Kyle Potter on Calvinism
Kyle mentioned sometime ago that he would be interested in posting a little mini-essay on Calvinism and Truth on my blog. Of course I said I would host it and now you all can see the fruits of his labors. I liked it and thought it to be both true and humorous. Not everyone will agree. If you want to leave a comment that is rude or mean, don't. If you really feel it neccesary to do so, email it to me. Ok, now that that's through, here's our favorite (kinda') Anglican, Kyle!
The ancient theologians of the Church believed that Truth was a Person, and that knowing truth was part and parcel of knowing the Triune God. Knowing truth is a great deal more than acknowledging and agreeing with some abstract propositions about a god. Christian truth rather enables learners to engage with the Christian god both cognitively and emotionally - this kind of knowledge is healing and healthful for the whole person, and the Body of Christ at large. Theology as a true vision of the Christian God and the revelation of that God's own self will bring with it the hope that a "life with the triune god facilitates dignity and excellence" (see Ellen Charry, By the Renewing of Your Minds: The Pastoral Function of Christian Doctrine, Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 4, 18ff.)
I try to engage and appropriate the ancient, "little c" catholic Christian vision of the Church because I believe that the Triune God has revealed the truth about God's own self and the life of the Church in that. I say "engage and appropriate" because the learning of Tradition is a critical work. It is that conviction that keeps me from becoming a Roman Catholic, and it is the determination to do the work of engagement that makes it very clear that I am not a "Protestant," either.
Learning ancient Christianity will make me a better person and disciple of Jesus.
I don't believe that fawning over Reformed doctrine will do the same thing. I think there may be something true about God and about us in some aspects of it, but I am not panting after that whole system because I don't think it will make me a better disciple of Jesus - I don't think there's much Truth or much of God in it. These things are connected.
I believe this because most Calvinists I've come across have been assholes. Not all. Not some. Most. Many of them think they're appropriation of the "truth" of Reformed doctrine requires them to behave like assholes.
I know that this is offensive to many people, but it needs to be said.
I want to offer you this example, this e-mail exchange between me and a Christian pastor in Florida. I am printing it here in its entirety. The emphases in bold type are mine, and I have of course removed the man's name and web links.
Here is the gentleman's initial e-mail.
Kyle, I'm happy that you became an Anglican. I think the baptist liturgy is boring at best and places too much emphasis on the charismatic personality of the preacher, though preaching is and should be a major focus leading up to the Lord's Supper.Clearly this guy had me pegged. See also my "What is the Emerging Church?"
However, I'm greatly troubled that you seem to have no idea about the Protestant Reformation, the English Reformation, the five solas, including justification by faith alone, or anything Evangelical. I'm also troubled that you don't see any problem with the "emergent" church movement, which is basically a capitulation to postmodernism, relativism, and anything else that compromises the essentials of the apostolic, Protestant, and catholic Christian faith.
I'm a former pentecostal myself. I came from an Assemblies of God background. Then I discovered the doctrines of God's sovereign grace and became a Calvinist. It was then that I discovered the Anglican prayer book and the 39 Articles of Religion, which are decidedly Calvinistic and Protestant. Here was a perfect union between intellectually stimulating worship, reverence, and emotionally moving worship that didn't eventually dwindle into a superficial experience with no roots. I have grown to love the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican way of worship.
Anyway, I would hope that others in the Anglican communion would find their roots in the English Reformation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is understood from the Protestant confessions of faith, particularly the 39 Articles of Religion. You might want to browse my blog, [withheld], at [withheld].
The peace of God be with you,
[withheld]
I ought to have ignored this, but I responded:
[Withheld],He responded,
Thanks for your interest, and your kind note.
In regard to evangelicalism and the Protestant Reformation, I am not well-versed in the Reformed theologians, and probably not what you call "Evangelical." Maybe I should pick up "Reform Theology for Dummies" if it's ever published; I probably haven't tried to delve into that aspect of the Christian tradition because I usually wander into the polemics before finding something quite positive. Do you have any book recommendations for me? I might add something to my reading list.
In regard to the "emergent church movement," I don't think there's a "movement," and I'm certainly not part of it if there is. I can talk about my opinions, my practices, and those of my community, and how we seek to appropriate the apostolic faith, but not about any movement. You probably glanced at the essays listed under "On the Emerging Churches" on my right sidebar; I certainly don't claim any affinity for "emergence" outside my own definitions of it.
