One Thing She Overlooked

Published on by D. G. Hart

11. Neo-Calvinists are slimey.

If Corrie Mitchell had to account for Nelson Kloosterman in her brief for Calvinism’s better, kinder, gentler side, what would she say? Of if she read Dr. K’s latest post, would she continue to say this about Calvinism?

Often, Calvinists are accused of being cocky, arrogant, abrasive — usually toward those who don’t share the Reformed theology they believe to be exclusively accurate. The danger comes in elevating the theology, the doctrine above Christ. In the end, Reformed theology doesn’t perfectly answer or satisfy every question we have, for God is bigger and beyond any system or framework that we contrive.

I like the way pastor Art Azurdia reorients us to Jesus by saying, “The evidence of God’s mercy in your life isn’t determined by how much theology you know, by how many books you read, but by your active goodness to people in misery and in need.”

The difficulty for Ms. Mitchell is that she may engage in a bit of the shell-game in which Dr. K excels — accent the positive, ignore the negative. Another name for it is cherry picking, and Dr. K is particularly adept at making his opponents look bad and scaring his readers about his opponents. I know first hand since his series on 2k for Canadian Calvinists hammered away at attempting to connect my own views about Christian involvement in politics to Misty Irons thoughts’ about gays. It took Dr. K almost 5 years to recognize that he might have erred and to apologize (in the banter at his blog somewhere, I’m not going to search now).

Now Dr. K tries to make Brian Lee look like a man who doesn’t give a large rodent’s behind for Chinese Christians (even though Dr. K comes across as not particularly caring for a minister in his former communion). When Lee writes:

. . . neither the Church nor her preachers can say unambiguously that such laws must be enacted. She lacks the authority, and the wisdom, to do so. Perhaps such a law will backfire; perhaps it will lead to more abortions, to more deadly abortions. Perhaps it is politically unwise, though being morally just. If she bases her actions on what God’s word teaches, the church must remain agnostic on such questions.

he really means, according to Dr. K:

There you have it: Chinese Pastor Wang is detained on the streets of Chengdu, along with his parishioners, for opposing China’s one-child abortion policy, while URC Pastor Lee blogs from his desk at Starbucks in Washington, DC, that such pastors lack the wisdom to preach unambiguously that such forced abortions must stop.

I’m guessing that Pastor Wang didn’t get the Washington, DC, URC memo: Sit down and be quiet, Pastor! As a result, he’s in clear and obvious violation of the URC pastor’s virulent policy of religious disengagement.

(As if Dr. K blogging from his bunker in Illinois is showing the courage of Pastor Wang. I guess Pastor Lee didn’t receive Dr. K’s memo about where to blog.)

The thing is, Dr. K cherry picks in both directions. He selectively uses Pastor Wang to show up Pastor Lee (what if Brian were an Asian-American? Would Dr. K write as he did?). And he selectively uses Pastor Wang to prove the transformational effects of Christianity:

Some Chinese also discern in Christianity the roots of Western strength. They see it as the force behind the development of social justice, civil society and rule of law, all things they hope to see in China. Many new NGOs are run by Christians or Buddhists. There are growing numbers of Christian doctors and academics. More than 2,000 Christian schools are also dotted around China, many of them small and all, as yet, illegal.

One civil-rights activist says that, of the 50 most-senior civil-rights lawyers in China, probably half are Christians. Some of them have set up the Association of Human Rights Attorneys for Chinese Christians. Groups of well-paid urban Christian lawyers join together to defend Christians—and others—in court. Missionaries have begun to go out from China to the developing world.

So why exactly would he credit Christianity with civil rights efforts if half the civil rights advocates in China are not Christian? Does he ever consider that maybe the diagram here is not a Venn arrangement but a circle (Christians) within a larger circle (civil rights advocates) — let’s call it a Subset Diagram? That is, could it be that civil rights is a product as much of the Enlightenment that Christians eventually embraced as it is somehow an outgrowth of Christian faith? It sure would be possible to find plenty of liberal Christians who support civil rights and don’t give a fig about limited atonement or Calvinistic epistemology.

But such analysis rarely gets in the way of Dr. K’s execution of w-w.

When Ms. Mitchell encounters the Dr. K’s of the world, will she issue a retraction?

50 thoughts on “One Thing She Overlooked”

  2. I’ll await my execution for this comment. However, as a pastor, I’ve never understood how proclaiming – something an unjust law that should be changed – to a group of like-minded individuals who can’t make the change happen is my primary duty as a minister. Why is it not enough to call sinners to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? It seems this is an important consideration in life. No comfort without it and all that.

