Back around the time that Justin Taylor was yet again calling attention to Calvinist anger issues, Pat Robertson made some embarrassing comments about people suffering from Alzheimer’s. No need to repeat those words here since so many made sure that so many more did not miss Robertson’s embarrassment.
What is noteworthy about the recent Robertson kerfuffle, especially from the perspective that sees sappiness afflicting evangelicals, is discerning what prompts sunny-side up bloggers at the Gospel Coalition to exchange a happy-faced button for one with a frown. Since Justin linked to Russell Moore’s piece on Robertson for Christianity Today, we have one example. Since Justin also went on record against Rob Bell even before he had read the book on hell, we have another. And then we have the posts about angry Calvinists.
That tallies up to Pat Robertson, Rob Bell, and angry Calvinists as all worthy of Gospel Coalition opposition. If I do my math aright, that means that TGC is against extremism and for moderation (read: nice). My calculations may be off. But I’m reasonably confident of my findings.
Which is why I would find more instruction from TGC bloggers and writers if they took on not so easy targets, that is, if they could show discernment in situations requiring tough calls rather than simply condemning what is obviously worthy of condemnation. (What makes Downfall a great movie is that Hitler and the Nazis emerge as three-dimensional figures.) Do they not see that even the good guys sometimes are wrong? And do they not see that you might help out the good guys not by linking to their latest inspiring video but by actually criticizing said guy of goodness when he goes bad.
To that end, I have an instance of good evangelicals going off the rails in ways that surely would have benefitted from a court room more than an echo chamber. It’s from a while ago, so it is of no real relevance to today’s conversations, except to note that evangelicals can be a fickle lot and in need of hectoring
What I am referring to is “A Protestant Affirmation on the Control of Human Reproduction,” a statement originally published in 1968 in Christianity Today with Carl Henry’s and Harold Lindsell’s blessing. I only know about this because one of my colleagues at Hillsdale, Allan Carlson, is coming out soon with a book on evangelicals and contraception, which is a fascinating and troubling read. Here is what the nice and orthodox evangelicals (remember, they didn’t want to be mean like fundamentalists) thought was biblically permissible and evangelically acceptable in 1968:
The Bible does not expressly prohibit either contraception or abortion;
The prevention of conception is not in itself forbidden or sinful providing the reasons for it are in harmony with the total revelation of God in the individual life;
The method of preventing pregnancy is not so much a religious as a scientific and medical question to be determined in consultation with the physician;
There may be times when a Christian may allow himself (or herself) to be sterilized for compelling reasons which appear to be the lesser of two evils;
About the necessity and permissibility for [abortion] under certain circumstances we are in accord;
The prescriptions of the legal code should not be permitted to usurp the authority of the Christian conscience as informed by Scripture;
Changes in state laws on therapeutic abortion that will permit honesty in the application of established criteria and the principles supported in this statement should be encouraged;
Much human suffering can be alleviated by preventing birth of children where there is a predictable high risk of genetic disease for abnormality; [and]
This Symposium acknowledges the need for Christians’ involvement in programs of population control at home and abroad. [quoted in The Family in America, Fall 2010]
Sometimes, even the nice guys, like the mean, wrong, and crazy guys, go off the rails.
Update: for the entire piece by Allan Carlson which includes the affirmation above, go here.
Old Life 
Wow! I do, however, remember those times and the the issue of abortion was a fuzzy one. I can’t remember whom but in seminary I read a short book by an evangelical ethicist supporting abortion, and I remember a story from a student about his wife undergoing the procedure upon a doctor’s recommendation. It took awhile for clarity on the issue to develop. Nevertheless quite shocking from Henry.
LikeLike
Abortion was a fuzzy issue until about 150 years ago, wasn’t it? Blackstone called early term abortions misdemeanors, and Augustine figured nothing was wrong with them at all. Now we’re at the point where even Calvinists call the morning after pill equally heinous as a man murdering a housewife during a home invasion, and that Ron Paul need to be admonished (read: not voted for) for saying that the morning after pill after a rape isn’t as heinous as murdering that housewife.
I’m still waiting for clarity, but don’t see it coming any time soon.
LikeLike
“Which is why I would find more instruction from TGC bloggers and writers if they took on not so easy targets, that is, if they could show discernment in situations requiring tough calls rather than simply condemning what is obviously worthy of condemnation. (What makes Downfall a great movie is that Hitler and the Nazis emerge as three-dimensional figures.) Do they not see that even the good guys sometimes are wrong? And do they not see that you might help out the good guys not by linking to their latest inspiring video but by actually criticizing said guy of goodness when he goes bad.”
