A few weeks ago I posted a short review of Ken Stewart’s new book, 10 Myths About Calvinism. Ken was kind enough to comment on that post and to grant me an interview via email. I’m thankful for his time and his insights into the Reformed Movement among evangelicals.
1. I have seen (and heard) one blogger cite you as saying that “The Calvinism of our age has a vehement, belligerent streak to it” (p.88). Would you care to expound upon that statement?
As I recall it, Craig, this statement is made in connection with the TULIP discussion. In that discussion, I have divided today’s conservative Calvinists into two sub-groups: apologetic and sovereign grace. I would say that the belligerence and vehemence is associated mostly (but not exclusively) with the sovereign grace outlook. I wonder if you have encountered this viewpoint too? In the hands of this type of Calvinist, TULIP becomes like the jawbone in the hand of Samson: a weapon with which to take swipes at those whose evangelicalism falls short of it. I think we have to face up to the possibility that when Calvinism descends to this level, it is really a form of fundamentalism because it cannot look critically at itself and it cannot detect when theological abuse or bullying is underway. I have directly observed this attitude in students and notice it in bloggers. The idea is that if you don’t know what TULIP is, if you don’t rejoice in it, if you con’t take it over holus-bolus without any qualification whatsoever, then you are some kind of a doctrinal midget. I want mostly to say: this is no necessary part of the Reformed stance. People who have lapsed into this kind of theological thuggery need a ‘fact check’. My book shows that TULIP is not the time-honored, venerable standard that they make it out to be. They are defending a citadel which is cardboard. There is no beauty in the Reformed faith set out this way.
1. b. You draw the distincition between sovereign grace and apologetic Calvinists. Can you clarify, are you speaking of those as apologists who defend and argue for Calvinists or reformed apologetics and are you speaking of sovereign grace in terms of the denomination (C.J. Mahaney) or your own definition.
This is a distinction (sovereign grace/apologetic) which I introduce on the 2nd or 3rd page of the chapter on TULIP. It has no direct reference to Mahaney or his churches of that name (though, by tendency they would belong more to the tendency that I term sovereign grace). The basic distinction is that sovereign grace Calvinists largely try to articulate, explain and defend their Calvinist doctrines in reliance on favorite authors (such as Pink, Boettner etc) whereas apologetic Calvinists — being conscious of the ‘gap’ between TULIP and what the Reformed confessions actually say — take it upon themselves to explain (or redefine) TULIP with reference to the Confessions and the actual teaching of Reformed theology. For the first group, TULIP becomes the Procrustean bed that Reformed theology is stretched to fit; for the second, wider Reformed theology is used to redefine or re-work TULIP. Now in fact, I have been bashed by some PCA Presbyterians for my questioning of TULIP; they are giving a higher loyalty to TULIP than to the Westminster Confession. They should know better. The apologetic Calvinist is one who wants to do everything he can to present Calvinist belief in a winsome and biblical light rather than a pugnacious and pure-system light. But though I lump myself in with the apologetic group, I maintain that even the apologetic type (take RC Sproul for example) have been too wedded to TULIP given the fact that it is an early 20th century invention.
2. You seem more concerned with emphasizing a broad reformed theology rather than a more narrow Calvinism. What values do you see in the larger Reformed camp that are not present in a more narrow form of Calvinism?
Definitely yes. The broadly Reformed theology is reflected in the Reformed confessionsn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (which include the London Baptist and Savoy Confessions). The main selling point is that these, as collective efforts, guard against the peculiarities or excesses of any particular individual. They also reflect the sincere desire to buff off the rough edges of the Calvinism of the middle of the sixteenth century. I also mean to argue that this tendency of ameliorating or sweetening of Calvinism continued right into the 19th century. Calvinism came to be restated in simpler, less militant and more irenic forms. This is reflected in the 1830’s era New Hampshire Baptist Confession, Congregational Union articles etc (all in Schaff). Besides this chronological development, there is also breadth of conviction in terms of latitude. Sunday has not been uniformly viewed the way the Puritans viewed it (as the Christian Sabbath). Calvinists have never been as uniform in understanding the atonement in relation to election as the TULIP people want us to believe. The English delegation to the Synod of Dordt (all of which were Anglicans) went there holding to universal redemption and came home holding the same perspective. I am tired of hearing strident Calvinists treating this viewpoint (which I emphasize is not mine) as if it was a piece of Calvinist treachery. So it comes down to the standards by which we define Calvinist boundaries. My insistence is that the lines have been drawn too tightly.
