Book Review: A Generous Orthodoxy Part 17 of ??
Calvinist
McLaren, despite his "I am" formula, would not appear to be a Calvinist, but he does find some things he appreciates regarding Calvinism and the Reformed tradition. He writes that when he was growing up anti-intellectualism was rampant, and it was writers like Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, Os Guinnes, and J.I. Packer that gave him "a challenge and permission to think."
He writes that their doctrine gave Calvinists great confidence that, although it produced many good results, also produced bad ones. Bad results included the same sort of power games and persecutions of others in Calvinist Switzerland as had occurred under the Roman Catholic Church, support for apartheid in South Africa, and a contribution to the "Manifest Density" in the U.S. that sometimes abused the Native Peoples. McLaren thinks that Calvinists need to learn from their mistakes.
McLaren calls Calvinism, in terms of intellectual rigor, "the highest expression of modern Christianity." Some in Calvinist circles view this as an insult, assuming that McLaren equates all things modern with bad; however that's not an accurate understanding of McLaren's view of things modern. McLaren himself calls this statement, "a sincere compliment - and a gentle warning." He goes on to say that he thinks Calvinists are in for an identity crisis as they are forced to face a world that is increasingly becoming more post-modern than modern.
McLaren thinks that the Calvinist/Reformed tradition has some resources that could allow it to successfully face this crisis, one of which is the slogan semper reformanda, meaning always reforming . This is something that McLaren feels some in the Reformed tradition have missed out on, in that they have not kept reforming their theology and practice in order to, as McLaren quotes John Franke, "better bear witness to the eternal truth of the gospel in an ever-changing context."
McLaren suggests, in a move that he had to know would be controversial, that Calvinists rework their TULIP acronym of doctrine in the spirit of semper reformanda. McLaren's suggests a TULIP of: Triune love, Unselfish election, Limitless reconciliation, Inspiring grace, and Passionate, persistent saints. Obviously, this TULIP wouldn't be particularly Calvinist, but the uncharitable reaction to it (by some who think any questioning of Calvinist doctrine is questioning of the gospel) lends credence to my fear that some people, those who really like their systematic theology, may be in danger of making their theology into an idol.
McLaren, despite his "I am" formula, would not appear to be a Calvinist, but he does find some things he appreciates regarding Calvinism and the Reformed tradition. He writes that when he was growing up anti-intellectualism was rampant, and it was writers like Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, Os Guinnes, and J.I. Packer that gave him "a challenge and permission to think."
He writes that their doctrine gave Calvinists great confidence that, although it produced many good results, also produced bad ones. Bad results included the same sort of power games and persecutions of others in Calvinist Switzerland as had occurred under the Roman Catholic Church, support for apartheid in South Africa, and a contribution to the "Manifest Density" in the U.S. that sometimes abused the Native Peoples. McLaren thinks that Calvinists need to learn from their mistakes.
McLaren calls Calvinism, in terms of intellectual rigor, "the highest expression of modern Christianity." Some in Calvinist circles view this as an insult, assuming that McLaren equates all things modern with bad; however that's not an accurate understanding of McLaren's view of things modern. McLaren himself calls this statement, "a sincere compliment - and a gentle warning." He goes on to say that he thinks Calvinists are in for an identity crisis as they are forced to face a world that is increasingly becoming more post-modern than modern.
McLaren thinks that the Calvinist/Reformed tradition has some resources that could allow it to successfully face this crisis, one of which is the slogan semper reformanda, meaning always reforming . This is something that McLaren feels some in the Reformed tradition have missed out on, in that they have not kept reforming their theology and practice in order to, as McLaren quotes John Franke, "better bear witness to the eternal truth of the gospel in an ever-changing context."
McLaren suggests, in a move that he had to know would be controversial, that Calvinists rework their TULIP acronym of doctrine in the spirit of semper reformanda. McLaren's suggests a TULIP of: Triune love, Unselfish election, Limitless reconciliation, Inspiring grace, and Passionate, persistent saints. Obviously, this TULIP wouldn't be particularly Calvinist, but the uncharitable reaction to it (by some who think any questioning of Calvinist doctrine is questioning of the gospel) lends credence to my fear that some people, those who really like their systematic theology, may be in danger of making their theology into an idol.
posted by Freethinker at 12:45:00 PM
4 Comments:
Of all the chapters in this book, this one seems to be the one that I would like to read page by page. I tend to lean more towards the "Calvinist" side of theology but I bet Brian would be able to help me better understand things in light of Christ.
Good review for me.
And BIG props for bringing your pops to the Christmas eve gathering. Hope he was encouraged.
Stephen wrote, "I tend to lean more towards the "Calvinist" side of theology."
That's it, I'm not coming Thursday.
Just joking.
Or am I?
It has never occured to me to lump the calvinists and the fundamentalists into one group, as he seems to do. Some of the strictest Christians (whom I would call fundamentalists) that I’ve ever known were Arminians (Free Methodists, from the Holiness tradition). (I should also say that not all Free Methodists I have known were as strict as these particular ones, and as time has gone by some of the strictness in certain areas has relaxed.)
I think some of the chapters combine things simply so that there won't be too many chapters.
There is alot of overlap though, that is I think it is fair to say that most Calvinists could be considered Fundamentalists. Obviously, there's also alot of non-Calvinist Fundamentalists.
Some holiness groups do have alot in common with Fundamentalists, although generally I think they would be classified more as Evangelicals.
However, all of this varies depending on who is doing the labeling of course.
Post a Comment
<< Home