The New Calvinism

This article was published in TIME magazine more than 6 years ago, and I am happy that it's still on their archives.

Just in case they take the decision to take it down, I am posting it here, for later reference.
===================================================================
By David Van BiemaThursday, Mar. 12, 2009

If you really want to follow the development of conservative Christianity, track its musical hits. In the early 1900s you might have heard "The Old Rugged Cross," a celebration of the atonement. By the 1980s you could have shared the Jesus-is-my-buddy intimacy of "Shine, Jesus, Shine." And today, more and more top songs feature a God who is very big, while we are...well, hark the David Crowder Band: "I am full of earth/ You are heaven's worth/ I am stained with dirt/ Prone to depravity."

Calvinism is back, and not just musically. John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.

Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.

No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.

Like the Calvinists, more moderate Evangelicals are exploring cures for the movement's doctrinal drift, but can't offer the same blanket assurance. "A lot of young people grew up in a culture of brokenness, divorce, drugs or sexual temptation," says Collin Hansen, author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists. "They have plenty of friends: what they need is a God." Mohler says, "The moment someone begins to define God's [being or actions] biblically, that person is drawn to conclusions that are traditionally classified as Calvinist." Of course, that presumption of inevitability has drawn accusations of arrogance and divisiveness since Calvin's time. Indeed, some of today's enthusiasts imply that non-Calvinists may actually not be Christians. Skirmishes among the Southern Baptists (who have a competing non-Calvinist camp) and online "flame wars" bode badly.

Calvin's 500th birthday will be this July. It will be interesting to see whether Calvin's latest legacy will be classic Protestant backbiting or whether, during these hard times, more Christians searching for security will submit their wills to the austerely demanding God of their country's infancy.

Greek and Hebrew. The good old days when every minister was supposed to know them.

During the Reformation, it was expected that the Christian minister to know the biblical languages. How low we have come.

Today, I've met "Drs' in theology, who don't know either language, let alone know how to spell in English. In a world with spell checkers, doing such mistakes is almost unforgivable.

So, if your pastor can't master either of the language, encourage him to learn them. It will be of great benefit to him, and his congregation.

Brad Gregory discusses The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society by Harvard Press

I am intending to buy this book.

I have always wished for the time when we will look at the Reformation with so much romanticism, but with a cool head, and recognise it as a historical occasion, not without God's hand of course, but as a product of Western European culture. It never touched the Orthodox Church, or other churches where Western Europeans were not involved.

If you want, you can hear also the podcast included, it will make for very interesting listening.

Brad Gregory discusses The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society by Harvard Press

3 Ways of Reading Scripture (This Sunday's Sermon).

I would like to share my sermon with you, since I wasn't at church on Sunday, but visited another church.

I hope you can find edification in this sermon, which aims to encourage you how to read the Bible, and to apply it in a triple manner, Spiritually, Ethically and Intellectually.



You can download the podcast here. Subscribe via RSS.

Luther and his foul mouth

For all you, Lutheran friends who just despise Mark Driscoll for his "potty mouth", he is just competing with the Father of the Reformation, Martin Luther.

Go and read this link, and be amazed as to how the Reformer expressed himself very often.

Would people today would have followed such a guy??? Why are some of us (yes, I admit it) are still following in his footsteps?

Well, it shows that even our heroes are not perfect, only Jesus.

Luther on his drinking problem

“If our Lord God can pardon me for having crucified and martyred him for about twenty years [by saying mass], he can also approve of my occasionally taking a drink in his honor. God grant it, no matter how the world may wish to interpret it!” -- Martin Luther

If there's one thing that I admired Luther for, is his frankness. He liked to drink, some even say that he had a "sip" before he preached so he could give a stronger sermon!!! His late night drinking with his fellow students was legendary, since they were also talking theology. And hey, his wife run a brewery from their house, so they were used to the smell of beer.

So there you go, don't idolise the Reformers, not even Luther. But from my end, I admire him even more, since he didn't hide his weaknesses, not even when he knew that many would disapprove. He just proves that all of us are sinners, fighting against our fallen desires.

Luis Alberto Jovel

A good way to teach about Martin Luther

This one is for you, my Lutheran friends, specially you, yes you Simon.

What are we, Protestants, really celebrating today?