    Like

  3. Chris, bingo. These are the same fellows who would rant about a minister publicly howling over immigration policies or civil rights laws, but when it comes to the politics of sex social gospel is the mark of sanctity.

    Like

  5. He can talk China all he wants, but wasn’t South Africa Dr. K’s dream scenario to show how Kuyperian Christianity influences a society toward justice? And isn’t it still a problem for the South African missionary to disassociate racism from Reformed Christianity? Idealism must be a pretty potent drug.

    Like

  6. Dr. K gets it wrong again.

    I’m actually reading this blog at St. Elmo’s Coffee Pub in Alexandria, VA. It’s a nice place, and my neighborhood haunt. Come visit me some time.

    http://stelmoscoffeepub.com

    And, to totally confirm everyone’s impression of me as a transformationalist zealot, I actually wrote the piece while taking a break from a phone bank in Nebraska.

    See, I took a little vacation from my pastoral call earlier this week to help out a friend in his day job. I guess I’m schizophrenic.

    (did I miss the link to Dr. K? Why am I not Dr. L? I think I prefer Pastor, though.)

    Like

  8. OK, now that I’ve read the Dr. K piece, a few brief comments.

    It seems as though NK can only think of the church in the imperative voice. I actually said the church should NOT SPEAK on such matters, and he turned that into a command to sit down and be quiet.

    Also, I’m fascinated to the degree to which no one ever engages my argument that the New Testament is silent on the matter of governing, other than, you know, that bit about “submitting.” And this isn’t an accidental silence… this is silence in the face of Old Testament assumptions, in the face of Jewish Zealotry, in the face of Roman persecution of Christ himself, in the face of the arrest of Paul and persecution of other Apostles. It’s a weighty silence.

    NK: “Which version of gospel transformation—the vigorous Chinese version, or the inert American version—comports better with genuinely confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord of all?”

    P the A: “aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.”

    Like

  9. Brian, your hangout has “Pub” in the name, which was promising, but clicking on the link produced only disappointment. Can’t you find some darker, more menacing place than that? A little pubbier, maybe?

    Like

  10. OK, I can’t resist one more comment.

    Why are all these gospelly transformed brothers always insulting me?

    I have pretty thick skin, so I can take quite a bit, bloviating here at my inside the beltway blog (don’t have one) with my bogus degrees and ordination and all. But apparently the rules of civil discourse and dialogue aren’t a part of the one transforming kingdom of heaven.

    I was a delegate with NK at the URCNA Synod in 2010, and enjoyed some spirited and fruitful debate and discussion with him in the service of the church. I think such speech toward a brother would be censured on the floor of Synod. Is the Internet another kingdom, governed by another ethic?

    Like

  11. CW, this is a remote office. I prefer to work sober, though occasionally the work product begs that question.

    ChurchKey is around the corner from the church, and that’s the preferred place to retire to after functions at church, or for the occasionally consistory gathering. It would be more to your liking. It’s one of the highest rated pubs in DC, with an awesome beer selection, though perhaps a bit too “foodie” for my taste.

    http://www.churchkeydc.com

    Like

  12. One more. Can’t resist:

    NK: “I’m guessing that Pastor Wang didn’t get the Washington, DC, URC memo: Sit down and be quiet, Pastor! As a result, he’s in clear and obvious violation of the URC pastor’s virulent policy of religious disengagement.”

    BL: “It’s important to begin this discussion with a note of charity. There is great diversity in how Christians answer questions of Christ and culture, because the New Testament says very little explicitly about the matter, and the questions raised are necessarily highly contextual, reflecting one’s particular time and place. We need therefore to hold loosely to our conclusions and applications in this area, and respect those in other times and places and other traditions with whom we disagree.

    As a minister in the Reformed tradition, I answer these questions with a series of distinctions that aren’t often clearly understood in our day, so establishing a framework is important to avoid confusion.”

    Yep, virulent.

    Like

  13. Rev. Mr. Dr. Pastor Lee (which ever you prefer, cross out the rest!),
    Does creepy Rob Lowe or cool Rob Lowe frequent your St. Elmo’s coffee shop?

    Like

  14. “Does creepy Rob Lowe or cool Rob Lowe frequent your St. Elmo’s coffee shop?”

    This will become my new standard when judging an establishment.

    Keep up the good work, Pastor Lee.