You certainly do not hear this on most blog sites or in reading most Christian literature. This is exactly what the Reformers did and they learned how to critique each other too. This is a hard lesson we all need to learn and get better at. When there is not clarity in our doctrine this is almost impossible to do. It seems to me that this is one of the main reasons people do not like being clear in their doctrine- they do not like being critiqued and when others start doing it they cry foul.
We don’t like others critiquing our politics or views of the state either. Maybe God makes the critical things in life confusing so we have to try to figure it out. I guess that is what any good father would do.
LikeLike
And, I might add, we especially don’t like people critiquing our behavior and impulses towards sin. Now you are really getting to me. But then Luther said, “Erasmus went after their appetites, but I went after their doctrine.” So, it seems that you get to the behavior and sin through the doctrine. The reformers believed that the root of the problem is the doctrine. This is better news to me. Luther did go ballistic on reprobation and sin when he had to. And it is possible he made some mistakes when doing so.
LikeLike
Speaking of the Third Reich, evangelicals, reproductive issues, fuzziness, and easy targets: the default setting seems to be to draw superficial parallels between mid-20th century German policy and later 20th century American jurisprudence. Ray Comfort is playing that old popular tune these days, which gains “unflinching, joyful, trembling” plaudits from evangelicals and their Reformed co-belligerents.
http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=641&category_id=11&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=199&lang=en
So, if it’s charity that new schoolers want from old schoolers then maybe the emoting nice guys could start by dissenting from those in the ranks who would appeal to the fear and loathing in the collective conscience in order to score points? Maybe say something about how a good dose of sobriety is in order and that invoking fascism actually undermines serious efforts to aid the weak and defenseless? And if they’re feeling especially bold, maybe admit that reckless holocaust rhetoric plays at least some role in fueling criminal zealotry.
LikeLike
Pat Robertson may seem like an easy target for Justin Taylor and his young, reckless and reformed pals but Slate magazine says Justin’s take is just plain wrong. I think the “reckless” part of young, reckless and reformed refers to manner in which they attempt to analyze another’s words.
LikeLike
If memory serves me correct, Carl Henry did change his mind on this issue in light of Roe v. Wade. vol. 6 p. 449 GRA
LikeLike
What are Justin Taylor’s academic credentials? Anyone?
(Am a huge advocate, personally, without any attainment thereto, of an intense and wide inter-disciplinarian perspective…law, theology, history, sociology, psychology, sociology, economics, political science, accounting, etc. A grand discussion, again, with our local Federal Judge on the issue. The old Judge gave me 2 hours after class. He presided over 300 cases and was never over-turned. We talked about education and inter-disciplinarian studies.)
I don’t know Justin, but is there a lead on “credentials” here?
While talking about this, why hasn’t there been a discussion about Mahaney’s total lack of any credentials? By Taylor? Duncan? Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals? Ligonier?
These are asides to the larger point of the thread. But it raise legitimate issues re: GC and T4G vis a vis paragraph one.
LikeLike
Darryl, the old Judge complained today about “journalists” (with bachelors in journalism) on the “legal beat,” yet making substantive mistakes in reporting. (E.g a report on “arson” that was ill-based.) Eegads, he took off on that one. I asked, “Sir, then, you have complaints about laymen, namely, journalists, writing about law and being ignorant?” He smiled and said, “Yes.” Off he went, since he had significant experience with ABC, CNN, Wash Po, etc. I told the old Judge that this scribe had some similar complaints about “journalists” writing about theology. Specifically, Mr. Collin Hansen’s “Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists.” (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008). Print. Chummy, chatty, and NON-CONFESSIONAL and NON-LITURGICAL. A journalist’s report without the decency to spend several years in graduate school asking questions with wide reading. I intend to review Mr. Hansen’s volume, but the preliminary review is not positive. A better read is Scott Clark’s “Recovering the Reformed Confessions.”
LikeLike
According to GC and T4G, or other echo chambers of YRR, including the unfortunate Mr. Challies, one would never even know that a major brouhaha is underway with another YRR-voice at SGM with Mahaney. That storm ain’t lessening either despite Dr. Dever’s “covering.” Clearly, there ain’t no “angry Calvinists” over at GC, T4G, Alliance of (Non) Confessing Evangelicals, or Ligonier, but there are some “angry folks” over at the blogs re: Mahaney’s actions. It’s getting worse too!
Interestingly, as well, Mr. Mahaney has switched to a “Third Wave” understanding as a Pentecostal. It get curiouser and curiouser by the day.