I don't want to sound like a historical revisionist, but Jim West has been writing very interesting pieces about when did the Protestant Reformation really started. Lutherans love to think that everything started with Martin Luther. It is well known that the usual phrase "Justification by faith is the article by which the Church stands or falls" is not from Luther, rather, from Johann Heinrich Alsted, dating from 1618. So, after some 400 hundred years, it would be a good thing to start giving praise where it is due.  Also, the Lutheran project did not go as well as it was intended, but it did quash other movement, as the Anabaptist movement, and condemned Zwingli for rejecting the Luther's understanding (misunderstanding more like it) of the Lord's Supper.

Well, this is how Jim started his posts about the date where the Reformation really started:

And yes, it's just Lutheran Reformation Day.  Luther was 2 years late as the initiator of Reformation- Zwingli having begun work in that direction in 1515.  So, congrats, Lutherans- just as was true at Barmen- while the Lutherans slept, the Reformed worked.

And the next one:

The Lutherans are celebrating what they call ‘Reformation Day’.  They like to delude themselves with the unfounded belief that were it not for Luther, there would have been no Reformation. 

Alas, poor things, they seem totally unaware that Reform had already commenced further south, in Switzerland, where Zwingli and his colleagues had been lurching towards true Reform since 1515. 

To be sure, Luther matters.  But he doesn’t matter as much as his followers would like the world to believe. ...... 

Luther didn’t teach Zwingli either the Gospel or the proper understanding of the Supper of the Lord.  Zwingli knew and taught both before anyone had ever heard of Luther. 

So, dear Lutherans, enjoy your awakening day.  It’s ok with the rest of us if you were a bit late to the party.

Very revealing, indeed.

For those of us interested in Reformation Studies, this series poses a good future resource:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, projectpartner of Refo500, has started a series academic studies focussing on the religious, theological, political, social, legal, and cultural dimensions of the Reformation. In this series, monographs and thematic collections will be published in English, German and French. The series is characterised by an interdisciplinary approach, international cooperation, and a high scholarly level.
Forthcoming volumes in 2012Vol. 1: Benjamin T.G. Mayes: Counsel and Conscience. Lutheran Casuistry and Moral Reasoning After the Reformation
Vol. 2: Andreas Beck (Ed.): Melanchthon und die Reformierte Tradition
Vol. 3: Peter Opitz (Ed.): The Myth of the Reformation
Vol. 4: Volker Leppin/Herman Selderhuis: Anti-Calvinismus und Krypto-Calvinismus im konfessionellen Zeitalter
Manuscript proposalsManuscript proposals can be sent to the general editor of the series.
Editorial boardMarianne Carbonnier (Paris)
Günter Frank (Bretten)
Bruce Gordon (New Haven)
Ute Lotz-Heumann (Tucson)
Mathijs Lamberigts (Leuven)
Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Bern)
Tarald Rasmussen(Oslo)
Johannes Schilling (Kiel)
Herman Selderhuis (general editor, Emden)
Günther Wassilowsky (Linz)
Siegrid Westphal (Osnabrück)

For more information, see the link.

Great Documentary on Luther and the Reformation

Who really were and are the Anabaptists? A short introduction

I have written before how the White Horse Inn misrepresents the New Perspective on Paul. Once again, they have misrepresented a section of the Christian church, and in this case, it is the Anabaptists.

In episode broadcasted on the 6-3-11 of the White Horse Inn, Michael Horton and his gang calls the Anabaptists are a continuation of medieval mystics, and then he says that they are not part of the Reformation. Where did Michael Horton and the guys at the White Horse Inn do their Church History at? Haven’t they heard of the Radical Reformation? Or they think that the only streams of the Reformation are Lutherans and Calvinist? (Ken Jones says he is a Baptist, but I’ve done some research and still can’t find what Baptist denomination he belongs to.)

Michael Horton mentions in minute 12:08 to 12:15 that the Anabaptists are not part of the Reformation, and claimed that they were a continuation of the mystical medieval movement from the earlier centuries. So Horton condemns the Anabaptist as heretics, since because they don’t belong to the Reformation, they must belong to the Reformation arch-enemy, the Roman Catholic Church. This is just a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. It would seem that Horton and the gang are a new kind of history revisionists, who are trying to reconstruct the Reformation to fit their own petty ideas as to who belongs or not to the Reformation.

