In Which a Calvinist Annoys and Delights Me
Or you can call him “Reformed.” I personally dislike that particular term because to many people it implies that other protestants never passed through the reformation, that only the Calvinists “reformed.” All of which can also ignore the adjustments in Catholic theology since the time of the reformation. But that’s all a side issue, and I’m going to use the term anyhow, as those who keep up with theology at all are aware of the current meaning.
I think that Adrian Warnock has an exceptional ability to pick out annoying portions of quotes, as he does in his post Piper on Leading People Towards Reformed Theology. Now I don’t mean annoying in the sense that it is somehow convicting. I mean it in the sense that it frames the opposition inappropriately, in my view, and in this case it looks a bit arrogant.
Now having read Adrian’s extract, I clicked on through to Piper’s original words, and while they still contain that which annoys me, to which I’ll respond in a moment, they come in a much better context. Piper, who is an exceptional preacher in my opinion, even or especially when I’m busy disagreeing with him, is providing advice for a Reformed pastor who finds himself pastoring an Arminian congregation. His advice is excellent. I’d advise any pastor who has a congregation that disagrees with him in theology to follow it.
I think it would work just as well for an Arminian pastor who ends up pastoring a predominantly Reformed congregation, or any pastor who ends up pastoring a congregation that is not in tune with his theology. I’d like to recommend his advice to those United Methodist pastors who end up in a congregation that wants to be entertained, while the pastor wants to become more God-centered. Be who you believe you’re supposed to be. If certain aspects of theology are too difficult or controversial, focusing on God and who God is will be an excellent place to start.
Similarly, if you’re a liberal pastoring a conservative congregation, you too can focus on God. I assume that if you’re a pastor, you believe that the social imperatives you accept result from who God is and what God desires. So preach about who God is.
Of course, as Piper notes as well, there may be a time to move on, and I personally would add that one shouldn’t seek out such a mismatch. But I know of a number of United Methodist ministers who feel very challenged by the beliefs (or lack of same) in their congregations, yet believe strongly they are called by God to be where they are.
All those parts of Piper’s post are a delight. I’m not going to try to quote from it. You need to read the whole thing. In a few paragraphs, Piper gives all of us good advice–provided we ignore the slanted Reformed and Arminian bias, to which I now turn my attention.
In other words, a Reformed position mainly means, God is really big, really strong, really powerful, really knowledgeable, really wise, really great, really weighty, and he is going to be big in this service, and we’re going to make a big deal out of God here. There are a lot of born-again Arminian people who like that. It’s because they don’t see the implications of their theology.
The bottom line here is that this is not really the main Reformed position, at least not in distinction to other positions. I normally like to let people define themselves, but if that definition includes “unlike me” I am quite prepared to object. I too believe God is strong, knowledgeable, wise, and weighty, and you can put however many “really’s” in front of each word, because “infinite” licenses you to do so. I think the worship service should center around divine things as well.
Arminian theology doesn’t imply anything else either. You see, “God is sovereign” means that God gets to do what God wants, and that includes anything whatsoever that God wants to do, including ordaining free will. Somehow some Calvinists think that predestination gives greater glory to God because it takes human beings out of the equation. But you don’t give greater glory by saying something false about a person or thing. If I praise my hammer as a saw, I’m just being silly. It won’t make it a saw, and it won’t make anyone regard my hammer more highly because of its saw-like attributes.
I would note the condescension in the final sentence of the quote about us illogical Arminians. It may seem nice to give us the excuse of ignorance or blindness, but it seems to replace a certain spiritual arrogance with an intellectual variety.
That doesn’t answer the question of who is correct, however, because my argument cuts both ways. If I’m wrong about free will, I do not increase God’s glory by proclaiming it either. That’s beyond the scope of this particular post.
This ties in with my current series on Interpreting the Bible, and particular my last post in which I said:
Now how does this apply to my test passages? I want to make clear here that the problem with the passages I cited is not that I dont like what they say. My feelings about what a passage says do not impact what its now dead author meant to say. The ancients said many things that I dont like. God is represented as saying things that I dont like in scripture. My dislike of the statement doesnt alter the intent of that statement.
