- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (10/27)
- Next Post »A La Carte (10/28)
Letters to a Young Calvinist
- 10/27/10
- 31
There are many books out there that describe Reformed theology and that invite people to become part of the Reformed tradition. However, most of these books are a product of the years before the advent of this young, restless, Reformed reality that is all the rage today. Most such books predate the New Calvinism.
New to the field, and largely distinct from the rest, is Letters to a Young Calvinist by James K.A. Smith. This is one of the few books to speak directly to this new young, restless, Reformed movement. Written in the form of letters from a mentor to a young man who is investigating Reformed theology, the book offers a winsome 125-page introduction to the tradition and to the way it works out in real life. The author says "These letters don't offer an apologetic defense of Calvinism, trying to defend it against all comers; rather, I envision the addressee of these letters as someone who has already become interested in this tradition and is looking for a guide into unfamiliar territory."
Smith leads the young recipient of these letters into the tradition in a systematic way. He begins with words of welcome, expressing the way that Reformed theology leads us to seek out and discover deep wells of the Scripture. For example, "I think it is one of the hallmarks of the Reformed tradition that it has a long history of encouraging curiosity about creation. Unlike some of the places you and I have been, which really discourage questioning in order to get people to toe the party line, the Reformed tradition has long encourages a kind of holy intellectual riskiness."
He warns of one of the most perilous sins of the Reformed: "Now is as good a time as any to warn you about one of the foremost temptations that accompanies Reformed theology: pride. And the worst kind of pride: religious pride (one of Screwtape's letters speaks quite eloquently about this). This is an infection that often quickly contaminates those who discover the Reformed tradition, and it can be deadly: a kind of West Nile virus."
Smith suggests that the best one-word summary of Reformed theology is grace. He speaks of grace going "all the way down," by which he means that grace infuses every part of Reformed theology. And, indeed, Reformed theology is a theology of grace--grace in every part. He says (rightly!) that Reformed theology is not all about election and predestination; they are components of the theology but they are not all there is to it. "I often feel that Reformed theology is ill served by a myopic focus on these things, as legitimate as they are." And he emphasizes that Reformed theology is inherently unfinished. "It seems to me very un-Reformed to prop up Reformed theology as a timeless ideal, a consummated achievement, when one of the Reformers' mantras was semper reformanda—always reforming. You shouldn't expect a lifetime of pursuing the truth to result in constant entrenchment into what you thought when you were twenty."
Sooner or later, though, the author has to take sides in some of the issues that remain unresolved across the spectrum of the New Calvinism. And here is where he will inevitably lose some of his readers. The first of these issues regards confessions. Many who consider themselves Reformed today are explicitly non-confessional, meaning that they do not adhere to any of the catechisms or confessions that have long been Reformed hallmarks. Following this are a few discussions about the role of covenant within the tradition. Where Smith is sure to alienate even more readers is in his parenthetical attempt to suggest that Reformed theology ought to lead to an egalitarian understanding of gender roles.
As I look back on this book I see both strengths and weaknesses. The epistolary form is a wonderful choice. The tone is humble and helpful. The majority of what Smith teaches lines up well with what I believe. But as a Baptist I had to disagree with, well, a good portion of it. And looking at the endorsements, I can see that others disagreed with him as well. Two of the book's endorsers, Tullian Tchividjian and Michael Horton offer caveats within their blurbs (Tchividjian: " No one will agree with everything here, but what I appreciate..." Horton: Most of the time I cheered 'Amen!' as I read these letters, but even when I disagreed, I appreciated..."). In fact, conspicuous by their absence from the list of endorsers are any of the Baptist leaders of this New Calvinism.
So I guess I regard the book as a bit of a mixed bag. I felt that it got weaker as it went on. The best parts were largely the earliest parts. Of course if you are a paedo-baptist, if you are confessional, if you are covenantal, and/or if you are egalitarian, you'll probably agree with much more of it. But maybe that's the point. Thus far this young, restless, Reformed movement has been very ecumenical, with most people focusing on the commonalities, and especially the common understanding of God's sovereignty in salvation. Maybe the movement has grown up enough that people are now ready to begin discussing more of the particulars. And it’s in the particulars that we are bound to find the most disagreement.
