Darryl's Blog
Is Calvinism more susceptible to religiosity?
A great post from Alan Hirsch:
I have been talking with some of my more Reformed friends recently and have increasingly come to the rather unnerving conclusion that Calvinism is particularly susceptible to religiosity. Partly because of its idea of the continuity between law and gospel, partly because of its church over society stance, and partly because of sense of being being the chief historical defender of the Faith. But mostly I believe this susceptibility comes from its general circumventing of the life and teachings of Jesus. If this is so, why? Well, it is inordinately hard to make Jesus sound like a superlapsarian, five-point, Calvinist. I trained in a strongly Reformed seminary (which shall remain unnamed) and so I can speak from experience here. I can say that by and large it felt that we considered the Gospels were mere exercises Greek exegesis to gear us up for the real deal–Paul. We we reserved our real energies and excitement for Paul and Pauline theology, and I think this is true for Calvinist faith in general. I have come to the rather disconcerting conclusion that Reformed theology can easily become a religion of Paul rather than an expression of the life of Jesus is it is not careful. this subversion of Jesus from his own movement is rightly called Paulinism because it so readily discounts the central and defining role of Jesus in the life of the Christian faith. Christianity is a ‘religion’ based on Jesus or it is nothing! And it is not just about the birth, death, resurrection, ascension, and return that are vital to Christian faith, but his life, lifestyle, teachings, and ethos as well.
Read the whole post.
I am a fan of Reformed theology at its best. Yet I see the truth in this criticism, even though I'm sure many are aware of this danger and avoid it. Tim Keller, for instance, often speaks of the dangers of religion.
What do you think? Is Calvinism particularly susceptible to religiosity?
I became a Calvinist through reading the Gospel of John. There is no one in the New Testament more blunt with particular redemption than Jesus and the Gospel authors. I haven't read the post from which you quote but the quote is quite enough. It seems that he favours Jesus over Paul while complaining about those who do the opposite. Whatever Paul says Jesus says. There is no separation. There is no difference. The Book of Romans is Jesus speaking just as much as John 6 is.
Without becoming all theological:
In a word, NO.
We are ALL prone to believing and acting as if our way is the only way. All of us can be, and have at one time or another been, guilty of religiosity, of legalism, of contentiousness.
God have mercy on me, a sinner! I have pointed fingers and been critical of others, especially those in "organized churches." I am becoming more aware that I have been gazing in a mirror! Please forgive me, Lord!
Remind me: If I cannot see eye to eye with my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, there is still no reason I cannot walk with them arm in arm.
Ken:
I'm with you - there's no division between Jesus and Paul. But some movements emphasize Jesus over Paul (red letter Christians etc.). And he's probably right - some of us are probably more comfortable in Romans than in narrative.
By the way, Ken, I know a lot of Calvinists, including you, that don't match what Hirsch said. And I still think the Reformed movement, at its best, is Biblical, missional, humble, and not at all full of religiosity. But good theology can also make one proud (knowledge puffs up), and once you start going down that road you're on the way to religiosity. I wonder if that is a particular danger for us.
Arthur:
Good stuff, bro.
The essence of sin is pride "you shall be as God!!". I am not less prone to it than my arminian brother nor is he less prone to it than I am. It is what we are as fallen human beings. It is not a particular problem for any particular theology although I must say that pride in a Calvinist is more incongruous with the theology he holds than the non Calvinist. Sovereign grace should make one very humble if one believes that his salvation was God's choice long before it was his and that it had nothing to do with the good that God saw, because He saw none. But to point to a particular group and maintain that their theology is the reason for their "religiosity" (whatever that is) sounds like a conclusion reached from using a very small control group. Maybe he needs to meet more professing Christians from all the camps. I was raised in a Fundamentalist environment and Calvinists were as scarce as hen's teeth but the religiosity sure wasn't.
Ken:
You may be right. I tend to think that different groups have different temptations which all may be forms of the same underlying sin. Some are prone to pragmatism; some are prone to compromise; it may be that the Reformed movement has its own particular temptation.
Your observation of where sovereign grace should lead us is very apt.
You don't choose Calvinism. It chooses you.
As a Presbyterian, Reformed, Calvinist, who is not very religious, I'd say the issue has more to do with Calvinism as a system. It is complete, coherent and all encompassing. As a result, it is prone to being institutionalized as a religion or a worldview.
The blind spot is an understanding of how abstract religious concepts can become the basis for arrogance and pride. In this instance, it really is anti-Calvinism because of its failure to see sin in the practice of religion.