Mark Driscoll is Joining the Christian and Missionary Alliance
March 15th, 2009 by Darryl G. HartOr so it seems on the basis of Driscoll’s recent post on the differences between the New and Old Calvinism. (My, how pertinent the paleo/neo distinction has become.)
According to Driscoll, the differences between Calvinism 1.0 and 8.2 are simple and short: 1) New Calvinism is missional; 2) it is urban; 3) it is charismatic; and 4) it is loving. Old Calvinism, accordingly, is not these things. (Do I feel loved? Not really, but it doesn’t matter since New Calvinists are loving.)
What Driscoll may not realize is that American Calvinists have been there and done that. They did so in the person of A. B. Simpson, a Canadian Presbyterian who ministered in the PCUSA, established urban missions and a training school (Nyack) in New York City, and was open to the emerging (couldn’t resist) Pentecostal revival. The institutions Simpson founded, along with his teaching, formed the basis for the Christian and Missionary Alliance (1887). (Before Keller, there was Simpson.)
So whether Driscoll knows it, he has a denominational home. The upside is that Driscoll’s Calvinism could develop into the mature evangelical Protestantism of C&MA guru, A. W. Tozer, who could be remarkably perceptive about worship. But just as likely the New Calvinism will go in a diferent direction because folks like Tozer and the C&MA are not new or hip.
Well, I’ve never had any of the aforementioned luminaries for a professor. But I have read a lot of their books (Hart waxes especially popish in Recovering Mother Kirk), and I had a beer with Beelzebub’s nephew once.
It’s perfectly possible to admit failure in some areas without having to admit being an utter failure. As all institutions are composed of fallible human beings it would be odd if they didn’t get things wrong now and again. The church in every age bears a certain responsibility where it fails to act as salt and light.
And internet being non-local, it would have been perfectly possible to write a different sort of post.
And yet, though “New” Calvinism and Pastor Driscoll are hip, I suspect that “Old” Calvinism will be what endures for another 500 years.
I have no idea what the non-localness of the Internet has to do with writing a different post. It does seem to me that everything you have written could be also written of Driscoll’s post. That implies you have a double standard — it’s okay to criticize Old Calvinists but okay to critique New Calvinists. One of the rules at this blog is having your cake and only looking at it.
Joseph,
who casts the first stone against “Old Calvinism”?
I’m probably wasting my time asking, but really, Calvin and the PVM? Do you have any real proof of this. From my readings of his Commentaries he never falls solidly on a PVM position. Direct quotes would be helpful. Of course if you’re the Reformed pope perhaps you just spoke ex cathedra.
Yoy know, Christian, I find it funny. Most of the reply’s on this and other blogs that feature the likes of DGH, Zrim and others that are directed to are reply’s I find myself noddig my head, reading your reply’s makes me smile and wondering what the h* you’ve been smoking.
But I never had any one the people you name as a professor. I haven’t read a single book of one of them and as long as they aren’t translated into Dutch, I never will.
Darryl,
Can you recommend some good historical sources on AB Simpson and/or the C&MA? I ask because I grew up in the CMA and am now a PCA minister, so I find the comparisons fascinating. Just finished reading Tozer’s biography of Simpson.
Thanks!
David
David, your several steps ahead of me with the Tozer book on Simpson. To my knowledge, the C&MA hasn’t attracted much scholarly attention.