You can buy it at Westminster Books or Amazon.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (31)
This is a letter to a young Calvinist to introduce him to reformed theology, and yet you say one of the weaknesses is that he introduces him to the whole of reformed theology? Don’t you think that he should fulfill what he says he is going to do in the title?
Why there isn’t any Baptists endorsing the book is because Baptists are not reformed. They may believe in the doctrines of grace and call themselves the “New Calvinism,” but as he says, the doctrines of grace is not the only element of reformed theology. For Baptists to be truly reformed, they would not be Baptist anymore.
How does her on the one hand say the Reformed should be confessional but on the other say we should be egalitarian? Don’t the historic confessions hold to a complimentarian view?
Tim, I’m glad to see someone addressing this subject. Many of my newly reformed Baptist friends are like the Jews pursuing righteousness with zeal but little knowledge…grace…and in denial of a fundamental tenant of reformed theology - a trust in God’s sovereignty to convince others of truth. As a local church pastor I can say the majority of my newly reformed Baptist friends aren’t reformed at all; just TULIPed - and creating the kind of havoc in the local church that brands reformed theology as arrogant and divisive. I do wish a Baptist would address the same issues for young reformed Baptists in Baptist churches.
I’d suggest that it’s not helpful to so quickly conflate disagreeing with the assertion that it’s weak.It may perhaps be weak, but framing any disagreement as a weakness seems like an easy way to avoid the critique.Some of the most well argued books we will read may be books we disagree with in the end, and that should be alright if we are being intellectually honest.
I’m very confused by the resentment of confessions/confessionalism. The Baptists do have a confession, as do Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and—of course—the Reformed. Do they not spell out for us what we believe—defining what a Baptist is, a Roman Catholic is, a Lutheran is, etc.? If we reject confessions, then aren’t we using subjective measures to say who we are—and then don’t the terms become meaningless because “Reformed” means what you say it is or what I say it is? Many of today’s denominations are products of the Reformation, in the broadest, historical sense, but that does not necessarily make them Reformed.
I have to agree with Mason. The fact that a reviewer disagrees with a position taken in a book is not, in itself, a weakness of the book. Was it argued poorly, did it treat the opposing positions unfairly, etc. … those are the types of things that would make the book weak.
As a confessional covenantal Presbyterian I appreciated the substance and gracious tone of your review. It whetted my appetite to read this book! It sounds as if it would be a good complement to Robert Godfrey’s autobiographical An Unexpected Journey: Discovering Reformed Christianity.
Grace and peace!
“As a local church pastor I can say the majority of my newly reformed Baptist friends aren’t reformed at all; just TULIPed - and creating the kind of havoc in the local church that brands reformed theology as arrogant and divisive.”
Well said, Reggie!
Mr. Weems
As a soteriologically “reformed” Baptist I agree with your assertion about most Baptists being a bit too zealous for TULIP in their presentation of truth. In their discovery of these jewels of truth they have hastily pushed others into the fray whether they are receptible or not.
On the other hand, my first encounter with TULIP or any reformed theology was with a very zealous Presbyterian girl in college. It seemed to be her MO to wreak a bit of havoc of her own in our BCM.
It took a bit for me to find most Prebyterians are not like this, and I hope the “truly reformed” can come to the same charitable conclusion about Baptists. Unfortunately, the most outspoken usually are the minority on both sides.
@Reggie Weems
Very interesting observation. I, personally, am not of either a Reformed tradition or belief (although I generally love this blog, and I attended a school in the Reformed tradition for much of my life growing up… I appreciate the theology and feel that it has a great deal to add to the Church).
Yes, interesting points. I have seen many of my fellow Baptists swing to neo-Reformed theology, and then cause the exact problems that you mention… tearing up several churches in the process. On the other hand, my truly Reformed (e.g., Dutch Reformed, etc.) friends are a thousand times more gracious in terms of their praxis and discussion of their beliefs.
I think that you’re onto something.
Tim, I would be interested to know how you think this book compares with What Is Reformed Theology?, by R.C. Sproul and which book would you be more apt to give/loan to someone interested in learning more about Reformed theology?
I only read the sample available online, but this is from the introduction.