    Like

  16. Rev. Mr. Dr. Pastor Lee,
    I believe that Dr K is so invested in his ideology that he is unable to see the trees for the forest.

    With that being said I would like to take you up on your challenge:

    Also, I’m fascinated to the degree to which no one ever engages my argument that the New Testament is silent on the matter of governing, other than, you know, that bit about “submitting.” And this isn’t an accidental silence… this is silence in the face of Old Testament assumptions, in the face of Jewish Zealotry, in the face of Roman persecution of Christ himself, in the face of the arrest of Paul and persecution of other Apostles. It’s a weighty silence.

    In John 10 we see Jesus attending the festival of dedication or lights, aka Hanukkah. It was a celebration of the Maccabean revolt and re-dedication of the Temple which had occurred only about 200 years prior, about the same amount of time since our own American revolution. On the face of it the implicit assumption would be that Jesus’ participation in the event showed his approval for the festival and the antecedent events. An approval of a kind of Jewish zealotry.

    Just prior to his attendance Jesus gives an illustration of himself using the OT messianic theme of a shepherd and it’s heavy Davidic context. He talks about the thief who comes to steal, kill, and destroy. This would have reminded the Jews of the Syrians for whom they revolted against.

    He talks about giving his life for his sheep which may have reminded them of Mattathias the father of Maccabee who died revolting against the Syrians.

    While at the festival when asked directly whether he was the Christ, the one imagined by the zealots to be a conquering hero, Jesus does not correct their mistaken assumption that the Christ would be a secular leader. Instead he insults them for their lack of zealotry towards him.

    In the face of OT assumptions and Jewish zealotry Jesus plays into those emotions. Implicitly he acknowledges the zealotry of the festival. If your emphasis were correct one would think that this would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to speak about “submission” in the face of ramped up zealotry. Instead he uses the themes of the event to insult the crowd for their lack of zealotry. No instruction about living quietly in the face of Roman persecution at the perfect opportunity to make the point.

    So while Dr K’s zealotry may be overwrought I can’t help but think your emphasis is underwhelming. What say you?

    Like

  19. D.G.,
    Let’s look at some facts here. First, regarding the following statement:

    Often, Calvinists are accused of being cocky, arrogant, abrasive — usually toward those who don’t share the Reformed theology they believe to be exclusively accurate.

    We should note that the statement is not true for the following reasons:

    1. Not all Calvinists are cocky, arrogant, and abrasive
    2. Of those who are, some will be that way to fellow Calvinists as well.

    Proof of that last point comes in the form of this quote by a Calvinist:

    Neo-Calvinists are slimey.

    and

    The neo-Cals can’t be bothered with Scripture. It’s all about w-w

    Second, Venn diagrams are used to illustrate all kind set relations from disjoint sets to subsets.

    Third, we so often excuse ourselves from how the Scriptures say we are to disagree when defending a particular theological turf. It would serve us all well to reread that first criticism of Calvinists in general and look in the mirror for where we are producing the works of pride rather than bearing the fruit of the Spirit.

    Finally, could it be that the concern for civil rights by nonChristians is the result of God’s Common Grace and that such people have something to teach us even if they don’t care about limited atonement and Calvinistic epistemology?

    Like

  20. @ igasx:

    The key words here are “redemptive history” and “jurisdiction.” Israel was a theocracy, and the Maccabees were right to revolt in a civil sense against idolatry.

    America is not a theocracy — in fact, God’s theocracy is His church and not any geopolitical nation. From this, it follows that God’s people are right to revolt against idolatry within the church.

    But outside of the church, it is striking and compelling that Paul does not advocate revolt against Nero but rather submission. What do we make of that? First and foremost, that Paul stood against idolatry, but did not stand for revolt against idolatrous regimes.

    So now a neo-Cal comes along and says that a duty of the church is to demand of the civil government that laws about, say, abortion should be brought into line with Scripture.

    OK … so which command is the greatest? Is that not the first table of the Law? Should not we be *more* outraged that the government allows for idolatry and false worship, than that it allows abortion? And yet the neo-Cals (generally not being theonomists) see the wisdom of allowing the church to police idolatry instead of giving that job to the civil government. They admit that the First Commandment is properly obeyed when Christians worship God, not when Christians demand through force of law that others worship God.

    That conceded, argument from greater to lesser would seem to say that the Sixth Commandment is properly obeyed when Christians refrain from abortion (and yes, Curt, care for the well-being of others), not when Christians demand through force of law that abortion be outlawed.

