worthy of our submission. For those of us with a substantial inclination to autonomy, the kneeling position and the first petitions are both most difficult and most necessary.

[Vikki]

I guess I meant to say, "The Lutheran Pastor below" not above.

[Vikki]

This was an intriguing blog. I just finished reading a Lutheran blog a little bit ago. I am very familiar with both churches and their respective theologies. Alas, what the Lutheran pastor said above was correct. Both Lutheranism and the Reformed have attitude problems. Difference is, that while the Lutherans are indifferent, clanish snobs who ignore folks, the Reformed are nasty, hostile, argumentative, nitpicky bigots who attack folks and won't let them alone. Both are unacceptable in their extremes. I'd rather be entirely ignored than yelled at. The only decent Calvinist I know of is R.C. Sproul, Jr. That is ALL. (And perhaps you!)

[Rev.Denis C. Gray]

I am a retired Canadian Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor. Anyone who knows even a little about Missouri Synod and its history will easily recognize that the most similar characteristics which Reformed and Missourians share are a passion for believing,teaching and confessing doctrine that is biblically correct and therefore in agreement with our resprective "confessions" .
The Symbols ie. statements of faith are accepted by us because we hold them to be authentic and true witnesses and statements of the Bible's teaching.
That was a mouthful!
Obviously the "confessional" expositions and conclusions of our respective church bodies differ enough to prevent us from enjoying full communion.

Sad to say ,what does not differ is an "attitude" which is perceived all too often as an unloving one. Learning" to speak the truth in love" is the toughie.

What is easy, is rationalizing and even justifying lovelessness in its many manifestations.One really has to pray, study and think to express and defend the truth well ie. in a manner that pleases God and draws others close to our Lord and to us too.
Our faith is counterfeit without love but love in action is the ripe fruit and seal of true faith.

In one Eastern Orthodox communion liturgy. the people must exchange the Kiss of Peace BEFORE they confess the creed together.

The deacon announces:

LET US LOVE ONE ANOTHER SO THAT WE MAY WE MAY CONFESS OUR FAITH IN THE WORDS OF THE CREED WITH ONE HEART. * notice with one heart.

(Upon greeting, the first person says: CHRIST IS IN OUR MIDST.

The other reponds: HE IS.. AND EVER SHALL BE)

THEN THE CONFESSION OF FAITH FOLLOWS:

It would seem that 1Cor:13's teaching on the primacy of love certainly includes the manner in which we witness,confess ,defend and teach the faith.

Many years a go I remember hearing a Christian apologist say that the Law tells us what we must do and say as christians. But love tells us how we must do it.

Another wise man said that"We should speak so that others will listen and we should listen so that others will speak."

I hope that I have not been too presumptuous to join in the dialog and chat.

God Bless

[The Billy Goat]

A good post. I was in a "Reformed" church for 25 years. I have no desire to go back. Confessionalotry in some parts of "Reformed" circles is more real then some Reformed would like to admit. It's down right scary... as well as blasphamas.. More of your fellow reformed compatriots need to learn the truth that God is bigger then their Reformed/Covanental box... and be duly humbled...

Peace,

[Alan]

In Britain we say that it's one thing to know the Doctrines of Grace - it's another to know the Grace of the doctrines... Blessings, Alan

[Warren]

Nash is at Southern semi-full time. He flies up from Orlando every other week to teach his classes -- he's got the Intro class in the fall, a Faith, Reason, and Authority class that I plan on taking in the spring (though not this year, I don't think), and a graduate seminar on (I think) apologetics. I don't know if he's still teaching at RTS when he's not up here, or if he relaxes on his off-weeks.

[Kyle]

Incidentally, I specifically avoided going to RTS in Charlotte because, when I read their statement of faith, it seemed that all professors were required to be joined at the hip to their creed. "Any professor who finds his agreement with these positions to be changing, must immediately report himself" was something of the official quote.

It's good to know that their not quite so idolatrous in their creedalism as it seemed.

