The Flipside of Calvinism: What I Threw Out

The Flipside of Calvinism

What I Threw Out

By David Drury

There is another side to the coin of Calvinism. In this follow up to “What I Learned from the Calvinists” I’ll let you know what I threw out from the Calvinists. Sure, there are a lot of good things to learn from people that identify themselves as Calvinists. But there are perhaps just as many behaviors that it seems Calvinism as a theology tends to lead to that I’d rather not learn. Here are a few of mine:

I threw out the afterthought approach to humanity. I took a fascinating class at the very Calvinist Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary from Dr. Richard Lints. He’s a wonderful man, likely my favorite professor from my time there (I asked him to be a reader on my Master’s Thesis, for instance). The class was called, “Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility.” I began to joke during that class and since then that we never really seemed to cover the second part. Yes, there was a phenomenal investigation into how amazing and transcendent and powerful God is—but there was very little explanation about what our responsibilities and opportunities are as humans in response to our wonderful creator. Humanity was an afterthought. In this class and in many other theological encounters with Calvinism, it seems like God is subject and humans are the footnotes. On a theological level I understand this excessive humility. But as I read my Bible I’ve noted that our Sovereign God and our human race are both found as the subject and neither is found in the footnotes. In the modern Calvinist effort to defeat humanism I worry they have forgotten what it means to be human… or that we are more than an afterthought to God.

I threw out the obsessive-compulsive approach to systematic theology. In general I feel that different strains of Calvinists are our best systematic theologians. Perhaps John Calvin himself showed the genius of systematic theology so brightly that his progeny are all wanting to become like him in his lawyerly approach to the attributes and actions of God. I suppose this is a wonderful pursuit… but my worry has been that as one begins to build a system of theology with which to interpret all scripture and to attribute all of life—you are coming close to worshipping your system rather than worshipping God for who he is. The Calvinist system of theology has very little wiggle room. It is a very large and complex box for the Almighty. For sure, a good Calvinist will cite chapter and verse to designate where the walls of the box lie—but it is a box nonetheless. Calvinists have developed a fascinating Chess match of theology that is fun to play and makes a great deal of logical sense when you sit down to play it. But I worry that in playing the game so long they may have missed God saying: you’re limiting me. If this idolatry is true Calvinists would be schocked and abandon the effort immediately. But none that I’ve met are willing to admit the possibility. I’ve tossed out this obsessive-compulsive approach to systems of knowing God such as Calvinism. They are useful but not to be revered. God is to be revered.

I threw out the way they take themselves too seriously. Okay, let’s face it, most Calvinists are stiffs. Something about the Calvinist tradition or its ethnic heritage has bred a general formality to the way they approach life. Few people become more bristly at critique than a Calvinist. A defensive Calvinist is almost a redundancy. In my experience it seems like Calvinists take God so very seriously and I love them for that. I’ve learned so much from that. But they also take themselves way to seriously too. It’s ironic that theologically this is not true (as I’ve mentioned above humanity is not taken seriously enough within the theology). But personally this dynamic is often found. I wish Calvinists would continue to take God seriously and start taking themselves less seriously. I wish more Calvinists had a sense of humility about their denominations, a sense of heart-love for life, a sense of heaven’s beautiful opportunity in this world, or even if they just had a good old-fashioned sense of humor. Too few do. Those Calvinists (perhaps you) that do not take themselves seriously are some of the best Christians in the World. I think I could almost be that kind of Calvinist (but for the other issues on this short list). However, I’ve only met a few of them. By the way, my professor Dr. Lints mentioned before is one of them—which is why I liked him—even if he did present humanity as a bit of an afterthought.

I threw out TULIP. Most people think that John Calvin sat down one day in his study and wrote down this famous flower acronym to summarize his entire theology. He didn’t. In fact, originally Calvinists didn’t even invent the acronym “TULIP” at all. Those that were concerned about the interpretation and application of Calvin’s teaching and some of the more extreme comments in his systematic approach to theology in the Institutes of Christian Religion came up with this mnemonic device to point out where Calvin and his followers had gone too far. When I see TULIP it reminds me that on almost everything Calvin and those in his school were on track. I continue to consult his commentaries all the time. It’s a wealth of information and God has blessed his work. As I’ve examined the five issues represented by this acronym I have to agree. I disagree with these five points: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, & perseverance of the saints. Some of those go farther over the line than others. But all of them go too far in my mind. I have doubts that they should be creedal statements or summaries of the biblical theology. You might find scriptural evidence to point in these directions, but to develop a core theology that all flows from TULIP is fragile. And, of course, John Calvin himself never approached it this way either, though if presented TULIP he may have assented that, yes, these appear to be true statement. I disagree. I don’t think Calvinism lines up with Christian Orthodoxy in this regard. It has taken things just a few inches too far.

I threw out the de-emphasis on evangelism. Because of a few core doctrines of reformed theology evangelism as a motivation and practice is a little mixed up among the Calvinists. If God predestined who is going to heaven then why tell someone they should come to Christ? Well, the reformed theologians show in their footnotes that we are told to do so, and it’s a matter of obedience and human responsibility. Somehow this motivation doesn’t trickle-down well among the reformers and there is a very casual and careless attitude toward those that may not have the opportunity to know God because your average lay-person-Calvinists reasons: well, it’s up to God’s will and not my efforts—so why put up the fight? I know this is not what the theologians say they should do—but it’s what actually has happened in the ingrown reformed movement. It’s an unfortunate reality and reaction to Calvinist doctrine—and it’s not good enough for me. I tossed this de-emphasis out too. Evangelism shouldn’t be in the footnotes and John 3:16 shouldn’t be put through a theological meat-grinder in order to remove our responsibility to tell others of Jesus.

I threw out the legalism. I still don’t understand this one either. I always thought that works-righteousness stuff and legalisms only existed in the holiness traditions. But as I’ve had more experience with other traditions I’ve come to see that nearly every denomination and nearly every movement eventually seems to drift to legalism. The Calvinists are no different. In some ways they have been worse—because the theology of Calvinism shouldn’t lead to legalism—if anything I could understand if it led to lawlessness. However, some of the more legalistic people I’ve met have been Calvinists. Perhaps it’s just a human tendency to become law-bound because of its practical relevance and understandability? Whatever the case I’ve tossed out the strange legalism of out-ward signs of righteousness that many Calvinist carry around with them, even if those people happen to be married to me and raised in the Reformed Church.

Those are the things I’ve tossed out so far from the Calvinists. It’s not really that much. If I had spent my years of education and ministry among Pentecostals or Catholics or Lutherans I might have a longer list than this. Remember, this is just the flip side of the coin. There’s so much I’ve learned from the Calvinsts… the wonderful wheat that they’ve gotten right. This is merely the chaff.

I’m sure, whoever you are, that you disagree with me on some points here or in the previous flipside. Feel free to enter into dialogue about this with me: David@DruryWriting.com

_________

Publishing information:

David Drury Bio

David Drury’s Writings