Why New Calvinism is not Calvinism

                The New Calvinist movement has been growing for some time and recently Rev. John Piper spoke a bit about it in a lecture to Westminster.  You can listen to it (http://www.wts.edu/stayinformed/view.html?id=1758), and Tim Challies has helpfully summarized the Twelve Points of New Calvinismprovided by Piper as well.  There are a growing number of posts responding of why they are not New Calvinists, but I cannot resist.  Some are even suggesting avoiding excessivecriticism of New Calvinism, but I just cannot do that either.  I am not a New Calvinist because New Calvinism is NOT Calvinism.  We need not be afraid to say that out loud.

                First, it should simply be obvious from the modifier.  New Calvinism.  Anytime you add a modifier, you are trying to show people that you are something other and different from the thing being modified.  Compassionate Conservatism for example is trying to emphasize how it is different, and thus better, than Conservatism.  How many people would argue that Neo Orthodoxy was really Orthodoxy?  No one.  Because the whole point of calling it Neo or New Orthodoxy is to show it is somehow different than Orthodoxy.  And examining Karl Barth and John Calvin does show difference abounds.  But for some reason today when people are claiming to be New Calvinists or Neo-Calvinists, we think they are identifying with the age old Calvinist message.  They aren’t.  They are trying to show they are different and better.

                Second, Piper’s points show New Calvinism ultimately is self-contradictory.  Calvinism does not work when modified and changed.  For example point 5 and 6 contradict one another.  Embracing the essential place of the local church is in direct contrast to the word “missional”.  Anytime you see the word “missional” you should be worried.  The missional movement down plays the church in favor of the mentioned personal networks.  Number 5 also contradicts number 8 as the centrality of the Word of God does not fit into a charismatic mold.  Which means I also think that number 8 contradicts number 1.  Those who believe in the continuing revelation do not really believe in the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible.  If the gift of prophecy or tongues is still around then the canon is not closed.  Plain and simple.  Let me also point out that number 5 contradicts number 10.  The local church is not really emphasized if Twitter is a major way of communicating, educating, and directing to new teachers and publishing books is a characteristic of the movement (also mentioned again in point 12) too.  Is this movement pushing local church pastors, or are local churches pushing book publishing pastors in a cult of personality way?  This is not how the Reformation went despite our emphasis on certain men today.  Does anyone even know what pastors helped reform the canton of Schaffhausen?  Who were the men on the ground in Memmingen, Augusburg, or Lindeau?  And by the way all of these places were Reformed before Calvin came on the scene. 

 

                Third, the fourth point about being culturally affirming while still holding out to some counter cultural points like being against gay marriage and abortion is a pretty vital point that should be considered.  I believe Tim Keller would call this “contextualization”.  While, I think all would agree that it is impossible to be completely divorced of culture even in presenting the gospel, it is fairly evident that the New (Neo)Calvinist movement goes a bit beyond that to actually affirming and adopting cultural (dare I say worldly) ways to share the truth of God.  Whether it is in rap music, “gospel eco-systems”, or the acceptance of evolution, the contextualization of the message of God is a point of great debate and a marked difference from Calvinism. 

               

                Fourth, hidden in the fifth point is a little nugget about producing widely sung worship music.  This really should be point 13, and is another major difference between Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism.  This worship music is contemporary music, which is a major characteristic of Neo-Calvinism’s worship.  And it points to a very different view of worship overall.  This is a very major point.  Contemporary worship has a fundamentally different approach to worship than the traditional.  Rev. Tullian Tchividjian admits that having one contemporary service and one traditional is like having two separate churches, sadly his answer was to make one service that “blends” the two.  In other words now they have one contemporary service.  He states it is an attempt to transcend age and cultural style barriers.  But that is not right.  The traditional service had done that for centuries.  While there are always some stylistic differences in the centuries it easily all fit into a category you could have called “Church music”.  It transcended age and culture.  But the Contemporary Worship comes in and denies “church music” altogether and proclaims we must put Christian words to popular styles like Punk Rock and Rap as well as Pop to sing in church.  It is not an attempt to draw together, but rather an attempt to bring the world into the church, and denies the church’s separateness from the world especially in style of music.  The same can be said of things like movie clips, twitter usage, and service structure.  The difference simply put is this: Calvinism says worship is where God calls us to himself to worship Him as He demands, and Neo Calvinism says worship is where we use our culture to glorify God. 

 

                I could go on and discuss the fruit of some of the New Calvinist Leaders, but I would rather focus on the real doctrinal differences.  I know that many want to embrace it and/or pretend it is a good thing, but I fear not.  If we grant commonality with this New Calvinism, we are going to end up losing the distinctive call of the Gospel of the Reformation.  A call that points to Christ, calls us to overcome the world in Him, and worship Him as He demands, in the churches that He gave.  We are being challenged right now on all of those points, we dare not give in. 

WCF vs. 3FU Adoption

There is another difference between the two that is more of a difference in emphasis and omission.  And that can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 12 echoed in the Larger Catechism 74 and Smaller Catechism 34.  This chapter is on adoption.