    Where it gets confusing to some is that the natural or moral law, binding on all, requires that we refrain from abortions (possibly with exceptions for life of mother yada-yada). So it might seem to some that the church should point this out to the state.

    But actually, since the moral law is binding on all through creation and not redemption, it would be better to say that Christian citizens should point this out to the state. The jurisdiction of the church lies elsewhere.

    So where Dr. K errs is in assuming that since 2k says that the church should not intrude on the state’s jurisdiction, that it also says that Christian citizens should not exercise their moral judgments when called upon to write law.

    The first is true; the second is false.

    Like

  21. I was hoping DVD’s “Divine Covenants and Moral Order” would generate some more exegetically-oriented discussions on this matter. Does anyone know of any reviews – either favorable or perhaps furious – that have been written on it?

    Like

  22. …could it be that the concern for civil rights by nonChristians is the result of God’s Common Grace and that such people have something to teach us even if they don’t care about limited atonement and Calvinistic epistemology?

    Curt, I know you’ll never give up the category of social sin, but far be it from me not to give dings where they are due. I’m pulling for your inner 2ker to pipe up more. I wonder if he might be gracious enough to let those who would rather emphasize responsibilities over rights (and remain agnostic on the power of politics) abide.

    Like

  24. Jeff- I agree with most of what you write though I wonder about jurisdiction. At this point in redemptive history Jesus had already announced the in-breaking of the kingdom. If that’s true one would think this would be the perfect opportunity to distinguish that point.

    My main point is that “in the face of” seems a little strong and suggests that the NT describes a clean break from the old theocracy and the Church’s new policy of dealing with culture.

    Like

  25. Does anyone have a guess as to why Kloosterman and his ilk (the Baylys, the proponents of synergistic sanctification in the PCA, the Gospel Coalition/CBMW crowd, etc.) can’t seem to engage in any discussion without declaring their ecclesiastical compatriots to be closeted heretics?

    They whine endlessly about the decline of civic Christianity in the West and the collapse of the social consensus that it supported. Whether that was a good thing or not is largely up for debate. Even so, don’t they understand that their hyperbolic (and largely dishonest) demagoguery only contributes to the further collapse of the social consensus whose collapse they profess to mourn.

    After all, you can’t exactly achieve civic Christianity without comporting yourself with civility. That basic fact seems to be largely lost on these self-appointed inquisitors. Which makes me wonder whether they would have been all that happy with civic Christianity either. I’m not sure that guys like the Baylys, Kloosterman, Ligon Duncan, Phil Ryken, John Piper, Mark Dever, Rabbi Bret, etc. don’t rather envision a world where everyone else simply responds like automatons at their every authoritarian impulse. It’s not the 1950s for which they long; it’s something more akin to modern-day North Korea.

    Like

  26. @igasx: The discourse over rendering unto Caesar, in its historical context, serves as the clean break. Solomon received tribute, not giving it.

    @Zrim: long story involving seeing up close that “Christian worldview” is not for “doctrine” in general usage. Most of the details are best suited for email.

    Like

  29. More @ igasx: I should have said that the “render unto
    Caesar” discourse is the setup for the final break, which is the destruction of the temple (symbolizef by the tearing of the curtain). That moment is decisive because Israel ceases to be a theocracy, and the mantle of Temple passes to the church per Eph 2 et al.

    Like

  32. Ken, if i recommended anti 2K rants to you, you would hold a grudge against me.

    A few are above the level of sleazy used car salesmen brochure, but add nothing to persuade the present views of a reader.

    Like

  33. Jeff, ding on the render-unto-Caesar discourse. They were amazed and marveled in Mark 12 for good reason. Clean breaks tend to do that.

    ps there’s also good reason for Marsden’s Reformed branches and why the culturalists aren’t called doctrinalists. Feel free to detail privately for me (I shot you a note the other day but didn’t hear back).

    Like

  34. Jeff- So there was a transition phase between the “render unto Caesar” and the Temple destruction? Roughly 30-70 AD before the clean break?

    Like

  35. Dr. K – while URC Pastor Lee blogs from his desk at Starbucks in Washington, DC, that such pastors lack the wisdom to preach unambiguously that such forced abortions must stop.

    Erik – Starbucks gave Brian a desk?

    Like

  36. The Irony about Dr.K’s observations about China are:

    (1) It’s been capitalism, not Christianity that has transformed China (Those Chinese students I see everyday aren’t buying their BMW’s and Mercedes with the Christian alms that they received)

    (2) If Christianity is growing in China it’s because Chinese Christians are taking a 2K perspective and not provoking the totalitarian government and poking their fingers in the magistrate’s eye.

