Does Mark Driscoll Not Understand Calvinism?
Today Time Magazine published an article suggesting that “the New Calvinism” is the 3rd most influential idea changing the world right now. In Response Driscoll quickly put up a response. He said:
1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
3. Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.
Does anyone else think that Mark Driscoll is the last guy not the guy who should speak about Old Calvinism (if there is such a thing), and does anyone else think that after his comments above it seems like he doesn’t really understand Calvinism?
Of course guys who go to his church, or people who are big fans of Driscoll will think Im just another bitter and back biting “Old” Calvinism. Well I’m not, but I do think that its important for people to say “hold up.” On top of it I think the idea of dividing the new and old, Of saying we are not those guys, is divisive and not productive.
I think what Driscoll is trying to distinguish here is the approach of modern day Calvinists from that taken by the puritans. Such ideas as separatism seems to be what he is getting at in most of it. Also the strong denominational boundaries that were prevalent in the time period of the puritans also. This seems more what he is arguing against rather than against Calvin’s institutes. Whether I agree with his views on these things is a completely different issue though…
It seems like Neo-Calvinism is just Old-Calvinism but without the presumed baggage that everyone outside of the Reformed circles accuses those inside of having. And a lot of the presumed baggage is really hyper-Calvinism; some people assume that because you’re a Calvinist you don’t believe in prayer, evangelism, etc.
So, no, I’m not sure Driscoll “gets” Calvinism. If he did, I don’t think he’d be drawing this distinction.
Said in my most crotchety reformed-speak:
1. Wrong. (Kuyper, et al)
2. Wrong. (Chalmers, et al)
3. Wrong. (Edwards, et al)
4. Wrong. (Whitefield, et al)
If Driscoll had said Truly Reformed vs. New Reformed – yeah, maybe. But when I read his list I see him slagging off a great heritage of effectively doing those 4 things and putting himself in as the true and best expression of “reformed”. Which makes me grumpy.
Maybe the term they are looking for is neocalvinism?
“It seems like Neo-Calvinism is just Old-Calvinism”
Clarification is necessary here. New Calvinism is Driscoll’s thing; old Calvinism is not Driscoll’s thing; and Neo-Calvinism is a technical term used to describe Kuyperian and Dooyeweerdian philosophy and theory. This is a legitimate and truly Calvinistic school of thought.
Thanks,
Chris