3. If Tulip is not the yardstick of Calvinism (or Reformed Theology), what is the yardstick or should there be one?
As above, the Reformed confessions from the sixteenth century to the present.
4. You make a great point on page 158 that there would never have been complaints of antinomianism if there had not been some evidence that such attitudes and ideas existed. Do you see evidence in the current Reformed Movement of the kind of antinomianism that many outside of the Reformed camp fear?
This requires an answer at two levels. At the practical level, I fear that today’s evangelicals (Calvinists among them) are ‘backing in’ to a kind of practical Antinomianism. Older standards or holiness compared to worldliness are being dissipated. We are being entertained by things that previous generations of Christians would stand aghast at. Nothing is ‘verboten’; nothing is ‘taboo’. And today’s evangelicals dismiss concern about such things with the explanation that by this concession we are “engaging culture”. I am not in favor of cultural isolationism. But I am in favor of distinctive Christian standards. Today license is winning out. I stress that this is not a problem for Calvinists and no one else. But it remains true that Calvinists are capable of mounting a more sophisticated defense of this engaging of culture than most other evangelicals.
At the theoretical level, I do believe that this problem must be dealt with also. I am impressed by the recent on-line writings of Kevin DeYoung on this subject. Read him carefully and you will know that he believes that antinomianism exists today. It exists where people abandon or dismiss the principle of progressive sanctification and settle for a positional sanctification which is indistinguishable from justification. According to this latter understanding, justified Christians remain at best miserable sinners whose lives can offer nothing to God other than brokenness and failure. This is treadmill Christianity. Earlier generations of evangelical and Reformed Christians knew better.
5. To what would you credit the recent rise in reformed theology among young evangelicals?
Its stress on a God who is transcendant (larger than our feelings or sensations) and whose ability to act far exceeds our ability to ask or think. Its dogmatic certainty at a time of theological downgrade among a lot of evangelicals. But there is also a dark side to this. There is a cult of personality associated with the current growth of Calvinism (just as there is in the charismatic world). There is also too much junketeering off to this or that conference; the implication is that the best food for the Christian is always available in conferences. JC Ryle in his _Holiness_ warned against what he called ‘spiritual dram-drinking’. Its back with a vengeance.
6. What is your opinion of John MacArthur’s recent critique of the Young Restless and Reformed movement?
I have only heard of this second-hand; I know that he has been especially outspoken in condemning Mark Driscoll. I have in common with John MacArthur that I am what he calls a “heritage” Christian. My piety, hymnody, worship preferences run along highly conventional and traditional lines. Where I differ (on this question) is that I do not think it fair or safe to assume that all new Reformed vitality will look like what I already admire. This is a problem dividing the Reformed family globally. I do not mean that this is a matter of indifference. In the epilogue to my book I warn contemporary Calvinist movements to beware going forward without historic markers of Reformed worship and praise. But I also warn traditionalists to beware of being ‘fogeyish’ according to which, the Calvinist future looks just like it did in generations past. According to that standard, Calvinism must simply recycle.
7. Where do you see the Reformed movement in 10 or 20 years?
Very hard to say. Were it not for umbrella efforts like Gospel Coalition and so on, I could see a lot of fracturing and polarization beyond what we already see. I also see potential division in the Calvinist future over how to relate to broad American evangelicalism. There are already outspoken voices wishing for its further demise so that Calvinism can be the last man standing. A wiser course is to aim at the resuscitating of our faltering evangelicalism and re-infusing it with what are basically Reformation ideals. We should also refrain from looking on Wesleyan-Arminian-Holiness-Pentecostal evangelicalism as beyond recovery; there are many stalwart evangelical people in these movements with whom we have much in common and who share with us many deep evangelical loyalties. All this to say that I would like the Calvinist future to be broad, not narrow, and open to cooperation and collaboration with evangelical people with whom our convictions substantially (though not totally) overlap.