I would note in regard to "postmodernism" and "relativism" (other than the fact that these are too often "shut-down" words) that modernism and foundationalism are not helpful alternatives. I would consider myself "postmodern" (after glancing around to see who's looking!) but only in terms of critiqing the assumptions of modernist rationalism. Whose rationality, after all, gets to describe the truth of the Gospel, which should start outside and above either modernity or postmodernity?
As N.T. Wright has said, "Post-modernity preaches the reality of the fall to arrogant modernity," letting it know that all its righteousness is as filthy rags. Modernity's competing eschatology of "salvation through rationality" in either it's atheistic materialist or religious fundamentalist forms has come to the end of itself. It's time for some humility in our epistemologies!
Blessings,
Kyle
Wow. You have the most sophisticated line of bull I've ever heard:) I guess seminary can make it sound good at least.I realized after receiving this loving correspondence that I should convert to Calvinism immediately. Or not. I wrote back:
I'm one of those stupid enough to believe that classical theology is good enough. I don't buy into modern prejudices against traditional, orthodox theology. Who's rationality should we follow? God's rationality, of course. He invented logic. Guess what? God is much smarter than finite creatures. Immanuel Kant was wrong in my opinion. We can know divine revelation from God. Revelation is not so transcendent that we can know nothing about God at all.
I thought my original post was crystal clear. Are you unfamiliar with the 39 Articles of Religion? How about the Heidelberg Catechism? Or the Westminster Longer and Shorter Catechisms? These are all available online. The Protestant Confessions of Faith are an excellent summary of Reformed theology.
Don't you even know that the Roman Catholic Church condemned the Gospel that Protestants are preaching? The canons of the Council of Trent basically curses all Protestants to hell. These anathemas have never been removed.
It truly amazes me that seminary graduates can be so ignorant of even the basic doctrines of the Bible and the Protestant Reformation. And you say you grew up in a Southern Baptist Church? Maybe the baptists have forgotten where they came from?
As for polemics, don't be afraid of a fight. The Gospel is worth fighting over. Irenaeus fought the gnostics. Augustine fought the pelagians. Athanasius fought the Arians. Paul fought against the Judaizers and even rebuked Peter for siding with them. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the same one that Protestants gave their lives defending. It is the gospel taught by Augustine and Aquinas and Athanasias. It is the same Gospel that was further clarified by Martin Luther, John Calvin, Philip Melancthon and Ulrich Zwingli.
If you really want to understand Reformed theology I would suggest that you give The Institutes of the Christian Religion a serious read. While you're at it, you might want to read J.I. Packer's translation of Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will. Lutheran theology is not exactly "Reformed" because it's not "calvinistic."
And for a serious critique of modern theology from a Reformed and Evangelical position? There is no greater systematic theology than Carl F. H. Henry's God, Revelation and Authority. It's 6 volumes but well worth the read. Henry isn't Anglican but he is an excellent scholar and gives the best critique of neo-orthodoxy and liberal theology that I have ever read.
I hope you'll forgive me for being blunt but I think you're full of pride because of the whole seminary education thing. Have you ever considered that you might not be a Christian at all? Having a seminary education, belonging to a church or being ordained as a minister with some mainline church doesn't make you a Christian. Only God can make you a Christian.
I graduated from a Wesleyan holiness seminary over ten years ago. [I learned from his blog that it was Asbury Theology Seminary. How embarrassing for them.] I have learned much more AFTER leaving seminary than I learned during seminary. Why? Because I use my time now to explore the areas of interest to me. I enjoy reading classical theology much more than modernist and liberal and neo-orthodox theology, though I have read my share of that stuff as well. But the bottom line is this: you can't spot the counterfeit until you have known the genuine article. When you really understand the law and the Gospel you will recognize that which is false right away.
May God show you the way back to the doctrines of grace and the same Gospel that the Apostle Paul preached.
Sincerely,
[Withheld]
Well, that was more than a little rude. I consider our correspondence closed.And I let him have his final shot before putting him on my "block" list.
May Christ's peace be upon you.
Kyle
I thought your response was both ignorant and rude. Christianity is indeed in trouble.All I've got to say is, what a bloody baby! He's the associate minister at an REC church in Florida. I could even tell you which one.
If you were offended, consider how offended "I" was.
This joker is not the reason I'm so uninterested in Calvinism. Why Roger Jasper is a Calvinist, and I'll listen to him anytime. But this e-mail exchange is far more representative of my encounters with Calvinists than the ones I've had with those who are kind, caring Christians.
In short, nobody's going to believe you know the truth if it doesn't make you a better person.
posted by -mike- at 9:13 AM
24 Comments:
The last line resonates especially with me.
