Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church from the September Christianity Today has recently been made available online. It’s a great article with some great quotes from guys such as: John Piper, Al Mohler, Kent Hughes, Mark Dever and Joshua Harris.
Below are a number of Josh Harris quotes from the article. On his first encounters with Calvinists:
“I’m sorry to say that they represented the doctrines of grace with a total lack of grace. They were spiteful, cliquish, and arrogant. I didn’t even stick around to understand what they were teaching. I took one look at them and knew I didn’t want any part of it.”
On his understanding of Reformed theology:
The theological depth attracted Harris. “Once you’re exposed to [doctrine],” he said, “you see the richness in it for your own soul, and you’re ruined for anything else.”
And:
“If you really understand Reformed theology, we should all just sit around shaking our heads going, ‘It’s unbelievable. Why would God choose any of us?'” Harris said. “You are so amazed by grace, you’re not picking a fight with anyone, you’re just crying tears of amazement that should lead to a heart for lost people, that God does indeed save, when he doesn’t have to save anybody.”
I think that Joshua Harris is someone who has been gripped by the truths of Reformed theology and seeks to respond in humility rather than with spiteful arrogance. On the New Attitude site (recently updated) there is this description of something Josh calls Humble Orthodoxy:
Humble orthodoxy is a commitment to believing, living, and representing the truth with humility. We believe that God’s truth in Scripture should not be redefined or reinvented to suit our own preferences or culture. Our role is not to change truth but to let truth change us.
It’s not a revolution. It’s not a movement. It’s a group of people in local churches, passionate about rediscovering truth and recommitting to it. We stand on the shoulders of those who have followed God before us. So this is what we offer to the conversation:
Forget reinvention. Embrace a humble orthodoxy.
I’ve read a bunch of Josh’s books, listened to a bunch of his sermons too (see here and here) and think that he’s good value. Have a listen to his sermon on Humble Orthodoxy.
I’ve been guilty in the past of arrogance and a great ability to tell the truth without love. This is a great danger in churches like mine where we are concerned with teaching the truth and refuting error, that we neglect to love one another as we ough to love one another.
Watch your life and doctrine closely. 1 Tim 4:16
How are you (and your church) going with Humble Orthodoxy? Would love to hear your comments…
[The photo is of Sam Chan playing 2 recorders through his nostrils!! He gave a great talk on Sunday night]
sorry about the long post!!
but do read it…
and do comment…
peaceout
dave
Hey look this post has received CraigS’ “post of the morning”
Evidence here!
I’m the first ever to receive the award…
Yesss….
I agree – excellent post.
I think one error we fall into is that we can be so caught up with correct doctrine and orthodoxy that we start at times from the uncharitable assumption that any other “Christian” is not truly a Christian until they’ve convinced us they are by passing our orthodoxy test. I wonder if it shouldn’t the other way around – if someone claims to be Christian, we assume they are until we see evidence to the contrary.
I say this knowing I fall into this error myself.
it’s a tension isn’t it.
being concerned about the truth and orthodoxy is loving… but you may be onto something with assuming they’re Christian until alarm bells ring because of whacky beliefs or moral inconsistencies.
What a condescending oxymoron…
You can’t be humble when you think you own orthodoxy and the truth, and you put your trust and learning in isms and idols: Calvinism/Calvin, Protestantism/Luther, Spurgeon/Piper/Driscoll and all the other trendy Evangelical answer men.
Such attitudes leave no room to be taught by God, no room for God alone being good, no room for God alone being the bearer of truth.
You may be blameless in your obedience to the law of your own orthodoxy, but beware the sinful nature. It will profit you nothing.
Welcome Soren Kierkergaard. Thanks for visiting and commenting on this blog. I’m assuming you are not the same Søren Kierkegaard (who incidentally has 2 and not 3 R’s in his name) who died in 1855!
I found your comments a little difficult to understand, but I will do my best to interact with them:
You can’t be humble when you think you own orthodoxy and the truth, and you put your trust and learning in isms and idols
I haven’t said that I own orthodoxy or truth… and I pray that my trust isn’t in isms or idols. I don’t believe that quoting Joshua Harris is trusting in an idol any more than using a pseudonym of a famous dead guy is trusting in idols.
Such attitudes leave no room to be taught by God, no room for God alone being good, no room for God alone being the bearer of truth.
I agree that God alone is good.
I agree that God alone is THE bearer of truth.