James R. Payton Jr., has written a gem of a book titled, “Getting the Reformation Wrong. Correcting some misunderstanding.” He has a chapter “How the Anabaptist Fin In.” He rightly points out that many get the Reformation wrong by continuing using the term Anabaptist as a ‘“catch-all” designation for a much more diverse assortment of religious movements which were neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant.” Both camps, Roman Catholics and Protestants saw Anabaptists as a threat to their own interests. While the Roman Catholics saw the Anabaptist as Protestants to be wiped out, the Protestants saw the Anabaptists as rejecting the Magisterial Reformation (they rejected the connection of Church and estate, a practice that carried over to the Lutherans and Reformed from Rome. It would seem that Horton does not see that some Roman practices did live within the Magisterial Reformation churches, at least for a while.) They rejected what both Luther and Calvin were doing, not because they were anti-reformation, rather, because they saw that in many issues, they weren’t going far enough. As mentioned, they kept the alliance between church and state, and also kept the baptism of infants.

But to correct Horton’s misunderstanding, and misrepresentation of the Anabaptist, I would like to list the different brands of Anabaptists during the XVI century, as listed by Payton:

Swiss Anabaptism: They emerged from Zurich, and were originally working along with Zwingli. Conrad Grebel, and Felix Manz influenced them. They wanted a more rigorous type of discipleship that the one practiced in both Catholicism and Protestantism. They embraced pacifism and rejected the norms found in their Christianised society. The downturn of this group was that in their rejection of medieval society, they created a sort of monastic community for themselves, not dealing with the outside world.

Establishment Anabaptism: This branch of Anabaptism was short lived. Led by Hubmaiaer, received the support of the local rulers, which was very unusual within the Anabaptists. The movement took place at Waldshut, Germany. But it ended when Hubmaiaer was captured and killed in 1528.

Militant Anabaptism: This is one of the two brands that Anabaptists get the bad name they fare among the likes of Horton and others who portray Anabaptists are radicals, extremists, and dangerous people who follow their own prophecies and private interpretation. It was in the city of Munster, in Northern Germany that the Anabaptists won the majority in the city council. Due to their convictions, they enacted laws that were increasingly radical. Many citizens left and carried their discontent to both Catholic and Protestant lands. The leaders of the city, Jan Matthijs and Jan van Leiden, saw themselves as Old Testament prophets, and introduced polygamy into the city, as well as outlawing sin by civil enactment. The other towns heard of it, and waged war against the city, and the Anabaptists were defeated. This episode was not forgotten by the rulers of Europe, who came to consider Anabaptists seditious, and also helped Menno Simons to embrace pacifism as a trait of Anabaptism.

Communitarian Anabaptism: As the name implied, this branch of Anabaptists practiced community of possessions. This was due to considering themselves a separated community from the rest, and also following Acts 2 and 4. After the 16^th century, only the Hutterites maintain such lifestyle.

Mystical Anabaptism: This is the other brand of Anabaptism for which Anabaptists still get a banging on the head, but it is not taken into account that such form of Anabaptism died along with the Peasants’ War, 1524-1526. In this type of Anabaptism, it was emphasized that the believer could gain a mystical connection with God. God could speak directly to the believers as to His will on earth. While some took a quietist approach, others like Thomas Muntzer, took a very activist approach, even taking part in the Peasant’s War. Because of its elitist nature, it was restrictive, since only some would receive the revelation of the Spirit, and the others would have to follow. Although this type of “spirituality” is still present with us in some parts of Christianity, it is not prominent among Anabaptists today.

Spiritualist Anabaptism: A derivative of the previous, spiritualist Anabaptists were quietistic in orientation, claiming that they received direct interventions from the Holy Spirit. Again, because of its elitist nature, this movement was confined to individuals and never became organised communities.

Apocalyptic Anabaptism: The last brand of Anabaptism also claimed to have divine revelation as to the second coming of Christ. Hans Hut was a clear example of this movement, who predicted the coming of Christ in 1528. Melchior Hoffman predicted Christ’s return to Strasbourg in 1533. He was jailed on arrival, and died 10 years later, past the time of his prophecy. Of interest is that although we find such figures in Anabaptists, there were similar trends within Roman Catholicism as well in Protestantism. An example is that Luther considered the present pope, Leo X the antichrist, but he died and Luther’s suspicions were proved wrong.