"...nobody's going to believe you know the truth if it doesn't make you a better person."
Amen.
Oh, yes sir, Kyle.
That's how it's done, ladies and gentlemen.
It's funny - I've honestly never had a pleasant conversation with a Calvinist, ever. Well, maybe one time...but that doesn't count.
Oh, a correction to the last bit: I did some checking up on the featured interlocutor, and discovered that he spends his time on Anglican watchblogs talking about what crap Anglo-Catholics are, what crap his local bishop is, and how he left his church because the pastor's a theonomist. I don't even know what that is...
his mom's a theonomist.
i enjoyed the correspondance just as much the second time through it. :-)
Kyle and Mike et al -
I hesitated to comment on this post because I am a Calvinist, but being the argumentative typical Calvinist, how could I resist?
First, Kyle, I believe that I have run into your mysterious penpal on the blogosphere at other times. I, also, will not reveal his name, but I will say, that as a Calvinist, I also had to block this person from my blog for belligerent comments and very narrow thinking. The moral of the story is, please pick a better representative of Calvinism before setting up a model Calvinist. I could set up a very similar person, who is Anglican, and conclude that his life and conduct did not persuade me to his side. The argument is no argument at all. Some of the nicest people I have ever known are atheists, but I am certainly not persuaded to their side. The criterion is simply not sufficient to test truth because all are sinners, and if it were the only criterion, no one would come to Christ.
Second, where is Calvinism in the post? Where is the interaction with the theology? The reader does not even know what you mean by Calvinism because you have not defined the term. There are many "Calvinisms" out there, and it would be nice to know which stereotype you are bashing.
Third, Mike, I hope I have not yet transgressed your preface, but why doesn't the preface apply to the post itself? Where is the Christian charity so touted in this post, the one which Christians, who are not Calvinists, apparently show? I realize that some Christian Calvinists have probably been the source of some offence to Kyle et al in the past, but that is no reason to talk about them as assholes in the present.
I am not offended, personally, but I was disappointed in the lack of Christian charity, both in tone and lack of valid research, which are so highly prized by Kyle.
john i agree. well said. may WE all love the Lord with all of our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves.
mike
Before I became a "big C" Catholic, I had many hoping I would become a Calvinist. My wife and all her family were Calvinistic Baptists. I read some Spurgeon, Sproul, Boettner, and Piper.
The reason it didn't stick: there is just too much Bible that doesn't talk about the world the way a calvinist would. I ain't talking about proof texts either. I'm talking basic assumptions about the way things work and how we talk about our faith.
Course, now I reject calvinism because it's heresy. And Thomism is much cooler!
PS. Your interlocutor doesn't understand what Trent or what anathema means.
Kyle,
It is sad that you had to run into a calvinist like that. I am a Calvinist [I am probably not the best represenative either :(] and I found the clergyman that you were discussing this with was less than christian.
You say that there is nothing helpful in the Reformed Tradition. I would point to modern books by John Piper, D.A. Carson, Kevin Vanhoozer, J.I. Packer, C.J. Mahoney ( I know a lot of people do not like him because he is a Calvinist), Alister Begg, and from what I hear N.T. Wright maybe a Calvinist! (if someone wants to correct about Wright I would appreciate it. If I am wrong that is.)
The dead writers I would suggest Calvin, Luther's freedom of the Christian, Herman Ribberdos, George Eldon Ladd, and others.
I also did find your post to be lacking in charity and rather offensive. I understand that you have had some bad experiences with Calvinism, but I could say the same about many Arminians, Molinists, or adherents to anyother theological position that I have personally encountered. Pride in theology is not the sole domain of Calvinism. I have noticed, personally, that any study of theology tends to inflate the head if one is not careful.
I could point out many Calvinist who are very humble: C.J. Mahoney, John Piper, J.I. Packer, John Frame, Mark Seifreid (Pauline Scholar), Tom Schreiner (Pauline Scholar), and a host of others. I also know many "lay-calvinist" that are very humble. All of my best friends are calvinist and they are not cold, arrogant, or "assholes" as you would say most calvinist are. They have been there with me through thick and thin and helped me even when I have fallen into sin.
The whole problem that I have with your post is that you generalize from your experience and that is never helpful. Please do not take this as me being a Calvinistic jerk, that is not my intention I just want to caution you before you start criticizing.
