In Defense of "Internet Calvinists"

These are some tough days for those of us who are on the internet and claim to be Calvinists and/or Reformed.   First, Michael Spencer published  his essay Why I'm Not Like You, wherein  he sought to distance himself from some expressions of what has come to be known as "ugly calvinism."  And then he had his "iMonk and Calvinism Q&A" where he esplainified himself some more.  Basically, he still holds to alot of Calvinistic beliefs but he feels like this is a movement which has been co-opted by some unsavory types.

And of course, Michael's writings have spurred a good deal of discussion at the Boars Head Tavern and one of the wags who patronize the tavern has created a cool graphic that says "This weblog has not been approved by the League of Truly Reformed Bloggers" which links to an FAQ dealing with the Tavern's feelings about calvinists and "truly reformed" types.

I have corresponded with Michael online and off from time to time and I think I know him well enough to know that he wasn't taking a potshot at the League of Reformed Bloggers, which I moderate.  I also know that Michael isn't the only one posting things at the tavern, but since "League of Truly Reformed Bloggers," sounds so much like "League of Reformed Bloggers," I shot Michael a quick e-mail to confirm that no offense was intended.  He confirmed this immediately and even apologized for any confusion, though none was necessary.  And they have added another FAQ to their FAQ's specifically pointing out that they aren't making fun of me or anyone else in the League of Reformed Bloggers, which is good news because I am very sensitive and get my feelings hurt easily.  Michael and the folks at the tavern aren't attacking calvinism and calvinists per se, rather this "ugly" form of calvinism I have mentioned. 

Now, Phil Johnson of Grace Community Church has jumped into the blogosphere and the debate about calvinism.  Phil's entry into the blogosphere has been greeted with a level of excitement not seen since Elvis appeared on the Ed Sullivan show.  Phil didn't open with Blue Suede Shoes or You Ain't Nuthin But a Hound Dog, rather he opened with an essay called "Quick and Dirty Calvinism," wherein he talks about the move away from Calvinism by folks like John Armstrong, Andrew Sandlin, Rob Schlapfer, and of course the iMonk himself.

Phil has a good deal of disagreement with the aforementioned folks, but he understands and is sympathetic to some of their complaints. Phil says:

I have to say with all candor that I can somewhat understand the feelings expressed by some of Calvinism's recent critics. Sniff around some of the Calvinist forums on the Internet and it won't be long before you begin to think something is rotten in Geneva.

But I hasten to add that I don't think the problem really lies in Geneva, or in historic Calvinism, or in any of the classic Reformed creeds. I especially don't think the stench arises from any problem with Calvinism per se. In my judgment, the problem is a fairly recent down n' dirty version of callow Calvinism that has flourished chiefly on the Internet and has been made possible only by the new media.

Internet Calvinism and historic Calvinism sometimes have little in common.

I pretty much agree with everything that Phil says here but I will quibble with the last sentence.  I think internet calvinism and historical calvinism have lots in common.  There has always been a tug of war in calvinistic circles between the hypers and those who are more moderate, for lack of a better term.  You can get a small sample of this by reading Ian Murray's book Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism. Spurgeon got it from all sides.  The hypers thought he was an Arminian because of his emphasis on evangelism and the Arminians thought he was a hyper because of his emphasis on God's sovereignty.  Things on the internet aren't much different - it's the same kind of stuff, but it's more visible and more intense because the internet gives more people a place to voice their opinions.

Phil goes on to list some of the more egregious things he has seen in "internet calvinism" - fanaticism, non-evangelism, polemicism, and anti-intellectualism.   Then Phil goes on to say:

The upsurge of Calvinism on the Internet in the 1990s seems to have spawned a large and unprecedented movement of jejune Calvinists who wear arrogance as if it were the team uniform. That kind of hotshot, shoot-from-the-hip Calvinism is ugly. I don't blame anyone for being appalled by it. I'm worried about those who think it's a good thing.

Obviously those criticisms are mostly generalizations, and they don't necessarily apply to every Calvinist on the Internet. But (and here's the hard part) I'm willing to admit that there have been times when every one of those criticisms could be legitimately applied to something I wrote or posted to a public forum somewhere. I'll especially confess to my shame that I'm too much of a polemicist and not enough of an evangelist.