There were 3 kinds of Anabaptisms that had a spiritual leaning, that didn’t last, the militant one, the spiritual one and the mystical one. I can’t say the same for the apocalyptic one, because as I have said before, they find their equal in both the Catholics and Protestants.

I like the White Horse Inn, I listen to it every week, and have even subscribed to their magazine, Modern Reformation. But this continuing attack on these brethren in Christ, is really tiresome, taking into account that they have brand all Anabaptists as spiritual and radicals.

Funny thing is that, although persecuted, the ones that survived don’t even get a mention by the White Horse Inn people!! Hutterites, Mennonites and Amish, they are faithful Christians who are carrying on with the beliefs and practices of the Anabaptists, and it was them who were concerned about mission, long before the leaders of the Magisterial Reformation even cared about that.

This is my small contribution to this issue, and I hope serves as a corrective, to both the listeners, and the presenters of the White Horse Inn.

Luis Alberto Jovel

Iron in our blood. The Evangelical need to pick a fight

I have been reading a very interesting blog, in which I found the following paragraph:

the culture of conservative evangelicals (and especially of the conservatively reformed) is sickening to me. everything is about a battle for x’ or ‘defending the heart of the gospel’ (which changes as the opponent changes…one day it’s justification and n.t. wright is a heretic, the next day it’s inerrancy and kenton sparks is a heretic). that’s not what i want to do with my time. i didn’t go to seminary so that i could get a ‘heresy hunter’ license and claim my spot among machen’s warrior children. i went to seminary because i want to positively contribute to the way christians think about the bible, about their god, and about how to live their lives in relationship to that god.

One can easily get that from listening to the White Horse Inn or Issues Etc. Mind you, I listen to them every week, and in the case of the later, every day. Their shows are interesting, but you just wondered if they ever have a positive view of something that does not involve Calvin, Machen or Luther.

Take for example Issues Etc, if you don't read Scripture under the lenses of Law and Gospel, you are no better than a donkey reading the newspaper, you just won't understand it. But if you if apply the Lutheran Method, then your eyes will be open and then you will understand the message. This sounds to me more like the Jehovah Witness claim about need to read the books written by Russel in order to understand Scripture. I guess both never heard about the guidance of the Holy Spirit!!!

In the case of the New Reformed, if you say that that Reformers' claim that Justification by faith is not the center of the gospel, you may as well reject being a christian. Jesus' proclamation was not that all were saved by justification by faith, which of course, was a central theme that was developed by Paul, but his initial and final instructions were the following:

Mark 1:14.."The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

and:

Mark 16:15...He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.

It looks like Jesus is very consistant about what the gospel was all about, was about the kingdom. Later, and rightly, the other historical aspects were added, cf. I Cor. 15:3-7.

But what I like about the article, is that the author rightly points out that the "heart" of the gospels changes so much, from every "defender" of it, that it looks more like the gospel is an octopus, with many hearts. The octopus has 3, but my neo Reformed friends, and other conservatives, are starting to look like the Roman Catholics at the time of the Reformation, having many of Peter's heads, as well as more bones from the apostles than the apostles themselves had!!!!!!

Sounds like we got rid of some relics, to pick up another ones, more acceptable to their liking. Once the common enemy of the time, the Catholics, were "vanquished", the Protestants turned, and still turned against each other to say to the other that they were wrong. The Reformers would be turning in their graves if they would know what sort of legacy would follow their bible loving, Scripture upholding and true christian followers.

Looks like we have a long way to go in order to reach unity in the body of Christ.

Luis A. Jovel

The Development of Worship within Christianity

INTRODUCTION
Worship has always been a part of the people of God. After the fall, we are told that “people began to invoke the name of the Lord”, cf. Genesis 4:26. This, as Evelyn Underhill has commented, may be the “acknowledgment of Transcendence” . We can see that from the beginning of human kind, there has been a need to acknowledge that that is beyond us. But the definition of worship is not as straight forward as what’s being said. Underhill tells us that worship “is the response of the creature to the Eternal. Geoffrey Wainwright takes a similar view, calling worship a “faithful human response to the revelation of God’s being, character, beneficence and will. The two previous authors have focused on the response of the worshipper, from a Catholic perspective, Patrick Bishop says that worship “consists in a response of veneration in the face of the recognized presence of God”, bringing God into the act of worship along with the worshipper.

