Those of you who are smart enough, I hope you do realize that this is a parody. And not mockery. Take it all in good humor. I also realize that Michael Spencer (I think) has been offended by some of this. I apologize as well. But, like I said, it's nothing personal.



_____________________________________________________

Q: Are you a Calvinist?

A: Ya know, I would really, really like to be called one, but I think I'll pass.

Q: Why are you no longer a Calvinist?

A. In the good old days, I always had to give inquisitive folks the proper definition of Calvinism. I get lazy. Therefore I pass. Take, also, for example Evangelical Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, PCUSAers, OPCers, BPCers and PCAsses who are all Calvinists with similar views on some kind of monergism. But when you move just a few inches off this common ground, chaos ensues. Like whether we should immerse or sprinkle.

Calvinism is like a big apartment house where a lot of families live. Some of the families are people I identify with. Some of the families are people I want nothing to do with, even though Jesus told us to love our neighbors. After almost 14000 years, I think I need to find another place to live. One with cheap rent. I am not disassociating from everyone in the house or everything they believe, I just need my own place. I get bigger, ya know. Too much McDonalds, I suppose...

Oh, and some of the nut cases won't let me have any peace and quiet.

Q: So you are being bullied out by nut cases? Isn't it immature to change your entire label because of a few whacked out crazies?

A: Good point, but I think the problem is larger than the Whitites (Aomin-ers) who attacked me in April '05. It's the larger profile of Calvinism in evangelicalism. Just one example. When I came on board, J.I. Packer, Timothy George, and John Piper were representative of my kind of Calvinism. That was cool, because they were cool. So, I suppose that was cool. I could fit and feel authentic in that mix. Today, Calvinism is [Unnamed party], John Macarthur, Al Mohler and a lot of very angry young men defending all kinds of fundamentalist yahooism. Thanks to them, I can't fit and feel authentic anymore. Damn McDonalds. The profile and "flavor" of the movement has changed in significant ways (Or, how I want it to be, and since it's not my way, I guess I'll take the highway), at least as I perceive and experience it. It is no longer a basic grid, but is coming to include all kinds of things: mandatry hostility to public schools (or Homeschooling Onlyism), culture wars (or so what with Homos?), rejection of other Christians (a.k.a. Seperation), Young Earth Creationism (Also known as why-I-don't-like-AiG), ridiculous intimidation and defaming of good people (Like N.T Wright) writing and reading theology outside of the "approved list", though I don't even now if such a list exists. What the heck. It's my way. I don't fit. More McDonalds problems. It's starting to feel like a crusade against the rest of the church. As if the ones in the 11th Century weren't enough.

Q: What about Tim Keller and other more politically correct Calvinists? Why not identify with them?

A. I think Keller represents a kind of hopeful "post-Calvinism" (okay, okay, I admit Post-Modernism. There! I said it.) in the sense that he is open and affirming, not a polemicist. In other words, politically correct. Yeah! That's cool. Missional. Open to the Emergent Church and other heretics. Apologetics over polemics. Church planting rather than church splitting. Christianity over unregeneratety. Using dichotomies and framed questions instead of honest classification. I really hope his kind of Calvinism grows and I really appreciate him. My way, not the highway!

But honestly, I identify with so-many non-Calvinists and evangelical PCUSA types, it would be hypocritical to say I am a "Calvinist" in the current atmosphere. Os Guinness and Ravi Zacharias for starters. Mark Driscoll. Todd Bolsinger. Mark Roberts. Capon. Eugene Peterson. So many of those who only know how to read N.T. Wright. If you know anything about Calvinism these days, you will understand why I'm not just on the back lot, I've left the farm before I'm lynched. It's my way, to emphasize it for the 100342384th time.

Q: So are you giving up on all Calvinists? Removing yourself from them? Going your Way?

A. No, not at all. I will still read books by Calvinists, go to conferences, enjoy sermons and worship with Calvinists. For instance, I still identify strongly with The Founders Movement in the SBC, even if I am not in sync with everyone else who might be part of that movement. But yes, I shy away from Calvinists, don't read (No, condemn) their books and don't feel the zing in their sermons anymore. *Shrugs*

I still believe the majority of what I wrote in "Why Calvinism is Cool." I have changed my perception of some Calvinists and some trends in Calvinism in America. I do see some problems that I did not see at the time I wrote that essay, particularly with sectarianism and becoming too identified with the culture war.

I would just say I am a Reformation Christian. The Five Solas are more important to me than TULIP, though I still identify with some aspects of TULIP strongly. Just not all. That's why I don't hold to the TULIP anymore. And that's why I'm not a Calvinist. Duh!

Q: Limited Atonement?

A. I think that's an example of asking for a kind of loyalty to a construction that doesn't catch my interest anymore. From certain angles, some scriptures line up with it, but it's all forced exegesis. But the universalism of the mission and Gospel of Jesus are so overwhelming, I can't see where you use "limited" in any sense that is helpful. Or maybe you can. Like in the amount of people who go to heaven.

Q. There are ways around those issues. Many self-identified Calvinists use those short-cuts.

A: And that says to me that the label is just too important. Reformation Christian works fine. It's just a short cut to Thomas Merton.

Q. So are Calvinists bad?

A. Definitely. I would not now affirm the vast majority of the pro-Calvinist material I have written. In fact, I'm going through right them in the blog, deleting them for all eternity. It's caught up in the culture war, and I am very concerned about that, because I don't like being labeled a homophobe or a pro-lifer. And, yeah, it is unfortunate to see young people caught up in highly polemical, non-essential debates within Calvinism in a day when we need our young theologians helping us engage and missionalize the culture and the unreached world. There, I can sound orthodox anytime.

Bad isn't the word. Boring is often the right word. Especially when they don't go my way. If I have to go around some of these classic Calvinistic debates one more time I think I'll crack up, you know, like Humpty Dumpty. I will tell anyone, "I am bored with the vast majority of what Calvinists want to talk about," and frankly, I'm ashamed to have spent so much time reading and talking up some of these topics. Ashamed, ashamed. Ashamed of people like Spurgeon, Whitefield and all the other Calvinists out there!


Q: Why don't you just go with what scripture teaches. Period?

A. I think all of us go with what we believe scripture teaches, but I'm honest enough to say that the whole experience of being a Christian is more complex than just reading the Bible and joining a church. It's your life, not the ACT. There, I can be philosophical too. The presence of the Holy Spirit in the scripture AND in the believing community are realities that take us to different places as human beings. It's not relativism. It's simply the recognition that in the Christian experience, relationships and communities are important. That's why people like McLaren who go my way are cool!

One of the problems I am currently having is that I'm meeting more Calvinists who are arrogant absolutists about where the church exists (They obviously don't know it's here on earth!), and have come up with an ecclesiology where having elders is as important as the resurrection (Too bad for them). I always pursue what scripture teaches, but scripture brings me to Jesus, who is not the sum total of 58 doctrines mixed together. I find Jesus in communities, in the writing of people like Wright and Capon, and in the wider church, some of whose theology isn't A+. Or is it the other guy?

I grew up being told that our church was the only one that was a true church and we were the only true Christians. They were wrong, and the current version of the same crowd is wrong as well. Wrong, wrong! But not me. Noooo, I'm right. Right, right! Shame on those who call me wrong!

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 12:13 PM. |