I've long been concerned by the hypocrisy, arrogance, tribalism, and celebrity culture that typifies so much of the Evangelical movement in America. The contemporary Reformed movement, an influential and vocal minority of Christians worldwide, has also been troubled by these ills along with the larger Evangelical movement of which it is a part.
Although not Reformed (I'm much closer in thought to the Arminian tradition), I've long been amenable to much of classic Reformed thought, while remaining thoroughly unmoved by the proclamations of the modern hyper-Calvinists. I've nevertheless benefitted greatly from much of what the better Reformed thinkers have had to say.
Notwithstanding my general admiration, I have been troubled the last few years by how openly critical many American Reformed leaders are of those Christ-followers outside their camp, while rarely ever criticizing even the most egregious public errors among their own. Leaders such as Mark Driscoll, James MacDonald, and CJ Mahaney all have regularly gotten a pass for behavior, words, and decisions that the ever-watchful folk at the Gospel Coalition and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary would have been quick to condemn in anyone else.
John Piper, one of the founders of the Gospel Coalition and a leading thinker of the Calvinist movement in America today, recently produced a winsome commercial for Calvinism entitled "The Doctrines of Grace." According to Pastor Piper,
The doctrines of God's grace are my life, the source of my life, the joy of my life, the sustaining foundation of my life, the hope, the end, the goal of my life. These have been the center of my pastoral ministry at Bethlehem Baptist Church for the last Thirty-three years... I have no doubt in my mind that what has carried us through is the preciousness and truth of the Doctrines of Grace. Another name for the Doctrines of Grace is Calvinism.
Since, as Pastor Piper concludes, the Doctrines of Grace is a another way of talking about Calvinism, it would be interesting to consider Piper's opening words in the video with that one, small, change.
{Calvinism is} my life, the source of my life, the joy of my life, the sustaining foundation of my life, the hope, the end, the goal of my life. {Calvinism has} been the center of my pastoral ministry at Bethlehem Baptist Church for the last Thirty-three years... I have no doubt in my mind that what has carried us through is the preciousness and truth of {Calvinism}.
What about Jesus? Isn't Jesus supposed to be life for his disciples? Isn't it Jesus who is to be the source his followers' lives, the joy of their lives, the sustaining foundation of their lives?" Furthermore, Piper doesn't claim Jesus is the center of his ministry. Instead, Calvinism is claimed as the center. That's an admission passing strange from one who claims the virtues of being "gospel-centered."Ironic that a leader who helped found the Gospel Coalition and who regularly speaks and writes of the need for churches to be more "gospel-centered" could make such a video, over seven minutes in length, and never once utter the name of Jesus.
Jared C. Wilson of the Gospel Coalition separately ironically tweeted not long ago, "'They will know you are Christians by your mentioning 'God'. - American Jesus". He is, of course, commenting on the lamentable fact that so many American Christians are comfortable speaking often of "God," but rarely utter the name of Jesus. Sadly, his irony wasn't directed at Piper, who in his video mentions God many times, but claims Jesus nary a single time.
To my knowledge not a single member of the Gospel Coalition, or of the leadership and faculty at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (one of the foremost Calvinist schools in America) has written to critique Piper's shocking lapse of pastoral judgment in giving primacy to a theological system over the Savior it purports to proclaim. In many conversations about the video with Calvinist brothers and friends I heard the same refrain I have heard whenever any Calvinist leader falls into error: "I'm sure he didn't mean it the way it sounded. I don't want to be critical of him; his ministry has been important in my life. He's a great man who means well. No one should be evaluated by a few, very small errors in his theology or ministry. We just need to have grace. Do I think he was wrong? I'm uncomfortable being critical of him. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt."
These are all understandable responses from well-intentioned and goodhearted people. Notwithstanding that fact, there is something profoundly wrong when Christ-followers are more comfortable critiquing (as so many often do) their own pastor's leadership, speaking style, sermon content, and theology, than they are voicing even the most mild of constructive criticism about their favorite podcast preachers. I understand and applaud loyalty to one's friends and family. I understand such loyalty less when it's given wholly, uncritically, and unreservedly to Christian leaders whose lives are largely unknown to us and with whom we have no real relationship. Loyalty such as that is no gift, but rather one of the root causes for the development of our contemporary culture of Christian celebrity.
There is something decidedly unhygienic about the habitual way some Calvinist leaders criticize the perceived lapses of their non-Calvinist brethren, yet can't find the time, interest, or digital ink to offer even the most mild correctives of those who share their theological tent. Albert Mohler and Denny Burke come immediately to mind here. Both are quick to criticize pastors who are not Calvinist when they believe them to be in error, but virtually always hold strangely silent when one in their own camp fails to maintain financial, doctrinal, ethical, or moral purity.