Historical Aspects of Worship
As it has been mentioned before, as described by Scripture, worship has been an integral part of humanity’s response to God’s actions around us. Christian worship in particular, borrowed from the worship liturgy found in Second Temple Judaism. Prayer was included in worship as well as the reading and exposition of a biblical passage. The two main innovations introduced by the Christians were that the main day of worship was no longer on the Sabbath, but on Sunday, and that Jesus became the focus of worship. Justin Martyr (100-165) tells us that the Gospels and the writings of the prophets were read aloud during the Christian service, cf. First Apology 67. Worship became a very integral issue in the development of Christology, since Christians saw the worship of Jesus as an integral part of their worship. If Jesus were only a creature, Christians would easily be called idolaters. The church went through great pains in order to formalise her teachings about who the person of Jesus was, and the councils of Nicea and Constantinople served to settle the dispute and affirm that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were equally deserving of our worship, since the three are equally God. It was around this period, that the worship of the Church changed greatly, since there was no need to hide from fear of persecution, and Christianity, being the official religion of the empire, took over the pagan temples. As the early type of worship had been simple in its form, it was during this time and afterwards, that ceremony took central stage in the worship practice of the church. The two stages of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Upper Room, gave way to more elaborate forms of worship. This gradually grew to such an extent that the priest was the only one doing something in the worship service, while the attendants were mere spectators. It must be mentioned that it was during this period, that the Eastern and Western parts of the church took different approaches to worship, the former taking a more mystical approach, while the later, a more rational.

By the time of the Reformation, the Reformers had a reaction to the lack of input from the congregation to the worship service. The response to the manner of worship was threefold, representing the three major trends of the time. The Roman Catholics retained the usage of musicians but with minimal congregational input; the Calvinists, abolished music all together and opted for congregational singing; and the Lutherans, was a combination of the two. For most of the Protestants, the exposition of the word became the highest reason of corporate worship. These developments from the Reformation period are more or less still present in the congregations of both Roman Catholic and Protestant persuasions, with some variations.

The Usefulness of Worship
Worship has an impact on the worshipper that goes beyond the liturgical service. As Patrick Bishop tells us, worship “imposes an ethic upon us”. Romans 12:1-2, tells us to offer ourselves in a spiritual worship, and also not to be conformed to this world. Roman Catholics see worship as the “glorification of God and the sanctification of humanity”. This aspect of worship should be paramount to those who take part of it. Too often people come our churches, take part of the worship experience, yet don’t feel compel to transform their lives to the ideals they have just sang or recited. As Underhill points out, worship “sets the awful Perfection of God over against the creature’s imperfection, it becomes the most effective cause of “conviction of sin”, and hence, of the soul’s penitence and purification”. In this I brake with some of my contemporaries that see worship as a solely spiritual exercise in which God is magnified, to no effect on us apart from feeling gratitude. This sort of worship becomes more mechanical than organic, and has no impact in us or those surrounding us.

Conclusion
Worship may take the form of an individual or corporate expression. However, as with the ethical dimension of worship, I would say that the communal act of worship should take precedent over the individualistic one. The usage of water, table, bread, and other visual aids should be welcomed and accepted as legitimate aids to our worship experience. Too many churches have come to reject such age proven aids, and have rather opted for a projector as the sole instrument to stimulate their senses to worship. Yes, the worship of Christians must always be Theo centric, but as in the case of Jesus, who lived the perfect life of worship, it must also serve to enable the worshippers to help their neighbour. Our worship does not end at the steps of the church, but goes beyond it.

Bibliography

Bishop, Patrick ‘Worship’ in The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship. Peter & Fink, Eds. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1990.

Manson, P. D. ‘Worship’ in The New Dictionary of Theology, Sinclair R. Ferguson, David F. Wright, Eds. Leicester: IVP, 1988.

Rayburn, R. G. “Worship in the Church” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd Walter A. Elwell Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Underhill, Evelyn Worship Nisbet & Co. LTD; London, 1936.

Wainwright, Geoffrey ‘Theology of Worship’, in The New Dictionary of Liturgy & Worship Paul Bradshaw Ed. London: SCM Press, 2002.

White, James F. Introduction to Christian Worship (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980.

When did churches start using instrumental music? http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/nov30.html, Christianhistory.net accessed on the 26/05/09.

Luis A. Jovel