The book has been on the market for a couple of years now, so this review happens on the scene considerably late. Still, I decided it would prove useful for me to gather together some thoughts on the topic and for others interested in the topic of Reformed theology and/or Calvinism and the cultural impact this “new Calvinism” is having. It should be said from the outset that this work is a brief survey (156 pages) written at the popular level, and it doesn’t presume to necessarily contribute anything to the scholarly discussion of certain theological discussions. What it does seek to do is offer a picture of a new form of Calvinism that makes certain breaks with its traditional school of thought, and traces especially the movement’s development from places like campus ministries, seminary faculties, conferences, churches, and the media.
The title reveals that the movement is characterized by a younger generation who has grown restless with the various forms of Christianity that supposedly now lack appeal. Allow me to say from the beginning that I really enjoyed the read–it helped bring clarity to the growing trend many in the church have already noticed. Generally, Hansen–an admitted Calvinist–merely sought to report what was happening, so this kind of work shouldn’t upset anyone on the other side of the spectrum (notice the subtitle, “A journalist’s journey with the New Calvinists”). Still, at some parts in the work it was hard to tell whether the point being made was an objective presentation of a fact or a wonderfully composed paragraph to persuade its readers. Whatever his intention, in the end the ambiguity may simply further demonstrate his ability as a writer, i.e. very sneaky work!
Some of the points I would like to focus on are the following:
- Certain characteristics presented as unique to Calvinism which in fact are not, misleading the reader to believe Calvinism/Reformed theology has a monopoly on “sound doctrine.”
- Provide a very brief critique of some Calvinism’s main points.
- Emphasize the implications of some of Reformed theology’s points, which will impact how you do ministry.
I won’t cover it all, or offer a full review. I want to focus on just some of the points that are significant. Here it goes.
- Pg. 15-17: John Piper’s famous quote “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him” is not unique to Calvinism. Neither is his point that the glory of God is the ultimate theme of preaching and the focus of worship music, nor his point that God’s glory and sovereignty should be the subject of worship songs. All evangelicals affirm this. There is simply a different understanding of what God’s sovereignty entails, and how God receives glory. Worship songs that praise God for what he is doing in the lives of his people is just as much God-glorifying as those which treat the Godhead more directly. This comports well with the picture we have in the Psalms.
- Pg. 22: He quotes Joshua Harris who talks about how some Christians who discover Reformed theology like to speak of experiencing a type of second rebirth. Let’s be fair—if this is true about those people, it’s probably because they never understood the Gospel or were never saved to start.
- Pg. 22-24: He speaks of “moralistic therapeutic deism” in American evangelicalism as if its the only alternative to Reformed theology. This is a terrible false dilemma. Consider the theology of John Wesley, pentecostalism/charismatics, Free Will Baptists, various Pietist, Holiness, and mainline Protestant denominations and what you’ll discover is that these are no pop-psychology type theologies.
- Pg. 29: J. I. Packer is quoted speaking on John Piper’s ministry saying, “He gives them the sense that passionate thinking is at the essence of real life.” This would be an unfortunate concession. I thought the essence of real life is love. I’m surprised that those in such an anti-humanistic ideology (Reformed theology) would have such high praise for thinking.
- Pg. 35-37: Hansen gets into an exposition of sorts on the doctrine of total depravity. Unfortunately, his presentation suffers from inconsistencies, jumps in logic, and quotes from Calvinist pastors that might rightfully be considered offensive to non-Calvinists. His treatment of Ephesians 2:1 doesn’t answer what we’re incapable of doing while dead in our trespasses. Gen. 6:5, Gen. 8:2, and Rom. 7:18, which describe man’s depravity are pieced together with passages like Isa. 64:6, and then concludes that man is incapable of doing any good. Even the quote used from Isa. 64:6 states that man can perform righteous acts. Does Scripture contradict itself then? This goes to prove that often times we read Scripture very shallowly, ignoring contextual and literary complexities. Finally, consider the assertion made by Andrew Knight (a minister at Bethleem Baptist Church): “You may never feel the weight, you will never feel the wonder of grace until you finally relinquish your claim to have any part in your salvation. It has to be unconditional.” Arminians must be deceived then! I think it rather presumptuous to make such a statement, as if a person can measure the awe for God another Christian stores in her heart.
- Pg. 42-44: He quotes a young lady, “…Never, ever in the Bible do people initiate a relationship with God.” To be fair, never, ever in Arminian theology do people initiate a relationship with God either! ”It was the most freeing thing to realize that their salvation is not dependent on me spending enough time with them or me explaining the gospel in the best way or me being an expert in the language. It freed me up to love being there even if I wasn’t seeing fruit.” However you feel about such an approach to evangelism, do realize the implications it has. Unfortunately, this is a complex issue and we would have to clarify what we mean by “salvation being dependent on,” so we can’t do justice to it here. But do notice that in the ministry of both Jesus and Paul “salvation was dependent” on how they presented the Gospel message. See Acts 17:2 “As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures” and 2 Cor. 2:4 “For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you.” This doesn’t sound like what the person Hansen quotes is celebrating. Consider especially the strenuous, persistent, passionate, often tense relationships Paul had with the churches he planted. To deny this is to fall into a relaxed approach to evangelism and shrug off our moral (spiritual) duty to fulfill the Great Commission. Granted, the connection between unconditional election and evangelism has long been explored and debated. I am simply submitting that we should recognize how a theology can affect our approach to evangelism. In other words, theology matters–the stakes are high.
- Pg. 73: On discussing Albert Mohler’s role in restoring the doctrine of inerrancy to SBTS, one of the ideas inserted back into the seminary’s Abstract of Principles is “God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs, and governs all creatures and all events.” The issue here is Determinism. Calvinists have a hard time avoiding the conclusion of fatalism–which states that God caused/willed everything to happen (including evil, the fall etc.). Here’s the problem: the way the proposition in the Abstract of Principles is constructed makes it extremely ambiguous and ultimately uncontroversial. The conditions “or permits” and “perpetually” causes the statement to simply contradict itself at worse, and say nothing that would make it unique from Arminianism or Deism at best. The New Calvinists want to avoid double predestination (also referred to as supralapsarianism) and fatalism, but find it hard to do so while remaining consistent in their theology.
I realize these are very sensitive and complex issues, so I don’t want the hub of this post to focus on critiquing Calvinism or Reformed theology per se. I simply wanted to expose how the book does not fairly reflect important details about opposing viewpoints, doesn’t develop some of the logical implications of the people Hansen quotes, and fails to show the connection between theology and praxis, all the while painting New Calvinism in a rather favorable light from a considerably nonobjective perspective.
To be continued.