In recent months, however, the wall of silent acquiescence among other Reformed leaders and their followers is beginning to show signs of cracking. For example, Calvinist theologian Paul Owen wrote an essay not long ago decrying the "TULIP Cult." Some time later, after viewing Piper's video on "The Doctrines of Grace," he commented about the video at theologian Roger Olson's blog saying,
That is an amazing example of what happens when Christ our Lord is taken out of the center of Christianity and replaced with TULIP. Supposedly, were it not for TULIP, Piper would not have been able to overcome his prostate cancer, and a family in his church would not have been able to get through the nightmare of discovering their child had been molested. Sorry, but that is just doctrinally aberrant and bizarre. I cannot imagine Calvin, or any historic Reformed theologian from centuries past speaking in such a worshipful tone about any particular theory regarding election, the atonement, or the mechanisms of the ordo salutis. And people accuse me of building a straw-man when I say that modern Calvinists have reduced the essence of Christianity to the never-ceasing gnostic contemplation of TULIP? That’s precisely what I mean by the TULIP cult.
Carl Trueman, one of the more faithfully prophetic voices in the American Reformed movement, has also weighed in on what ails the contemporary Calvinist movement in America with a typically thoughtful critique in First Things. He surveys some of the movement's pathologies, and comments specifically on the almost universal failure of the movement's leaders to hold each other accountable.
And then, finally, there is the silence. The one thing that might have kept the movement together would have been strong, transparent public leadership that openly policed itself and thus advertised its integrity for all to see. Yet the most remarkable thing about the whole sorry saga, from the Jakes business until now, has been the silence of many of the men who present themselves as the leaders of the movement and who were happy at one time to benefit from Mark Driscoll’s reputation and influence. One might interpret this silence as an appropriate refusal to comment directly on the ministry of men who no longer have any formal connection with their own organizations.
Yet the leaders of the “young, restless, and reformed” have not typically allowed that concern to curtail their comments in the past. Many of them have been outspoken about the teaching of Joel Osteen, for example. In their early days, when the Emergent Church was vying with the new Calvinism for pole position in the American evangelical world, they launched regular, and often very thorough, critiques of the Emergent leaders. In retrospect, however, it is clear that these were soft targets. Their very distance made them safe. Problems closer to home are always much harder to speak to, much more likely to earn opprobrium from one’s friends, and thus much more likely to be ignored. The result, however, is that some leaders become very accustomed to always doing things their way. All of us who are thought of as Evangelical or Reformed now live with the bitter fruit of that failure of leadership.
There are hints even among regular churchgoing followers of the American Calvinist movement that long needed correction is finally occurring. Formerly silent supporters are awakening to the fact that their reticence to hold their leaders accountable has not been helpful but instead gave license for even worse misbehavior. Sarah Cunningham writes in the Huffington Post,
I think people like me are {an} enabling part of the problem. Whether it is because we prefer to keep our distance from inflammatory culture wars or whether it is because we're hesitant to critique someone who still bears some similarities to our mission, some of us who are more moderate have perhaps allowed a tragic silence to be our default response...
In recent days Mark Driscoll released a letter of apology for much of his past misbehavior and ethical and moral lapses. I read it with relief. I'm guardedly hopeful that Pastor Driscoll is sincerely repentant and not merely engaging in damage control to protect and preserve his brand. He certainly seems repentant.
Wise followers will trust but verify. They should take his repentance at face value while also requiring him to show lasting progress and change for the better. For now, it is an immensely positive occurrence when leaders such as Mark Driscoll finally develop enough self-awareness to correct course, change their behavior, and make amends to those whom they have wronged.
How different might the church look with but a few beginning correctives. For starters, when moved to critique another Christian teacher, a leader might first consider his or her own failings (Matt 7:3-5; Rom 3:23). They could take care to ensure their lives model what they teach (Matt 23:3). Leaders should avoid at all costs the adulation of celebrity that they may not seek to foster but which their followers nevertheless seek to lavish on them (Matt 23:3, 6-7).
If they are compelled by conscience and circumstance to speak critically of another leader, leaders should do so kindly, civilly, and in such a way as to minimize any rancor (Gal 6:1; Eph 4:32; Eph 4:15). Lastly, it would be good for all Christian leaders to remind themselves that we are far more likely to be effectively heard by those with whom we are in relationship than those outside our fellowship (Prov 27:6).
One can only hope the recent signs of greater accountability in the Calvinist movement are but green shoots of new and positive changes that will over time grow to maturity and bear much fruit. How uplifting it would be for all ministry leaders, regardless of denomination or theological affiliation, to see such leaders practice among themselves the same accountability and transparency which they preach to others. What an incredibly positive development for the Kingdom if an ever-growing number of Reformed leaders returned to the early hallmark of the Reformed church of being "reformed and always reforming." There's still time for the Reformed movement to reform itself.