“Looking back at my own enthusiastic induction into Calvinism, I can see another unfortunate aspect that often seems to characterize the “new Calvinism”: my fascination with the Reformed tradition was largely truncated, fixated on issues of election and predestination and on parsing the arcane aspects of the acronym TULIP, which claimed to capture the so-called five points of Calvinism: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, and the perseverance (or preservation) of the saints. And while that fixation seemed to come with a swagger and confidence that was quick to dismiss other Christian traditions, it also failed to really plumb the depths of the Reformed tradition itself. If we imagine the Reformed tradition as a great, sprawling mansion, it was as if I entered through the door of “Calvinism” into an ornate foyer, but then became so fascinated with that particular room that I never ventured into other rooms. When you’ve spent time wandering through the wonders of the Biltmore Estate, the bedazzlement of the foyer is put in context. (The title of Daniyal Mueenuddin’s story collection, In Other Rooms, Other Wonders, seems suggestive in this respect.) Only later was I invited (well, pushed!) into other rooms where I began to appreciate the full richness not just of Calvinism but of the wider Reformed tradition. These letters are meant to be just such an invitation. “
This is the same guy who wrote: “Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault to Church.” The before mentioned names are the major continental postmodern philosophers who have greatly influenced the emergent [ evangelical] movement. And, Smith takes a somewhat emergent view of Christianity. So, although I haven’t read this book, but after reading your review I plan to, I would approach it with caution myself.
We’re going to see this whole issue of who can used the word “Reformed” and there’s “so much more to Reformed theology than just TULIP” debate become more and more prominent as the New Calvinism movement grows. See the recent TGC video for an example:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/10/18/deyoung-duncan-and-mo…
I imagine that Baptists would see it rather differently: semper reformanda!
“Who’s afraid of Postmodernism?” is a good book. I enjoyed it. And I’ve always found Smith to be pretty critical of the emergent church, despite the fact that he is a philosopher who specializes in continental philosophy.
good point Derrick;
From what I read of the “reformed” blogosphere, those in the Baptist camp are largely caricaturized as nothing more than shallow and arrogant impostors who hijacked a beautiful tradition.
I guess I’ll chill here in between the truly Reformed and contemporary Baptist church clinging the historical Baptist confessions for consolation. : )
Anonymous
I may have missed it but I don’t think Tim has a resentment for confessions/confessionalism.
Tim, I would be interested to know how you think this book compares with What Is Reformed Theology?, by R.C. Sproul and which book would you be more apt to give/loan to someone interested in learning more about Reformed theology?
I’d go with Sproul, for sure. I think it’s just an overall better book. Different style, but better content.
As for the ongoing discussion here (thanks, everyone, for adding to it) I think there are some Baptists who are confessional, but they are confessional in a different way. Most Reformed Baptists adhere to some kind of a confession, but they don’t know it and derive their faith from it in the way I’ve seen in Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed circles. A catechism or confession is there in the background, but it is not known, loved and implemented in the same way. My church adheres to a confession, but I doubt many (any?) of the members have read it.
I may have missed it but I don't think Tim has a resentment for confessions/confessionalism.
No, I am not against confessions. In fact, I think they’re great. I simply meant to say that many who consider themselves Reformed today are either anti-confessional or just plain non-confessional.
As a confessional presbyterian, let me assure my baptist brethren that most presbyterians I’ve come in contact with would have real trouble explaining their own confession. I would suspect that evangelicalism is anti-confessional, whether a person wears a hat with a P or a B.
My Reformed Baptist church is most decidedly confessional. We subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession, a near cousin to the Westminster Confession. All who join our church are expected to subscribe to the confession. Our adult Sunday School class most years is a chapter-by-chapter exposition of the 1689.
I think our church is about as close to being Truly Reformed (“TR”) as a Baptist church can be. We don’t baptize infants so I suppose that’s one mark against us, but on the other hand we hold to Covenant Theology instead of Dispensational Theology. Our members are a mixture of amil, postmil, and one or two historic premil. Perhaps we should call ourselves Mostly Reformed (“MR”). :-)
Dave
Reggie Weems and E.G.:
Could either or both of you describe the specific things that these neo-reformed folks are doing to tear up churches? I’ve heard and read a number of similar non-specific complaints, but haven’t had time until now to ask for more details.