[Kyle]

I've never even heard of TULIP. I know about Chaucer and Daisys and about Wordsworth and Daffodils. Never new Calvin had a fetish with Tulips...

[William Meisheid]

>The challenge is to "speak the truth in love" not abandon the truth for the sake of love.

Never want to suggest such a thing, but since I easily come across with all of those negative characteristics, even when I am actively trying not to, I am very sensitive to 2 Timothy 2:24-25

And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth...

[Tim]

The complaint that "reformed" folks are "judgmental, self-righteous and arrogant" is weak. I had rather be accused of being these things on the side of the truth than accused of being these things on the side of a lie.

Forsaking the truth is not the "Love" referred to in 1 Corinthians. False-humility is to be avoided as much as arrogance. The challenge is to "speak the truth in love" not abandon the truth for the sake of love.

[David Wayne]

William - we can also add I Corinthians 8:1-3 to this:

We know that we all possess knowledge. a Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2 The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But the man who loves God is known by God.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

[William Meisheid]

>Those in the reformed camp tend to be intellectual and doctrinally oriented and there is the pride that comes from knowledge. Most reformed types think that they are smarter than everyone else.

To which the reply is 1 Cor 13:2
"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not agape [self-sacrificial love], I am nothing.

Coupled with Philippians 2:3-5
"Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus..."

[shawn]

Thank you for giving your take on "reformed attitude." I can relate a great deal with your story of the different stages a person undergoes while truth seeking, as well as with how Calvinism was initially presented to you. Your story helps me to feel a little more normal about my own experiences.

[Catez]

Brilliant post! I have spent months looking at the regeneration issue - and have been in discussion with Arminians and Calvinists on it. It's become a discussion on the temporal sequence of events in salvation and I'm up to a simultaneous concurrence at the moment. My belief in the cause of the events is Reformed. I'd explain that more but it would be a whole post. I really do prefer the term Reformed to the term Calvinist for myself. Reformed for me covers those parts of the system that I am still exploring, whereas Calvinist seems to connote that I have accepted every jot and tittle. I haven't studied theology formally so this is just my own view. Thanks!

[rob]

Thanks for your post, Jolly. It was a great read. I'm familiar with both James and Pratt. Took a class from each. Thanks for your time in this post.

[David Wayne]

Warren - Nash was there when I was there, but I didn't have him. I took his history of philosophy and apologetics courses by tape. Is he full time at Southern now, I hadn't heard he had left RTS.

William - that is the $64k question. I can only speculate. I think that some of us reformed types may think of ourselves as the Marines of Christendom - the few, the proud - the ones who have the courage to believe in predestination. Those in the reformed camp tend to be intellectual and doctrinally oriented and there is the pride that comes from knowledge. Most reformed types think that they are smarter than everyone else. Also, if I've heard it once, I've heard it a thousand times - "I am Reformed and I stand in the tradition of Paul (we can't say Luke, or John, and definitely not Peter, lest we become Roman Catholic), Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Edwards. There gets to be a little pride of tradition. I never have liked the idea of mentioning Augustine and Calvin in the same sentence as the apostle Paul. So, there are probably other reasons, but I'm with you in your thinking and would add that someone who is truly reformed ought to be the most humble.

Diane - I'll take up your challenge and try to address this soon. Don't know when I can, because I have a few other topics I was hoping to address this week but I'll try to share a few thoughts soon.

[William Meisheid]

>For that reason there are many reformed types who don't think we are pure enough.

Why do you think it is that many of the "reformed" are so "judgmental, self-ighteous,
arrogant"?

One would think that apprehension of the truth would bring about a calm assurance and peace of mind rather than an almost rampant insecurity and reactive self-righteousness.

[Warren]

Did you have Ron Nash when you were at RTS? I've got him this year at Southern -- I'm learning a LOT!

[Diane R]

I would like it if you would blog someday on TULIP. Yes, I've read everyone else on it, but I would like to read you on it. I particularly have trouble with Limited Atonement and everyone else I know who "almost" Calvinistic in their thinking has trouble with LA too (that's Limited Atonement..not Los Angeles:).