John, upon further reflection, I really suspect my "conversation" partner might actually be mentally ill or something. And my title is a misnomer; I am aware that I have made no argument against Calvinism. The point is that there can be no points for or against a particular doctrine if the people who hold to that doctrine seem to be bad people. I know some Calvinists who are good people, and treat people well. I've known more who wear what they believe to be their doctrinal correctness on their sleeve and understand it as license to treat their brothers and sisters poorly.
I have some Calvinist friends, and I respect and even admire them. My point in a sentence is this, "Calvinists! Nobody believes you have the truth if you're ugly to people!"
And yes, I think this has some validity as a test of truth, because I believe that Jesus saves sinners by re-creating them. Jesus makes us better people, if he does anything to us at all.
Yes, I was talking about the "label" of Calvinism rather than Calvinism as such.
John, you're debunking my argument by calling me a big meanie? I didn't attack you. I'm talking about my experience. If it's so "disappointing" to you, maybe something will stick. I want Calvinists to ask themselves if they're reflecting Jesus in a meaningful way in the way they talk about it.
And yes, I think I can and do reflect that when I say that this guy's religion seems ugly, though it might have little to do with "Calvinism" as such.
Cheers, Chad. Ha!
Love's Work, I didn't say there is nothing helpful in the Reformed tradition. That's how I'm being read, but I didn't say it. I don't believe it, either. I said it's hard to see what it is that's so valuable, because I've known so many Calvinists who were assholes. I have some Calvinist friends!
I don't generalize from this experience; I present it as an example of my normal encounters with most calvinists.
Cheers, everybody!
Okay, this post has very little to do with both "Calvinism" and "truth." Reads like a hatchet job.
I'd like to append Kyle's last line to read "nobody's going to believe you know the truth if a) it doesn't make you a better person and b) you actually know what you're talking about."
Seems like both parties in this post (and the rest of us as well) could take heed. And I'm not a Calvinist.
My favorite part was "Only God can make you a Christian." I may have this whole thing wrong but I really thought the choice and free agency God created was out their on the table.
I thought you CHOSE to believe and trust in God? Correct me if I'm wrong of course!!
Brian
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sure, Brian. As has been addressed, the piece isn't actually about the tenets of Calvinism. :0)
Kyle -
This will be my last comment on the issue.
My point is simple: the very behavior that you condemn in Calvinists is the very behavior you display in your post. Your ethos is no more charitable than your conversation partner's.
My second point is related to the first. If you were not persuaded by your conversation partner's ethos, then no one will be persuaded by your own.
Third, I am not "debunking your argument" because I did not see an argument to debunk. As soon as I realized what your point was (ethos is tied to the validity and persuasiveness of an argument), I dismissed it because you were guilty of the same fallacy.
I am a little confused by your statement about attacking me. you were not attacking me, but then you hope that "it will stick." You want Calvinists (I guess me included) to ask themselves if they are reflecting Jesus in a meaningful way in the way they talk about it. So you are making a statement about me, which stems from your generalization of Calvinists.
You say that you are not generalizing, but you are. The whole post hangs on a generalization, and other readers caught this point as well.
Next time, I would attempt to know more about the Reformed tradition before taking a swing at it. I recommend the poetry of William Cowper, particularly, God Moves in Mysterious Ways His Wonders to Perform, for a great example of Reformed edificatory literature.
Sorry, mate. I don't share your conviction that it's bad or unloving to criticize someone's behavior. I've not called anyone names in the piece, I've not said I don't like Calvinists, and I've not said that there's nothing helpful or true in the Reformed tradition. And I think there are Calvinists out there who stop and consider how other people see and hear them. Maybe you're one of them. I hope so.
Thanks for reading, just the same.
Kyle,
If I misread what you said about Reformed Theology I apologize, but your words about there not being much truth/edification in the Reformed Tradition is I think is still a misrepresentation. Again allow me to agree with you on the matter of a disconnect between faith and action in the life of much of evangelical theology. This however does not discount the tradition, I can point out people in ANY tradition that disconnect faith and action, and I would say much of the people in any Christian group is guilty of this dichotomy. (Remember the book of James!)
I would finally like to point out a little from personal experience and a paradox/contradiction(?) that goes along with it. I have found that the moments where I realize that God is Sovereign in the sense of the absolute sovereignty taugh by I would argue the OT, Jesus, and Paul, and what we find in much of Reformed theology makes me realize my own dependance on God. Not only does it make me realize absolute Dependance, but also that I should be humble. The moments where I become an arrogant jerk are when I lose sight of this all encompassing vision of God's Holiness and Sovereignty. I am of course not saying that the rest of the Christian tradition does not make God sovereign only what I have experienced in bringing my theological tradition to life.
