A "Softer" Calvinism???

Status
Not open for further replies.
DMcFadden

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
Interesting interview with a self-avowed "centrist" theologian at Fuller on why we should embrace a "broader" definition of "Reformed." Spoiler alert: He is a British scholar transplanted to the USA and has been at Fuller since 2011. The Softer Face of Calvinism | Christianity Today

Also, a number of people outside the Reformed community tend to associate the Reformed tradition with a narrowly dogmatic—in both senses of that term—way of thinking about the Christian faith. And they are rather disparaging about that. But not all of us are narrowly dogmatic. So I thought, Maybe the time has come to make a case for a more irenic, more sanguine, broad approach to the Reformed tradition, because there are great riches in the Reformed tradition that just don’t get reported.
Click to expand...

Second spoiler alert: "Who is elected by God in his eternal purposes? Karl Barth famously said Christ is the one elected and our election is somehow in Christ. And his view certainly isn’t in line with what has traditionally been accepted as the Reformed doctrine of predestination . . . And, of course, Barth is the pre-eminent Reformed theologian of the 20th century. And some might say he’s the pre-eminent deviant Calvinist!"
 
If he wants a concept label that is broader than the confessional churches using Reformed as a label, he might be well advised to use the term "reformational," which, since it opens the door to evangelical 39 Article Anglicans and Augsberg Lutherans, is certainly broader than Reformed.
 
I will be interested to read the book eventually. Crisp has done some good work in other areas, but I would tend to be skeptical about some of the things that he seems to want to put within the bounds of the reformed confessions.
 
Interesting two step. First, you object that it is the confessions, not the theologians (e.g., Calvin) that should control the boundaries of our thinking. Second, you argue that the confessions are elastic and subject to change based on contemporary consensus. So, it is possible to accommodate a wide range of views "within the tent" and admit that we may do quite a bit more changing of the boundaries as time goes by.

Much of what was stated is quite true and helpful. Scripture represents the "first tier" of our doctrinal standard. Ecumenical creeds constitute a "second tier." Theologians and pastors would stand behind both of these in normativeness. And, the church has changed its mind over the years on several issues.

He is a member of the PCUSA, a body known for its big tent approach to theological boundaries as well as for a 1967 "supplement" to the other confessional documents that, along with a looser view of subscription, permitted a good deal of latitude within the discipline of the church. I would like to read his full book to catch the nuances of what he is trying to say. He is a respected scholar who has produced some good and important work. But, based on the CT interview, it makes me wonder if some of these mainline thinkers would be just as well to embrace another "theologian" of that same tradition as normative: a graduate of Pittsburg seminary, Mr. (Fred) Rogers. Watching the television program with my grandkids, "Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood" produced by the Fred Rogers Company, it also seems to have a bead on reducing conflict among people and getting everyone to play nice in the sandbox.
 
It might be nice if Calvinists recovered Calvin's ability to dismiss nonsense as such, no matter its source.
 
DMcFadden said:
Interesting two step. First, you object that it is the confessions, not the theologians (e.g., Calvin) that should control the boundaries of our thinking. Second, you argue that the confessions are elastic and subject to change based on contemporary consensus. So, it is possible to accommodate a wide range of views "within the tent" and admit that we may do quite a bit more changing of the boundaries as time goes by.
Click to expand...
Don't forget to add the step where, on the one hand he states that we look too much to individual theologians but then he cites individual theologians as the way one ought to understand the Confessions (Edwards, Girardeau, Barth).

His middle ground is having no real commitments. Arminianism? Well it was settled in the past but we need to keep an open mind because Arminius died a Reformed theologian.

Semper Reformanda, for him, is evolution.
 
bookslover said:
Typical Fuller dude. Best way to get liberalism in the door is to water down the definitions.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

I LOVE it!!! "Fuller dude" has now entered my lexicon as a preferred term for the phenomenon of reflexively middle of the road (e.g., "on the one hand . . . but on the other hand") theologizing. It is characterized by an absolutist commitment to taking nothing as absolute other than the ideology of splitting the difference between the poles of any issue.

Here is my first attempt at a humorous typology of seminary approaches:

Harvard: We must speak truth to power and deconstruct the doctrine to reveal the inherent misogynistic and zenoreligiophobic aspects of it as a first step to positive and proactive community organizing.