Historic Calvinism is not supposed to be that way. Yes, Calvinism is virile; it's relentless when it comes to truth; and it's not always easy to swallow. But it is full of truths that should humble us and fill us with compassion rather than swagger and conceit. The best Calvinism has always been fervently evangelistic, large-hearted, benevolent, merciful, and forgiving. After all, that's what the doctrines of grace are supposed to be all about.

It is an outstanding post, and I especially appreciate his acknowledgement that he himself has been guilty of some of the things he has criticized.  I'll add my name to the list of guilty parties in that regard.  But I want to suggest that the folks Phil is talking about and what Michael and his tavern-mates are talking about aren't really representative of "internet calvinism" as a whole.

Please forgive me if I sound a little defensive in this regard, but since I moderate the League of Reformed Bloggers I feel like I've gotten a pretty good overview of "internet calvinism" and have been in the thick of many discussions of reformed and calvinistic issues.  I understand that the "League of Reformed Bloggers" only encompasses a very small smidgeon of bloggers who call themselves reformed and we certainly aren't any kind of governing body for the movement.

But, all in all, I think that, if you were to take a regular stroll through the League of Reformed Bloggers aggregator, you would find that few, if any, members of this fit the description of "ugly calvinism."  We now have 205 members of the League of Reformed Bloggers so while this isn't everyone, it's a pretty good number of "internet calvinists."  I'm not saying that the LORB folks are the true and pure and best internet calvinists, I'm just saying that there's a pretty fair number there to which you can look to get a broader view of "internet calvinism."

In one of Michael's posts at the tavern he talks about some of the good guys in the calvinist/reformed circles and I would argue that most, if not all, of the folks in the LORB would fit into the "good guys (and girls - we've got some awesome calvinistic women!) category.

I think that what Michael and Phil are reacting to can be explained by James Davison Hunter in his book Culture Wars. Hunter explains that, on any given issue, you've got about 10% on either side of the issue that are certifiable wackos (ok, wacko is my word, not his), or I should say extremists. That leaves 80%, i.e. the overwhelming majority, who are somewhere in the middle.  But, in the media you never hear from the 80%, it's usually the 10% on either side you hear from because they make for good TV. 

Similarly, one angry, caustic person can make a bigger splash than 20 temperate people.   And unfortunately, we are going to see that one angry, caustic person as representative of the 20 temperate people.

Neither I, nor the co-moderators of the LORB (Tim Challies and Adrian Warnock) try to police what goes on in the LORB, but at the outset we tried to position it as a restrained and temperate voice in the blogosphere.  We encourage both deep conviction and a civil tone.  If I may be so bold as to recommend one of my own writings, I would suggest my post titled "Some Thoughts on Godly Disputation, or 'How to Have a Christlike Argument.'" In suggesting that, I would also suggest that, for the most part, most of those who identify themselves as calvinists or reformed exemplify this Christlike spirit, even when they argue. 

So, my point in this long and boring harangue has been to simply call people like Phil and Michael and anyone else who to broaden their horizons and see that there are a whole lot moreto internet calvinism than what you are talking about.  I realize that both of Phil and Michael have issued the appropriate disclaimers to the effect that they understand that not everyone is like these bad guys.  But when you say that "not everyone is like this," it still comes across as "but most folks are like this and the good guys are in the minority."  And by the way, if Michael or Phil reads this, please don't take this as any kind of chastizement, I know we are on the same page on this.  But my contention is that when it comes to internet calvinists, the good guys are in the overwhelming majority - you just don't hear from them as much.

And I want to close with one more thought as a kind of disclaimer. I have developed a great affection for the members of the League of Reformed Bloggers and have profited greatly from interacting with them. So, I am writing this post kind of like a coach who is defending his own team.  But I want to be sure to point out that, in general, I am far less determined to defend calvinism and reformed theology than I am to defend Christ.  Except in posts like this where reformed theology or calvinism is the issue, I try not to shove calvinism and reformed theology down people's throats - I want to shove Christ down your throat, not Calvin.  I hope that regular readers of the blog sense this, and if not, I'm happy to receive correction.