When we phrase the problem in that way we open things up for non-Christians to point out that we are simply taking what we like from scripture, for more conservative Christians to suggest that we are discarding passages at will, and for those more liberal to suggest that we havent moved far enough.
The inverse is also possible–when one presents a problem of interpretation which involves an apparent contention of two views in scripture, it is quite easy for one’s opponent to represent this as a problem of trying to discard something one doesn’t like.
But my major problem with predestination is not that I don’t like it. I admit I don’t, but I also don’t like the command to “take up my cross” and I think that one is absolutely valid and binding! My problem is that I think the doctrine of predestination, as stated in the Westminster Confessions, misrepresents God, who God claims God is.
So please do go on proclaiming the sovereignty of God. Make God-centered worship services. If you’re an Arminian who has somehow become pastor to a church of Calvinists, do the same. Make your worship services God-centered.
I am reminded of a friend who was discussing creation and evolution with me who proposed the same type of question. “How can this be reconciled with the Biblical picture of a loving God?” he asked me. Well, that is a difficulty, but it is not a difficulty that will alter the facts on the ground. When you get right down to it, things like the flood and hell fire provide at least as much reason to question one’s picture of God. And evolution occurred (or not) whether I believe it, like it, ignore it, or abhor it.
Even the Wesleyan-Arminian view of choice leaves many wondering. How can a choice, even by a prevenient-grace-enabled, yet finite human, settle an eternal destiny? Is it fair for God to allow such an uninformed choice to result in eternal consequences? Under this view, were the sinner permitted to look into the pits of hell when making the decision, would it be the same? Of course the word “fair” here begs for definition, but I’m using it because I’m intentionally framing this in a form based on human feeling. The Bible proclaims that God is just, which may not seem fair!
No, it’s not a question of just how sovereign God is. It’s a question of what we believe God actually has done. I think the evidence, both scriptural and historical, indicates God has, in his sovereign will, left a great deal more to humanity than we would like. But whether we like it or not, God, by definition, gets to make the ultimate choices.
Exactly why I don’t read Adrian Warnock’s ‘blog’ any more. If he still allowed comments (which is why I initially stopped reading), he would be caned for this. He is entitled to disagree with those of us who are Arminians, but misrepresentation is a serious matter. Wasn’t there something in the Ten Commandments that touched on that? If it’s not misrepresentation but misunderstanding, he should accept correction – but again, comment disabling prevents that. And even though Piper gives some good advice as you rightly say, one could raise similar issues with him here.
While I agree that closing comments goes contrary to the purpose of a blog, I think it’s still useful to respond via one’s own blog. In fact, for anything other than short comments I always respond in a post with a link.
As for misrepresentation, I did find the particular editing by Adrian questionable at best. He diminished the good advice and focused on the idea that the distinguishing characteristic of Calvinism was God’s sovereignty.
I hesitate to describe what Piper did as misrepresentation simply because misunderstanding and mischaracterizing someone else’s position is so ubiquitous. I know I’ve been guilty myself and I want to be correctable, but in a recent discussion of complementarianism I ended up with a disagreement in which my correspondent felt I continued to misrepresent his position, whereas I felt I was simply rejecting his spin.
Because of such disagreements, I avoid calling such things intentional or using the word “lie.” I’ll stick with “disagreement.”
In addition, one of the hardest things in debate is to say what one really means while not ending the debate in a firestorm. Too many peaceful dialogues are not honest, while too many potential honest dialogues die at birth because the participants aren’t willing to give one another the benefit of the doubt on motivations.
But I do know that this sort of characterization inflames us Arminians, so I understand the heat generated.
“God is sovereign means that God gets to do what God wants, and that includes anything whatsoever that God wants to do, including ordaining free will.”
Ha. This is kind of like saying God is powerful enough to create an object too heavy for himself to lift up. Nonsense.
Kind of like? Actually hardly at all like.
I would suggest you apply a bit more imagination to the topic. There are a number of solutions. Of course we don’t know how God actually accomplishes this or anything else.