Dallas: We must boldly proclaim the truth of the doctrine at the cost of being countercultural, confounding the cultural consensus and taking every thought captive, even if it puts us at odds with prevailing attitudes of a secular society.

Fuller: We might consider that there is substantial truth inherent in all positions and we would not want to burn bridges or truncate dialogue with those who have much to teach us about God, spirituality, and how to act in a pluralistic world. The journey of faith is just that, a journey in which the pilgrim stumbles along without an infallible map or a perfect sense of the right direction. All human beings attempt to apprehend the reality of God in their own ways. Mutual respect and acknowledgment of the valuable insights of all religious traditions is a hallmark of the Christlike spirit that should characterize all evangelicals who claim to profess "good news."
 
Last edited:
Dennis,

What a great definition. Instead of choosing between Harvard and Dallas, we have the dialectic. We can take both ends of the pole, synthesize, and embrace.
 
If I recall correctly John Piper is a grad of Fuller. So was that earlier in the schools history as far as this liberalism is concerned, or did it just not affect him ?
 
I don't get the Fuller method other than people literally do want to be blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why not just keep the definitions tight and then do all the learning that is profitable from other perspectives that are on the outside. It goes to why some agile Reformed scholars and theologians can benefit from NT Wright and others just go off the deep-end and want to revise the Faith.
 
JimmyH said:
If I recall correctly John Piper is a grad of Fuller. So was that earlier in the schools history as far as this liberalism is concerned, or did it just not affect him ?
Click to expand...

It was perhaps better then, but the spirit was always there. In particular, one of Piper's biggest influences was Daniel Fuller who held errant and revisionist views on justification and covenant theology that could be regarded as a "softer Calvinism" in a similar vein.
 
JimmyH said:
If I recall correctly John Piper is a grad of Fuller. So was that earlier in the schools history as far as this liberalism is concerned, or did it just not affect him ?
Click to expand...

Jimmy, not every one of us "fits" the template.

FTS was begun in 1947 as a self-conscious counterpoint to Princeton: rich in classic studies and intellectual rigor, but with a firm commitment to the inerrantist position of "old" Princeton rather than neo-orthodox post-WWII Princeton. Guys like Carl F.H. Henry, famous for his commitment to evangelical engagement in the world, wanted to separate conservative orthodoxy from fundamentalist insularity.

in my opinion, however, the desire to cobble together an evangelicalism broad enough to embrace the widest range of evangelical belief and practice came at a high price. Specific confessional commitments were stripped bare in order to emphasize only the least common denominator of necessary belief. Bebbington speaks of evangelicalism as characterized by conversionism, crucicentrism, biblicicsm, and activism. OK, but where is ecclesiology? Without a doctrine of the church, church order, sacraments, etc., there are few "controls" on what professors believe or teach. Soon, the doctrine of Scripture was changed away from inerrancy to "infallibility." Linguistically, this should represent a stricter standard (the Bible is not able to err rather than it does not have any errors). In practice, however, the term became "code" language for those wishing to weasel-word their way out from under the strictures of a strict view of biblical authority.

The Wikipedia article nails the ethos when it writes:

Fuller admits evangelicals from both conservative and liberal perspectives. The seminary is also frequently at the center of debate among religious and secular intellectuals on issues ranging from politics, religion, science and culture.” Fuller instructors have been cited as proposing a different perspective on the conservative/liberal debate: "We need to be the voice of a third way that flows out of biblical values, instead of buying into the political ideology of either the right or the left."
Click to expand...

This "third way" characterizes the attitude found in many of the graduates. While someone like Bill Bright stands for the first generation of grads; John Ortberg, John White or John Piper might arguably represent a later crop of grads; with Tony Jones and Rob Bell being all too typical of the more recent ones. In a sense, Bell's work in Grand Rapids was a clever employment of the FTS pedagogical method. Known for posing more questions than giving answers, some FTS profs are renown for raising provocative questions and offering ascerbic observations. In Grand Rapids, Bell was also known for his asking provocative questions, without ever committing himself to believe necessarily the implication of those questions. For instance, asking what difference it would make to the content of Jesus' teaching if Mary were not a virgin is not exactly the same as arguing for a fact that she was not. However, that Genesis 3, "Has God really said?" tone insinuates while retaining an air of plausible deniability. Such things may go over well with people burned out on CRC scoldings, but it hardly offers the comfort of a sure word from the Lord.