However, maybe you haven’t left enough room to be taught by God? The truth I know has been taught to me by God. I haven’t claimed in this post or anywhere else on this blog to know all truth – only God knows ALL truth.
You may be blameless in your obedience to the law of your own orthodoxy, but beware the sinful nature. It will profit you nothing.
i’m not blameless in any law – not sure what lead you to think that. thanks also for the warning about my sinful nature – you too beware of your sinful nature.
———
apologies if I have misunderstood any of your above points. feel free to clarify if I have.
peaceout
I’ll let you decide whether you’ve failed to tell the truth ‘in love’ and humility with your mild ad hominem. If you’ve failed, wouldn’t that be ironic considering the topic?
Of course, you needn’t say you own orthodoxy or truth; it is assumed when you stand as the judge of it in relation to others. You are no Joseph, but you can be, with faith.
When you say ‘the truth I know has been taught to me by God’ I commend you, because I am generous enough to read ‘the only and every truth’. Why then put faith in any other? Why then put faith in anything called ‘orthodox’ or with any other label? Why concede to the rules of the teachings of men and take pride in obedience and identification with them?
Orthodoxy is not truth, and even if it were, its law could not lead to good, because even the good of perfect obedience to a holy law is corrupted by the sinful nature.
Abraham is a model of faith, not because he believed and obeyed the teachings of others, but because he listened to God and believed.
I’ll let you decide whether you’ve failed to tell the truth ‘in love’ and humility with your mild ad hominem. If you’ve failed, wouldn’t that be ironic considering the topic?
after having looked up “ad hominem” in the dictionary i apologise if you feel that i am guilty of “attacking an opponent’s [your] character rather than answering his [your] argument.”
i do think that your assessment of my reply was unfair. i opened with a line of humour and then proceeded to respond to all the things you said in your previous comment. i apologise if you were offended by my opening paragraph – there was no harm intended.
When you say ‘the truth I know has been taught to me by God’ I commend you, because I am generous enough to read ‘the only and every truth’. Why then put faith in any other? Why then put faith in anything called ‘orthodox’ or with any other label? Why concede to the rules of the teachings of men and take pride in obedience and identification with them?
i’m grateful that you are concerned about the object of my faith. i don’t have my faith in labels or “trendy evangelical answer men” my faith and trust is in Jesus. what would you say is the object of your faith?
Orthodoxy is not truth, and even if it were, its law could not lead to good, because even the good of perfect obedience to a holy law is corrupted by the sinful nature.
i believe that everything is corrupted by the sinful nature. no-one can be “good” through obedience. only God is good and only by trusting in the obedience of Jesus can people corrupted by sin stand before a good God.
Abraham is a model of faith, not because he believed and obeyed the teachings of others, but because he listened to God and believed.
amen. how do you believe that we can listen to God today?
what do you think is the role of the teachings of others? (whether it’s augustine, calvin, luther, hegel, kierkegaard, heidegger, barth, driscoll, piper, harris or whoever)
———–
let me be honest soren. i’m still uncertain on what it is you are trying to convince me of (if you are trying to convince me of anything!)
2 questions i’d be keen to hear your thoughts on:
1) how much do you identify with the teaching of Soren K? (ie – you seem to be encouraging me to distance myself from the teachings of others, yet i wonder what point you are making by having soren k as your name?)
2) do you believe in objective truth?
i look forward to hearing more from you.
grace and peace.
Do you no longer want to talk about ‘humble orthodoxy’? You seem to have gone silent on it and turned the direction of the conversation toward myself.
I wasn’t offended by your post, however the opening line wasn’t particularly amusing. Your ad hominem included ‘However, maybe you haven’t left enough room to be taught by God?’ Indeed, I haven’t, but in the context this question looks more like ad hominem than genuine curiosity. Another ad hominem was your warning, “you too beware of your sinful nature” which seems like a response a child would make after he’s been called a name (“you’re an idiot!”, “no, you’re an idiot!”). Anyhow, it’s hard to see any humility in these remarks.
The object of the Christian faith is Jesus. As for my own, I sometimes put my faith is Jesus, more often I don’t. I do despair at this at times.
We can listen to God today by being open to him. Do you want me to say something less vague and more ‘practical’?
The role of teachers (and everyone) is not to be teachers, but witnesses to Christ. Is this too obscure? Of course, teaching will play a role in witness, you can’t help but being taught by the actions and fruit of the actions of others.
I believe in objective truth.
