Let's begin our look at the Calvinism vs. Armenian debate (through the lens of pragmatism and mission) with a link and a few things of note.

The link is the interview of Rick Warren by John Piper: click here.I do NOT start here as an example of Calvinism v. Armenianism. Please DO NOT misconstrue this context. I'm not starting here to state Piper is Calvinist and Warren is Armenian. That's simply not true. Both are Calvinist to differing degrees. I merely want to point out the following:

1. Rick Warren views his ministry and his church plant through the lens of mission. He saw (and sees) himself as a missionary first. This is critical. It is also why I admire Rick and his ministry. Whatever else you think of the methodology, the bottom line is that both Rick Warren individually and Saddleback as a church has an actual heart for lost people. They put their feet where their faith is. Rick is a pragmatist because of that. The question isn't "what is supposed to work", but "what is actually working"? The root cause of good mission stems because a follower doesn't just want to talk missionally, but wants to actually follow Jesus into the unknown. Jesus stepped into a timeframe when there was a lot of theological talk and tomes written on the Old Testament. What made Jesus radical was that He actually reached people.

2. John Piper has a heart for the nations. Whatever else you think of Calvinism or the resurgence of it ("New Calvinism"), you've got to admit that a lot of people are putting feet to faith precisely because John Piper is helping them frame a theology for going to the nations ("worshipping God"). It's well documented that I think this (like Scofields neatly packaged view of eschatology) is limited because its trying to be so precise...BUT...John Piper does believe that worshipping God equates to following God...and it is zero mystery where God is going (to seek and save the lost, to draw all men unto Himself - of course, whether this is "all men" or "some men" is a question for a different post. How much of that is actually translated to reaching lost people (as opposed to educating saved people) in Minnesota is unknown to me. What I DO know is that John Piper loves God, loves that God loves humanity, and is willing to demonstrate that there is no good theology without the implication of mission. It simply misses the heart and intent of God.

That said, here are a few more things to note and ponder:

* Calvin's theology as we know it was formed right around 1536 (the first edition of Institutes came out then). Today is 2011, and that means its been roughly 475 years since he expressed those views in that form.

* Prior that we had 1535 years (one thousand five hundred thirty-five years) since Jesus arrived. It's been 20 years since the introduction of the internet. How much has your life changed as a result? So time is a matter of perspective.

* The Bible indicates that our example is Jesus.

* Exactly what Gospel was preached by missionaries or true believers (and there are many many notables in that timeframe ranging from Augustine to Justin Martyr to St. John of the Cross, John "Golden-mouthed", Columba, etc.) in the 1500+ years PRIOR to Calvin? And if we didn't have him then, how did the Gospel explode with lives changed all over the world?

* We've been told in the last 20 years that the Gospel isn't the Gospel unless it includes all of the understanding of God as outlined by John Calvin. That's a pretty remarkable thing. Even Luther doesn't get that kind of rabid devotion.

* The Gospel message is simple enough for a shepherd to understand and deep enough for a theologian to unpack for the rest of his life. Simple can be profoundly difficult ("Love your neighbor as yourself." - simple, profound, and difficult). So what is the simple Gospel message for an illiterate shepherd?

I begin here because in their zeal for proper theology, many Christians fail to actually reach lost people with the simple message of the Cross. In this raging debate, they wonder exactly how much "sin" is "sinful" (one sin or no thought has any good?) forgetting that sin is sin and God is holy. Is someone really saved if they only understand that they aren't perfect or must they understand that not only aren't they perfect, but they have no hope of ever completing or having a good thought apart from Christ? We argue over degrees of loneliness, forgetting in the process that people are still lonely. Feeling lonely is universal - whether you feel it frequently or infrequently. This speaks directly to the observation that often those who argue most for grace are the most ungracious. And it is precisely Jesus' capacity to talk about grace and also be gracious that set Him apart. While Pharisees might say today, "Yeah you're Christian, but not as Christian as me", they missed Christ because of it.