Under the prez before the current one, dialogue was emphasized to the max. Apologizing to the Mormons in Salt Lake, signing statements of solidarity with Muslims, etc., typify the desire for a kinder, gentler, "third way" between left and right. As far as I can tell, this is all utterly sincere and well meaning. The people at FTS really believe that curing the toxic divides within Christian communions requires a moderating "middle road" (aka "third way"?) that eschews the extremes of both right and left.

So, whether it is Open Theism, arguing that Jonah was a "satiric parable," promoting the Emergent church and its spokespersons, becoming the major "evangelical" advocate for egalitarian sex roles, or promoting a "softer" Calvinism, the common denominator is a desire to move in a "third way" that is neither liberal nor conservative. Paraphrasing Franck in "Father of the Bride," they "got" the "not conservative" part pretty clearly.
 
Last edited:
TheOldCourse said:
JimmyH said:
If I recall correctly John Piper is a grad of Fuller. So was that earlier in the schools history as far as this liberalism is concerned, or did it just not affect him ?
Click to expand...

It was perhaps better then, but the spirit was always there. In particular, one of Piper's biggest influences was Daniel Fuller who held errant and revisionist views on justification and covenant theology that could be regarded as a "softer Calvinism" in a similar vein.
Click to expand...

Probably not. Piper's defense of Calvinist soteriology hardly qualifies as "softer" Calvinism. He advocates, for instance, double predestination. And, he wrote an entire book defending imputation against N.T. Wright. Piper credits Fuller for instilling in him a Berean compulsion to keep asking questions of the text until he had penetrated to the author's intended meaning. That does not mean that Piper holds to all of Dan's views; he does not.
 
Dennis, as a point of contrast to Fuller, Gordon-Conwell was established about twenty years later by a number of the same people with a lot of the same goals. The difference was, in the 80s, when things started to slide, a few professors and the administration drew up a statement of faith (if my memory serves me well, David Wells and Roger Nicole were the architects) and then proceeded to gently nudge faculty members who had not really signed in good faith out the door.

Part of the ethos is that GCTS encourages profs to go ahead and teach from their tradition, and students can give pushback. There are a few issues (egalitarianism) that end up, from a practical standpoint, being elephants in the room, but those are fewer than one would think. The other part of the success of GCTS at holding a more conservative line is that most of the faculty end up leaning toward reformed theology. There are Arminians on the faculty, but they tend to be ones who are more friendly toward reformed theology. Another piece is that the Bible faculty are very conservative.

That's not to deny any of your points, Dennis, but to provide counterpoint. The multi-confessional model can work well (Wheaton would be another good example) but you're right that there has to be some very clear standard which the faculty are held to (and hold themselves to). I heard a story that Roger Nicole modified the last verse of A Mighty Fortress to read "let goods and kindred go, some professors also."
 
Philip,

You make a number of valid and helpful points about GCTS. I don't see your observations as "counterpoints" since I would agree with you. My point, perhaps not stated clearly enough, was that if you go for a lowest common denominator approach, you have no controls on the diversity that arises. And, in the absence of a confession, there would need to be a statement of faith that is conservative and held to pretty rigorously. In a more nuanced discussion, I might also point to some of the historical and psychological dynamics that separate FTS from GCTS, several of them noted in your posting. FTS had no "Ramsey Michaels" "Sister Souljah Moment" like GCTS. Even granting the adversarial nature of Lindsell's weighing of the evidence, much of what he said about FTS in "Battle for the Bible" rings true to my own experience. And, after interviewing several hundred Baptist ordinands who graduated from FTS over three decades, I have even less confidence in the "product" now than in my own day in the 1970s.

Candor compels me to note that one of the three retired FTS profs living at the retirement community I recently retired from running, informs me that the newest president is a solid evangelical who seeks to move the school in a more conservative direction. With the DNA set pretty firmly (one graduate school emphasizes "academic freedom" and the "third way" between left and right; one takes a pretty radical approach to contextualization; and one has its roots deep in American social science cultural ethos), I am less sanguine than my ebullient English friend about the prospects for conservatively directed change. However, if hope springs eternal, then let us pray that there is yet hope for a place that was established to be a solid conservative alternative to mainline seminaries in America.
 