Again it is not that the Three Forms of Unity deny adoption.  But they simply move past it quickly as a given or merge it into justification.  The Heidelberg Catechism assumes this doctrine as the phrase “my Father” is used in many places such Question 1 or more prominently HC#26 where the answer states, “That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . is for the sake of Christ, his Son, my God and my Father”.  But the force of HC#26 is about the providential control of the God the Father Almighty, and is not specifically addressing adoption.  Clearly it is believed, but not explained.  The Belgic Confession has no chapter on Adoption, and it is only briefly mentioned in the chapter on Baptism (34) as God being our Father. 

The Westminster is unique in its emphasis on Adoption.  The French Confession of Calvin does not discuss it, the Second Helvetic Confession of Bullinger does not discuss it.  Even Turretin’s Elenctic Theology does not have a separate section for adoption.  Rather there it is discussed as a subset of justification.  And the famous “ordo salutis” as advocated by Louis Berkhof does not include adoption.  And so it would seem flowing out of the Dutch creeds, adoption has not been stressed. 

However, the Westminster does seem to put Adoption into the ordo salutis.  The chapters of the Westminster go from Effectual Calling to Justification to Adoption to Sanctification and eventually to Perseverance to the end.  The Westminster stresses it by giving it is own chapter.  And it points out that adoption is a free grace and is a legal action that by which we are given the liberties and privileges of being a child of God.  This beautiful chapter in the Westminster is only one article, but by going against the flow of Reformed Creeds and giving adoption its own chapter makes it an important chapter.

I think you could probably argue that adoption still does not get the emphasis that it needs in the Reformed world today.  However, only the Westminster can rightly claim to have given adoption a place of importance and stress. 

WCF vs. Three Forms - The Church

Let us move on to the next difference between the Westminster and the Heidelberg specifically.  And this is regarding the Church.  This can be found in the Heidelberg mainly in Question 54 about the Holy Catholic Church and the WCF chapter 25. 

Now there is wide agreement.  Both have Christ as the head of the church (WCF 25.1, HC#50).  Both define the church primarily as the elect throughout all of history (WCF 25.1, HC #54).  Both understand that the church on earth contains unbelievers (WCF 25.2,4-5, HC#82).  Now it is explicit in the Westminster, and more an implication in the Heidelberg.  The Westminster labels it as an invisible and visible church.  This labeling is not found in the Heidelberg and the answer to HC#54 about the church specifically speaks of the elect.  Yet, we do see the Heidelberg talk about infants belonging to the people of God (#74), and the practice of church discipline to remove unbelievers and hypocrites (#82).  Clearly then the Heidelberg acknowledges this visible church understanding and the presence of unbelievers in the visible walls of the church. 

The main difference comes in WCF 25.3 and Heidelberg Q#54.  The Westminster begins here, “Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this life”.  The Westminster than has the Church given Word and the Church then gathers with the oracles, ordinances, and ministry, which is later said to be made effectual by the Spirit.  The Heidelberg has a different approach.  “That out of the whole human race, from the beginning to the end of the world, the Son of God, by His Spirit and Word, gathers, defends, and preserves for Himself unto everlasting life a chosen communion in the unity of the true faith; and that I am and forever shall remain a living member of this communion.”  Do you see the difference?

Yeah okay, I didn’t either the first times I read it.  But the difference is in where the church comes from.  The Westminster has the church existing and then being given the ministry and oracles and is the main actor in the gathering and perfecting of the saints, although its power is still rooted in the Spirit.  The Heidelberg has the church created by Son with the Word and Spirit of God.  The main actor then is no so much the Church as Christ. 

Perhaps you have heard the quote, “You cannot have God for your father unless you have the church as your mother”.   It is from Cyprian as far as I can tell.  And the metaphor of Church as mother is often seen even in Calvin’s writings.  However, I believe the metaphor only fits the Westminster view of the church.  There the church is an actor in bringing about gathering of believers.  This leads to the declaration that “outside of [the church] there is no ordinary possibility of salvation”.  A phrase found in the Belgic, but not the Heidelberg.  For the Heidelberg if you are saved, you are part of the church.  You were not birthed by the church, but gathered by God and now a member of His church.  Now Q#55 lets us know you will now feel bound to use your gifts in the communion of the saints and thus, no believer will keep himself apart from a visible church, but ultimately the stress of the Heidelberg is that you are in the church now.  Christ saved you.  It is not God as father and Church as mother.  It is gathered by Christ to be the church.  Through the Word and Spirit you have been gathered and made part of the church now.  The Heidelberg is stressing the individual’s integration into the Church.  The last clause does that as well.  You are now and forever shall remain part of that communion.  The Westminster has the people gathered by the Church’s use of the means and the integration of the individual into the Church is not discussed. 

It has to be noted here the Belgic has the Westminster’s view.  And oddly enough the Westminster Larger Catechism has the Heidelberg’s view.  WLC #63 the church is gathered and protected by God and it is God who offers grace by Christ to the members of the Church, and not the Church being given the ministry and then the church using that ministry to gather people in.  Remember this fact when we get around to discussing the Westminster Larger Catechism as its own document and not really a summary of the Westminster Confession of Faith. 

The outworking of this view of Church is a bit more difficult to see.  But the WCF has a Higher Church view than does the Heidelberg.  It is not surprising to see then occasional revivals of High Church theology in a Westminster system.