Mahaney’s protege offered some “sap” last Sunday at Covenant Life, dropping to his knees, and sobbing. I throw that in re: sap. That’s not in the Prayer Book.
LikeLike
Calvin actually would refer to the “nice” Pat Robertson as a monster-maker: http://underdogtheology.blogspot.com/2011/09/pat-robertson-monster-maker.html
While Meredith Kline informs us that the pagan Assyrians, with natural law coursing hot through their veins, made pro-choice kebabs of the early women’s libbers within their ranks: http://underdogtheology.blogspot.com/2011/09/pro-choice-kebabs.html
LikeLike
Viking: good stuff, as always. You mentioned “the old Judge complained today about “journalists” (with bachelors in journalism) on the “legal beat,” yet making substantive mistakes in reporting.” Yea, and amen. Journalists – even those on the “legal” beat – rarely do accurate reporting on legal matters. And I’m not talking about simply the omission of nuance. So often they’re just dead wrong. Even some talking heads who have been to law school fall into this category. There’s one exception that might surprise a lot of people: Megyn Kelly (sp?) of Fox News. Yes, she’s a Fox blondie, but her legal analysis is typically spot-on. And all those arguments she has with O’Reilly? She’s right, he’s wrong.
LikeLike
Hmm… according to the chart (link below), seeing Calvinistas as “angry” would put TCG into the liberal church camps. Do they know they are liberals?
We still don’t know what the Eastern Orthodox think of Calvinists, since they aren’t on the chart – at least not yet. We didn’t know what Lutherans thought of Calvinists either since they were left off the chart too – at least until our beloved Strange Herring stepped up to the plate.
http://strangeherring.com/2011/09/28/and-this-is-how-lutherans-see-everyone-else
LOL! 😉
LikeLike
Viking, I think credentials is beside the point of TGC. Collin and Justin are editors and promoters of the pastors and ministry leaders that comprise TGC’s council. Hansen’s original piece, an article for CT, did have to go through their journalistic process, though you do know that CT has its own models for stories — uplift for folks they like, and a level of expose for folks they don’t. It’s a very similar dynamic to TGC — promotional and celebratory to the end of a balanced and moderate evangelicalism. Don’t discount either TGC’s ties to Crossway books, which as I understand it puts up a lot of money for TGC’s website and conferences. Makes sense as a marketing move since Crossway publishes most of TGC’s council — especially Piper for whom Taylor was an inhouse editor at Desiring God before moving to Crossway.
So the credentials are largely personal. That does not help to calibrate sap meters.
LikeLike
Lily, that’s a great chart and pretty accurate for Reformed folks.
LikeLike
Doc – glad you enjoyed the chart.
I just checked the link again. Strange Herring updated the post with more photos… the new photos are supposed to be how others view us, but all I could think was, “yep, that’s us!” LOL.
LikeLike
“Topic Four: John MacArthur warns of the reformed preachers that think just because they embrace reform theology they have a free pass to act like the world and embrace the culture. Brannon believes Pastors Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and Tim Keller are all examples of reformed pastors that Christians should avoid and he explains why. Brannon believes that many of today’s “popular” pastors don’t have the courage to call out the false teaching of their friends because they prefer to belong to the “club” and receive all the perks that go with going along with the group. Brannon believes the members of the “Gospel Coalition” are a perfect example as its members don’t seem to have the courage or conviction to call out Piper, Driscoll, and Keller for their theological error. ”
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-radio/episode.php?episodeid=19505
I know nothing about this man and I have not listened to this. Sounds interesting though!
LikeLike
Re: MacArthur & Brannon
Oh My! Flat Screen TV Preachers and Pornographic Divination!?! They aren’t impressed with Driscoll, Keller, and Piper.
LikeLike
Lily – do you know who Brannon is?
LikeLike
No, DJ, I don’t know anything other than what is provided on the website about Brannon.
I did find it interesting that the curmudgeonly Evangelicals aren’t thrilled with TGC either and it was Pyromaniacs blog author Johnson who coined the phrase: pornographic divination. Whew! Kinda makes Old Life look like mild mannered Clark Kent?
Apprising Ministries has a nice round up of links on their unhappiness with Driscoll and this line about TGC was interesting: “…so-called New Calvinism, which itself appears to be a postmodern form of Calvinism embracing both Reformation theology and the spurious spirituality of Counter Reformation Roman Catholicism”
http://apprising.org/2011/08/15/mark-driscoll-and-pornographic-divination
What do you think?
LikeLike
LOVE it! And thanks for introducing me to the blog posts at apprising.org!
LikeLike