Why the pseudonym? First of all, SK was about ‘corrective’, not teaching as such. He was no systematic theologian and deliberately, but not deceptively obscure. I needed a pseudonym and because I was going to write a ‘correction’ to your post (and others’ posts), and because I knew SK used pseudonyms and that I am not very creative, who better to use then SK himself?
I’m pleased that you said you don’t put your faith in labels. So you won’t be calling yourself ‘Protestant’, ‘Reformed’, ‘Calvinist’, ‘Orthodox’, etc.? Lovely. So you won’t trust in the teachings of other men and will never sound like a religious puppet? Excellent. Your won’t even write on anything to do with these labels other than point out their distraction? Super! Most of all you will never take pride in the above and assume that truth can be judged using yourself and them as a yardstick? Bloody marvelous!
I have my doubts though. Prove me wrong!
hey soren K. thanks for your comment.
Another ad hominem was your warning, “you too beware of your sinful nature” which seems like a response a child would make after he’s been called a name (”you’re an idiot!”, “no, you’re an idiot!”).
look that wasn’t my intention at all. i’m thankful for the reminder to beware of my sinful nature – and it was a sincere encouragement for you to do the same.
I’m pleased that you said you don’t put your faith in labels. So you won’t be calling yourself ‘Protestant’, ‘Reformed’, ‘Calvinist’, ‘Orthodox’, etc.? Lovely.
with all respect, that is illogical. i call my self an “australian”. does that mean i have my faith in labels? not at all. it seems to me that your main intention in engaging on these issues is to try and bait me. i feel like you are patronising and condescending in your tone.
therefore, let me close this interchange with some concluding remarks.
Do you no longer want to talk about ‘humble orthodoxy’?
humble orthodoxy is simply this.
embracing the truth without being a jerk.
if i have been a jerk in anyway, i’m thoroughly apologetic.
As for my own, I sometimes put my faith is Jesus, more often I don’t. I do despair at this at times.
soren, i will pray for you now that your faith would be firmly in the Saviour and that you would know the assurance that He brings.
Thank you for addressing ‘humble orthodoxy’ rather than playing the messenger. I am sorry that you wish to end the conversation because of a perceived offense to your honour. In this case, your idea of humility doesn’t include turning the other cheek or bearing with one another. Real humility does not concern itself with being patronised or maintaining one’s honour. Real humility listens to others.
If I rabid on about how being an Australian is the only faithful representative of humanness, I am obviously putting too much faith in that identity. It would be quite ridiculous to label such an attitude ‘humble’. A person with such an attitude would naturally have many rationalisations and defence mechanisms when this attitude is attacked by others.
I don’t see how one can embrace truth and still be a jerk. The truth would lead you away from being a jerk.
I don’t see how truth can be bottled into something called ‘orthodox’. To worship orthodoxy rather than truth is to worship man’s creation rather the creator.
This will be my last post.
http://andrewerrington.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/bonhoeffer-on-jesus-and-genuine-religion/
Bonhoeffer and Jesus himself points people away from man-made dogmas and toward God as the teacher of all truth. We cannot be so arrogant to think that we know the mind of God, hence ‘orthodoxy’ should not be purported as truth.
I just thought I’d throw my 2 cents in here to try and ease things a little! It seems to me that a few distinctions are helpful here with knowledge…
Firstly, the creator/creature distinction which leads us to conclude that we will never know as God knows. Not even in heaven. We think God’s thoughts after him. That’s why the reformers put a distinction between ‘archetypal’ and ‘ektypal’ knowledge. God’s knowledge and human knowledge.
So, in saying that, Soren’s almost on the money when he says that knowledge cannot be bottled into orthodoxy: we can never know all truth exhaustively, nor should we claim to! Finite creatures (let alone finite, sinful creatures) cannot exhaustive infinite knowledge.
But, Dave is right at the end of the day in that we can know truth. Not that we can know truth exhaustively (thus, we cannot bottle it!), nor can we know things truly as God does. But we can know things to be true, thus we can say that things are false. Thus orthodoxy. Yet in all of this, we must remain humble, open to the fact that we are finite and also sinful. This is why creeds are subject to Scripture!
For those who are swept up by this post-modern reaction to modernity’s truth claims, I’d recommend a couple of things. Firstly, explore the difference between univocal, equivocal and analogical knowledge. Secondly, have a read of John M. Frame’s primer on Perspectivalism: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2008Primer.htm
In the lamb,
Mark