    (3) Meanwhile big talkers Rabbi Bret, Mark VDM, and Dr. K promote their brand of conservative Christian activism and agitation in America, where they’re 100% free to do so without consequence, within communities that are probably 80% Christian conservative Republican.

    Like

  37. Brian – Why are all these gospelly transformed brothers always insulting me?

    Erik – Rabbi Bret is just taking out his frustration out on you after being outvoted by all the ladies in his Classis.

    When the URCNA gets Belgic 36 fixed you’ll be out on your ear, though.

    Like

  38. Having a debate about Catholicism with Susan, Kenneth, Cletus, and Bryan (on that one day a month when he’s in a sporting mood) is at least 50% more interesting, edifying, and fun than having a debate with Dr. K, MVDM, and Rabbi Bret, oh — and the Baylys — in the 5 minutes before they ban you.

    What does that say?

    There’s a reason they never come around here anymore and it doesn’t have anything to do with them making winning arguments.

    Like

  39. Igasx: it’s an interesting question, and we might approach it like this: John the Baptist is the beginning of the end.

    I think Matt 21-25 reads compellingly as announcing a definitive break from theocracy to new covenant age, which is then accomplished by the crucifixion, resurrection, and giving of the Spirit.

    Thoughts?

    Like

  40. The Anti-2K people have come to the point that they’re basically done with dialogue & mostly done with attempting to persuade others. What they’re about now is parliamentary procedure and maneuvering. Keep your eye on Belgic 36.

    Some are probably wishing they were back in the CRC where there was some top down authority and a captured seminary.

    Diffusion of authority is not helpful when you have an agenda and a chip on your shoulder.

    Like

  41. More @ Jeff Cagel: Beside the question of the amorphous theocracy between the “render” statement and the destruction of the Temple is the question of the confusion of how the “render” statement should be construed in relation to a Jewish theocracy and at the same time Roman occupation.
    If Israel is to be thought of as still an OT theocracy during this time of Roman occupation, before the tearing of the curtain or the destruction of the Temple, then the “render” statement loses it’s general application to civil society.
    With that being the case and the “clean break” thesis denied the “render” statement needs to be revisited. Interpreted in the aspect of a OT theocracy and it’s concern with the first table is the more likely interpretation. The internal evidence of the emphasis of the “imago” of Caesar on the coin supports that.
    In light of Jesus’ earlier discourse on how one cannot serve both God and mammon, returning back Caesar’s fiat currency is an act of faithfulness. Only a true commodity brings value. The general application to the people of God is clear. Resist the mammon of fiat currency.

    Like

  42. Zrim,
    Thank you for being such a gracious and righteous judge. But just perhaps, that pedestal you’ve put your 2k theology on is causing you to experience difficulty in hearing what is being said as well as difficulty in seeing the tribal mentality that comes whenever we put a pet school of thought on such a pedestal.

    Like

  44. Slimey, eh Curt?

    Greetings, fellow OP brah.

    PS if your church has a website, don’t be shy. I need to improve Providence’s if we ever hope to particularize, yo.

    Yo.

    Like

  47. Jeff:
    I think Matt 21-25 reads compellingly as announcing a definitive break from theocracy to new covenant age, which is then accomplished by the crucifixion, resurrection, and giving of the Spirit.

    Thoughts?

    Me:
    There is no doubt that as Jesus approached the end of his time on earth he was preparing his disciples for the future as recorded in all the synoptic books. But as I alluded to in my post, above, at this time the “theocracy” was web of power sharing between the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians. With all the political intrigue that Judea had gone through in the previous 200 years the signs of the time already pointed in that direction, which is why he mocked the Pharisees for failing to see that.
    The “render” episode was just the final attempt, among many attempts, by the Pharisees to trap Jesus in expounding a false interpretation of the Law. What’s interesting is that they brought the Herodians to this particular inquisition hoping to nail Jesus with a political sin. But Jesus never veered from a proper exegesis of the Law except for, in the eyes of the Pharisees, his claim of equality with God. I don’t see any sort of break from an OC interpretation in this episode.
    Because the Temple was the crux of the OC it’s destruction it is the definitive break. What’s telling is that the Apostles and disciples still went to the Temple and synagogues after his resurrection and Pentecost. If there was an understanding of a clean break prior to the Temple destruction one would think that the Apostles and disciples would not have engaged in the services of the Temple and synagogues.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.