It has the usual qualities of doctrinal revolution -- mercy without majesty, humanity without humility, liberty without liability, security without sanctity, fraternity without fidelity. In short, a form of godliness while denying the power thereof.
 
On the topic of the OP here's Paul Helm's review of the book in question: Deviant Calvinism. Also note that Crisp's specialties of historical study are Jonathan Edwards and William Shedd.
 
I'm working on a paper that unpacks 1 Peter on suffering and came across this quote by Calvin as he comments on 1 Peter 4:14: "14*If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you."

Calvin writes:

He mentions reproaches, because there is often more bitterness in them than in the loss of goods, or in the torments or agonies of the body; there is therefore nothing which is more grievous to ingenuous minds. For we see that many who are strong to bear want, courageous in torments, nay, bold to meet death, do yet succumb under reproach.
Click to expand...

I find this to be another example of how incisive Calvin is. We often think that the suffering that Christians need to steel themselves against is the flame or sword or famine but the danger is when we suffer insults or reproach.

I was listening to a dialog today on Unbelievable radio where the typical exchange consists of some Christian representative talking about how much he values the insights in worship that he's received from witches. Our tradition, after all, can be enriched by integrating a love of nature that those who practice witchcraft have and, after all, we have so many dates on the Church calendar that are originally pagan in origin.

What causes men to be "agreeable" that they can come to a theological position where a man can step over the line that divides the life we have in Christ from the elementary principles of this world?

I don't think many of us will admit to it but a lot has to do with reproach.

Yeah so some of us hayseeds who don't practice analytical philosophy and dissect language miss on some of the nuances. We're a bit "brutish" with places where Paul says that the natural man cannot receive the things of God because they are spiritually discerned.

The scholar "tut tuts" us and explains that if we only had the sophistication to properly dissemble then we would realize that Arminius was a Reformed theologian after all. No need to be reproached for taking a hard line. Just contemplate that things are always more complicated than they seem and let the theologians sort it out.

I think this also lends itself to distancing one's self from the particular Church with which we belong. Well, after all, all those PCA elders either just have an MDiv and all those RE's are hardly trained at all. I wouldn't want to associate myself with their clumsy deliberations. If they knew history as did I or even analytic philosophy then they would not make such hard choices. In other words, some don't want the reproach of having to be associated with the deliberations of the Church because, in the world's eyes, we're a bunch of hard core fundamentalists who only see the world in easily defined terms.

I suppose the question could rightly be asked: What kind of "reproach" does this kind of Christian teaching ever receive? Certainly not the reproach of the world.
 
I would go with Paul as a softer Calvinist.
He leads off the chapters on God's sovereign hardening of Israel, speaking of unceasing pain in heart and prayers for their salvation
 
Semper Fidelis said:
I'm working on a paper that unpacks 1 Peter on suffering and came across this quote by Calvin as he comments on 1 Peter 4:14: "14*If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you."

Calvin writes:

He mentions reproaches, because there is often more bitterness in them than in the loss of goods, or in the torments or agonies of the body; there is therefore nothing which is more grievous to ingenuous minds. For we see that many who are strong to bear want, courageous in torments, nay, bold to meet death, do yet succumb under reproach.
Click to expand...

I find this to be another example of how incisive Calvin is. We often think that the suffering that Christians need to steel themselves against is the flame or sword or famine but the danger is when we suffer insults or reproach.

I was listening to a dialog today on Unbelievable radio where the typical exchange consists of some Christian representative talking about how much he values the insights in worship that he's received from witches. Our tradition, after all, can be enriched by integrating a love of nature that those who practice witchcraft have and, after all, we have so many dates on the Church calendar that are originally pagan in origin.

What causes men to be "agreeable" that they can come to a theological position where a man can step over the line that divides the life we have in Christ from the elementary principles of this world?

I don't think many of us will admit to it but a lot has to do with reproach.

Yeah so some of us hayseeds who don't practice analytical philosophy and dissect language miss on some of the nuances. We're a bit "brutish" with places where Paul says that the natural man cannot receive the things of God because they are spiritually discerned.

The scholar "tut tuts" us and explains that if we only had the sophistication to properly dissemble then we would realize that Arminius was a Reformed theologian after all. No need to be reproached for taking a hard line. Just contemplate that things are always more complicated than they seem and let the theologians sort it out.