Thanks
I read the book, I’m a ‘non-confessional’ Baptist (although I would claim to be ‘Reformed’ following the Scots Confession and mostly Heidelberg); and found it to be spot on. Smith makes a point on a differentiation between the WCF and the Heidelberg Catechism which is substantial. He uses this as a point of demarcation, in a sense, between those (the Baptists) who latch onto the WCF (and its tone), and fail to appreciate the “warmth” of the Heidelberg (given their non-confessionalism). I think Smith has a point —- there are two different Doctrine’s of God emphasized between the WCF and the HC.
Anyway, I would recommend the book; it’s a quick read, and affordable :-) .
“Could either or both of you describe the specific things that these neo-reformed folks are doing to tear up churches?”
[cricket chirps]
Robert
I hesitate to answer your question, mainly because this information is second hand and I have not had a chance to check it yet. Please, take this in that manner please.
I have been told that “New Calvinists” who some called Neo-Reformed, misrepresent true Calvinism mainly because not all of them are 5 point Calvinists. I am sure that this is not the only reason, but seems to be the biggest complaint about the movement.
Others with more knowledge of this issue might want to give their 2 cents.
Robert
I just found a link that if accurate, we should be very concerned about the Neo-Reformed movement.http://apprising.org/2010/05/29/mark-driscoll-and-neo-reformed-new-calvi…
As someone who has done a fair amount of research into the “contemplative spirituality” cult (and I use the word “cult” on purpose.), I am very concerned about it.
I actually hope that the link I provided above is wrong about “Neo-Reformed” people being involved with contemplative spirituality and hope someone with knowledge on the movement can speak to the issue.
Tom Hardy:
Thanks, sir, for the info and the link. (I read Ken Silva now and again, also.)
From their comments (and the context of the book review), however, I think Messrs. Weems and E.G. had in mind as “neo-Calvinists” those who are advocating Reformed Theology in churches that have been largely ignorant of it, rather than contemplative spirituality (certainly a big concern). I have heard many times about how this is splitting churches. What I don’t hear, however, is what they are doing that is splitting churches. If it is advocating plain old Pauline / Johannine doctrine, maybe the churches could use a splitting. It could mean that many of the church’s members see a threat to a shallow form of evangelism; I just won’t know until the persons asserting the church-splitting explain what is causing the splitting.
I haven’t read this book, but from Tim’s review it is apparent the author is intending to counsel his young readers to use grace and tact in their theological discussions; good advice always. But it is advice that all need and should take. I am reminded of how often high-profile opponents of Calvinism call classic (or high-) Calvinists such as James White and R.C. Sproul hyper-Calvinist. At best, this displays a dismal ignorance of Church history; at worst, it is outright deception, not to mention arrogant and divisive.
So, my point was to challenge vague accounts for details. When answered, this can sometimes be very revealing. When not answered, it is also quite revealing. ;)
Robert
You could be correct about Weems and E.G had in mind.
What comes to mind is the Church I attend, which is made up of both Arminians and Calvinists. My pastor is a Calvinist and makes no apologies for it, but he prefers to use expository sermons rather than come right and say words like Calvinist; Arminian, Reformed etc…I have found that this way, the message is clear on what he believes, but it is very tactful.He is open to discuss with anybody his message, in fact he encourages it.In fact this morning the sermon’s basic message was the doctrines of grace and yet those words were not used at all.
I also agree with you about the ignorance of many high profile opponents of people like RC Sproul and James White.I find it ironic that some of them, actually love CH Spurgeon, yet Spurgeon was definitely is a 5 point Calvinist.CH Spurgeon once said (not exact quote); “If the doctrines of grace offend, preach them all the more.”
FYI: “Letter to a Young Baptist”: http://forsclavigera.blogspot.com/2010/12/letter-to-young-baptist.html
This “review” is more like with a blurb or tweet: content which does not wrestle or engage with the material it portends to critique, but fashionably or chicly states or declares a position on very little grounds. It is really quite interesting how this happening more and more with the social medium of blogging, where blogs are beginning to look more like surface value, uneventful tweets…
Why and how do you disagree with Smith?! I don’t understand the point of this piece…?