Time recently did an article on big ideas that are changing the world right now and ranked "New Calvinism" as the third biggest.  Though the article itself was a bit snide, I wasn't so concerned with it as with Mark Driscoll's response.

"What?!", you say.  Those who know me at all will probably be shocked at this.  I have a lot of respect for Driscoll, have read his books, and have been listening to his sermons weekly for about two years.  I appreciate all that he has done for the Gospel in one of the most secular cities in America, not to mention how he has served the international Church by speaking around the world and offering his sermons, ebooks, and teaching materials for free.  He has inspired a lot of young men (myself included) to, as he might say, man-up and be a Christian man.  I'm genuinely thankful for the man and his ministry.

But, I think his response to the Time article was inaccurate in its generality and thereby uncharitable to history, as well as harmful for people who consider themselves Reformed.  For comparison, see Thabiti Anyabwile's wise and even-handed response to the Time piece.

First I want to deal with how he was inaccurate and uncharitable in his generalities.  Then, more importantly, I want to look at why this is actually harmful.

Here is what Driscoll said:
"Four Ways 'New Calvinism' is So Powerful
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."

To begin, Time only declared that New Calvinism is 'an idea changing the world', but he added the word "powerful".  Is "powerful" a helpful goal, measurement, or distinction for the church?  I don't remember the Bible saying that churches or Christians were to be "powerful".  Attractive in how we live our lives?  Yes.  Bringing about change by service and selflessness?  Yes.  The word 'powerful' seems out of place to me.

First, I'll briefly look at each of his points.

1. Can we really say that Old Calvinism was either fundamental or liberal.  Was there really no middle ground?  Could they be both at once?  And is it really fair to say that Old Calvinists separated from culture and WEREN'T missional?  George Whitfield, who preached thousands of sermons to millions of people on two continents would disagree.  [Sidenote: Can someone please explain to me what exactly "redeem the culture" means?  It sounds like a catch phrase and when I hear catch phrases I'm forced to wonder what someone is hustling in with it.]

2.  Did old Calvinism really flee from the cities?  Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones preached in London.  Horatius Bonar was in Edinburgh.  I don't think it's fair to say that they "fled" from cities.

3.  Again, Spurgeon spoke quite a bit about the Holy Spirit.  This is kind of what bugs me about Driscoll's generalizations; Spurgeon is one of his heroes and yet, in saying the things he does, he does little justice to the man.

4. Really, were they all suspicious and did they all burn bridges?  And do the New Calvinists really love all other Christians and build bridges between them?  Something tells me that unfortunately there are a lot of people who would disagree.

Now, here is why I think Driscoll's words are harmful.

1. It sets up an unnecessary dichotomy by separating the 'new' from the 'old'.  In doing so he disengages his own people (Calvinists) from the past, because who wants to be lumped in with guys who were synchronistic, non-missional, isolationist freakshows?  It also enables critics to say, "See!  We were right about those Calvinists!".  It trips up your own team and it gives ammo to the critics.

In the public realm, in some kind of brand marketing, this would make sense.  "We" are the new thing, "we" are important, "we" are better than the old stuff.  But I'm not sure that's how we're to act in the Church.  We're not to make much of ourselves.  We're actually supposed to point, first of all, to Jesus and, if we're humble, to wise saints who've gone before us.  (Again, these are odd words of Driscoll to say the same month he is doing a blog series on past saints.)


2.  The attitude of simplifying the contrasts between New and Old are also alarming to me.  He has officially drawn a line and raised a flag as the face of New Calvinism.  As, Thabiti pointed out, this seems more divisive than anything.  To me though, I wonder about any intentions for marketing.

For example, the Emergent church movement came out, set up their site/community, and then created a whole industry that made money off of the movement; book publishers, speaking engagements, conferences, etc.  Raising a definitive flag or label makes me wonder what might be sold under it's umbrella, and at what cost.

3.  In finely defining a New Calvinism movement, he has also just ensured it's death.  The clock is now ticking until this 'fad' goes the same way as The Prayer of Jabez, and hot on the heels of the Emergent Church.  


All in all, I think he did more harm than good and that younger people who might identify themselves as Reformed or even New Calvinist, should learn from it.  I think it would've been more wise for him to say nothing, to leave his identification as "a Christian who is a Calvinist from the same vein as the greats who've gone before us", rather than separating himself from them.


As for me, I would totally wear this shirt. :)