I think this also lends itself to distancing one's self from the particular Church with which we belong. Well, after all, all those PCA elders either just have an MDiv and all those RE's are hardly trained at all. I wouldn't want to associate myself with their clumsy deliberations. If they knew history as did I or even analytic philosophy then they would not make such hard choices. In other words, some don't want the reproach of having to be associated with the deliberations of the Church because, in the world's eyes, we're a bunch of hard core fundamentalists who only see the world in easily defined terms.

I suppose the question could rightly be asked: What kind of "reproach" does this kind of Christian teaching ever receive? Certainly not the reproach of the world.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this encouragement. It comes at a time when I really need it.

I am reminded of Paul' words in 1 Cor 1:27 "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;" Christ will always look foolish in the eyes of the worldly wise. One thing I love about the Puritans is they never sought the approval of a 'broader spectrum'.
 
Thinking further on the idea of universalism "softening" Calvinism, I recalled Hugh Martin's statement relating to Dr. Wardlaw's universal idea of the atonement. Rather than soften the sovereignty of God, universal atonement makes it capricious. It appeals to particular election AFTER atonement has been made, and thereby introduces divine sovereignty as applying the benefits of the atonement to only a few of those for whom the atonement was made, and leaves the rest to perish in their atoned-for state. Such a hard and horrible Calvinism is no Calvinism at all!
 
whirlingmerc said:
I would go with Paul as a softer Calvinist.
He leads off the chapters on God's sovereign hardening of Israel, speaking of unceasing pain in heart and prayers for their salvation
Click to expand...

Agreed.
Not to mention one of his motives for working so hard in the ministry was that of arousing his fellow Israelites to jealousy in the hope of saving some of them.
 
I love the 'make Jews jealous" strategy of Paul. He actually refers to it like three times in Romans. He does it himself and he recommended it to the Romans
In Acts, some Jews being jealous comes across as a problem with the opposition
In Romans, it is embraced by Paul as a type of was God will reach them
 
whirlingmerc said:
I would go with Paul as a softer Calvinist.
He leads off the chapters on God's sovereign hardening of Israel, speaking of unceasing pain in heart and prayers for their salvation
Click to expand...

I don't know if that is what is being referred to as a "soft Calvinist" here. Paul was a "Calvinist" whose heart had been thoroughly melted in love to Christ and his fellow man. Would that be more the case with all of us.
 
Candor compels me to note that one of the three retired FTS profs living at the retirement community I recently retired from running, informs me that the newest president is a solid evangelical who seeks to move the school in a more conservative direction.
Click to expand...

So, I did a little Googling. The new Fuller prez is Mark Labberton, 60. Degrees from Fuller, Cambridge. Spent his entire pastoral career in the PCUSA (duh). Last pastorate was the PCUSA church in...wait for it...Berkeley (double duh). Joined the faculty in 2009 and, after just five years, is the new prez (which may mean that he was the golden boy to be the new prez when he signed on). From faculty to president in just 5 years? Hmmm.

"A solid evangelical who seeks to move the school in a more conservative direction"? I'm not holding my breath...
 
bookslover said:
Candor compels me to note that one of the three retired FTS profs living at the retirement community I recently retired from running, informs me that the newest president is a solid evangelical who seeks to move the school in a more conservative direction.
Click to expand...

So, I did a little Googling. The new Fuller prez is Mark Labberton, 60. Degrees from Fuller, Cambridge. Spent his entire pastoral career in the PCUSA (duh). Last pastorate was the PCUSA church in...wait for it...Berkeley (double duh). Joined the faculty in 2009 and, after just five years, is the new prez (which may mean that he was the golden boy to be the new prez when he signed on). From faculty to president in just 5 years? Hmmm.

"A solid evangelical who seeks to move the school in a more conservative direction"? I'm not holding my breath...
Click to expand...

Richard, I did not say that I'm optimistic, merely that a friend of mine is quite impressed with him and sees him as a voice for conservatizing. But, as I noted in one of my posts, the DNA of the three schools is pretty set by now. And, the forces that reinforce their standing off from conservatism are pretty strong and compelling to them. Consider that a high percentage of the students are in mainline denominations. FTS is considered the "conservative" alternative for mainliners. From where the mainline students come, FTS probably seems like a REALLY conservative voice. Compare it to some of the confessional groups of PB members and it will sound like it is incredibly far left.

As I often repeat, "where you stand has a lot to do with where you sit."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top