This leads me to think that the problem is not one of Calvinism, Arminianism, Othodoxy, or what have you. The problem is actually much deeper than that: sinfulness. We all desire to be right over loving one another and the only way we will ever find a way out of this problem is to Abide in Christ and bear the fruits of a Christ-follower.
Blake
Kyle said, "I've not called anyone names in the piece." Since when is calling someone an asshole, not considered name calling? Either you forgot you said this about others, you've redefined name-calling, or you are being disintegrous. It seems to be bad blogging either way.
My Dad is a 'Calvinist' in the sense that he believes that it is only God that can make you a Christian. He was excommunicated from several churches for saying so. It is however, scriptural. On the other hand, I also believe that we are free to choose or reject God, and to be responsible for that decision. This apparent contradiction is beyond human logic, but then so is the trinity. Why do we have to try to limit God to our own understanding?
As to the personailities that we present, well most denominations and movements have been guilty of burning their opponents at the stake (literally or metaphorically) at some point. Can we stop, now, please?
Oh, haha! I forgot about the asshole thing. Yep, the guy who e-mailed me was an asshole. I still don't see anything wrong with saying so...
So if I changed the title of the piece, and refrained from calling my guy an asshole, would you have been willing to deal with what I actually did say?
Blake, you're right. The fact that asshole calvinists exist doesn't thoroughly discredit Reformed theology. When Calvinists act like jerks, they do a disservice to the theological tradition of which they claim to be exemplars. This is true with Christians generally as well.
I'm trying to offer a challenge to Calvinists generally: demonstrate by your words and lives that your doctrine is true and healthful and healing, especially in light that so many of your co-religionists work hard to do just the opposite.
By the way, Blake, I've only met you once, and I think you're a pretty nice guy. I don't think you're a jerk at all. And as for these other folks, I don't know, because I've not met them. I've made a summary of my experience and I was curious as to how upsetting it would be to both the Calvinists who are jerks and those who are not. I guess I've found out?
Do Calvinists come across as superoir, unpleasant and doctrine bashing? In the replies to this post any way! By arguimg over details you prove Kyle right, don´t you see that?
(By the way - the misspelling of superior and arguing was intentional. I wouldn´t want to leave without anything to comment on in my comment)
Astor,
Actually, Kyle shows himself to be just as uncharitable as the people he is talking about. Furthermore, he sees no problem with slandering someone's character. This discussion hasn't "proved" his point. If anything, he's proved he doesn't have any idea how to interact with these people.
Calling someone an asshole in one's own defense might win one points with the lowbrow crowd, but it's a good way to discredit oneself in front of people who actually know what the issues are about, especially over the net. We're all guilty of this or something similar at some time or other. But until Kyle can actually show something of substance instead of making such a general character attack, we might see if the local garage band needs any extra cymbals.
The self proclaimed "point" of the entry: "The point is that there can be no points for or against a particular doctrine if the people who hold to that doctrine seem to be bad people."
That is the definition of ad hominem and it is an argumentative fallacy. And name calling, generalizing, etc. is an unloving and hypocritical approach in light of the many "points" of the entry.
Hopefully most careful readers catch the hypocrisy and conflations throughout the author's words, thoughts, and actions here.
Mike I have to say that I am very glad of Kyle's essay on Calvinism, but boy did that turn into a row! It was a case in point, however, and I think he is right to stand his ground. Its so true that when we use labels for ourselves such as 'calvinist' or 'Armenian' etc. we get very easily upset at any generalised criticism whether justified or not - when it's aimed at us. It is therefore right that we feel we can speak out of our own experience - its honest - even if that experience has been negative. I pray that we all get to a place where we can look at ourselves in an honest light.
yeah i'm pretty sure that everytime i've talked theology with a proclaimed Calivinist, I've gotten really pissed. Not because I don't believe in Calvinism, but because I don't know how to deal with passages of scriptures that conflict with other passages or with Calvins tulip, but they do know how to deal with those conflicts, and they are really extremely right and can't be wrong, and they tell me how really extremely right they are and how really extremely wrong I am, and then I feel really extremely low because they flaunted every bit of knowledge they had over my stupid head, or really extremely angry cause they were jerk-offs and ignorant of my history/tradition. Yeah thats how a typical Calvinist/non-Calvinist theological conversation goes for me. I'm not saying that all Calvinists are arrogant, just the ones I've met. I have found a favorite way out of the debates though: I guess I'm just not Calvinist cause I don't have choice in the matter.
Post a Comment
<< Home