NYT Mag Predestined to Be Biased? Story on Calvinistic Preacher Skews Doctrine

Photo of Ken Shepherd.

Molly Worthen, Yale University file photoPerhaps the New York Times is just predestined not to get religion.

Taking on Calvinistic preacher Mark Driscoll's brand of Reformed theology, writer Molly Worthen -- herself a graduate of a formerly Puritan university -- gave readers of the New York Times magazine a skewed picture of what exactly the evangelical pastor's theology teaches about sin and redemption.

In her January 6 article, "Who Would Jesus Smack Down," Worthen -- who studied American religious history at Yale University-- portrayed the founding pastor of Seattle's Mars Hill Church as an edgy hipster "cussing" pastor who chagrins religious conservatives and liberals alike, all while confounding evangelicals with his Calvinistic take on biblical theology.

While there is a grain of truth to the characterization of Driscoll* having critics to his left and right, Worthen betrays her ignorance about Calvinism, starting in the third paragraph of her article (emphasis mine):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

...what is new about Driscoll is that he has resurrected a particular strain of fire and brimstone, one that most Americans assume died out with the Puritans: Calvinism, a theology that makes Pat Robertson seem warm and fuzzy. 

Certainly Worthen, as a religious historian, has to know better. After all, far from being a moribund doctrine, many Presbyterian/Reformed churches -- from the liberal Presbyterian Church USA and Reformed Church in America to the more conservative denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in America or Orthodox Presbyterian Church -- as well as some Baptist churches, all adhere to a Calvinistic view of how God saves sinners. Granted, the more liberal churches may not be as "fire and brimstone"-oriented in tone from the pulpit, but that doesn't mean predestination is a foreign or long-dead concept in America's Protestant churches.

Worthen later summed up Calvinism's soteriology (doctrine of salvation) thusly:

Human beings are totally corrupted by original sin and predestined for heaven or hell, no matter their earthly conduct. We all deserve eternal damnation, but God, in his inscrutable mercy, has granted the grace of salvation to an elect few. While John Calvin’s 16th-century doctrines have deep roots in Christian tradition, they strike many modern evangelicals as nonsensical and even un-Christian. If predestination is true, they argue, then there is no point in missions to the unsaved or in leading a godly life.

In doing so, Worthen does injustice to a doctrine that's a little more complex than that. Worthen's characterization leaves readers thinking that Calvinism teaches that God will turn away some people from heaven who wanted badly to be there while bringing to heaven some sinners who desperately want to avoid eternity with God. What's more, Worthen leaves out that the Calvinist would look for evidences of God's saving grace -- changed behavior, good deeds -- in the lives of Christians.

Simply put, Worthen does little to distinguish Calvinism from fatalism.

While it is difficult for secular journalists to grasp and accurately report on Calvinist doctrine, it's not impossible. Time magazine's David Van Biema did as much in a Jan. 31, 2007 interview with Baptist theologian Albert Mohler, who at the time was recovering from pulmonary embolisms -- an often fatal condition -- at the time:

[Van Biema]: One misconception people may have about Calvinism is that it holds that Christians act as though they had free will — when God has orchestrated everything. Can you address that?

[Mohler]: Calvinists believe that the human will is instrumental in the experience of salvation. We would take issue with the idea of absolute free will, where people are talking about the priority of the human will in salvation. The big question is whether it is possible for the divine and human wills to operate in absolute harmony. I believe it is.

*Full disclosure: I have donated to Driscoll's ministry in the past, earmarking small-dollar donations for Mars Hill Church's online ministry (podcasts, Web site, etc.).

Photo of Worthen via Yale University's Web site.

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

NYT is my only theological true source.

I am so thankful for the NYT and its incredibly truthful and accurate reporting of Christianity and its issues.  I don't know how I have been able to go for such a long time without this indipensible fount of wisdom and progressive thinking.  I feel as though an empty space in my spirit has now been filled with the glory of such concise and dead-on reporting.  I believe I can die a truly happy man now, knowing that the NYT has answered all the really big questions, and providing me with such, sigh, awesomeness.

 

dborsch

Sarcasm so thick you can cut it with a freakin SPOON. Impressive.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

49 years in a trunk...

I just knew Howdy Doody would be gainfully employed again one day.

OHG, Sickof libs.. that was

OHG, Sickof libs.. that was the very first thing that came to my mind as well..

My first thought was well.. Howdy Doody is giving us advice.. 

 

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

 

USA: But now he's

USA: But now he's 'transgendered' and ditched the red bandana.

Otherwise, he's still the same lovable [wooden] kid! 

Classic, just

Classic, just classic.. 

 

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

Romney / Jendil  2012 (if,we survive

The UCC

The United Church of Christ as a body is a direct descendent of the Puritans through the Congregational Church. There is no guarantee that Yale Theology School taeches anything close to the Puritan's understanding of God.

The leadership of the UCC is known as extremely liberal yet most UCC churches are moderate to conservative. In fact since the las General Synod of the UCC, 2-300 churches have left over the UCC Synod's liberal interpretations of the Bible.

Cussing?

I've gone to Mark's church for almost 3 years (with 1+ hr sermonds every week) and NEVER heard him swear. I don't know where people get that notion.

I'll have to say hello if I

I'll have to say hello if I ever find myself in Seattle on a Sunday.

I think the "cussing pastor" thing comes from Don Miller's "Blue Like Jazz" book. Maybe Driscoll was looser in tongue in his earlier years. I listen to many MH sermons and haven't found anything egregious. I think he'd do well from time to time to use slightly less sharp language. 

He did have a great lecture once at a Desiring God conference on sharp language and how to deploy it from the pulpit in a way that is biblical.

Title of her article

The title of Worthen's article says it all to me, "Who would Jesus Smack Down?"  Um, Jesus Christ wasn't about smacking people down and this just shows a basic misunderstanding of Christianity by Worthen and the NYT in general.

Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July.  Democrats believe every day is April 15th ~ Ronald Reagan

I think some moneychangers

I think some moneychangers in the Temple would disagree with you. ;)

And the answer is

Romans 8:29, she does look like Howdy and God Bless Ronald Reagan because Americans do see every day as the Fourth of July.

Just out of curiosity...

I wonder how many members of the church might consider themselves "reprobate":)

 Ahhh the joys of Armenius!:)

 

 

Religion writers in the

Religion writers in the Dinosaur Media are simply invincibly ignorant when it comes to getting religion right.  They are willfully deceiving b/c they cannot see that there is anything Right about religion to get right in their reporting.  Catholics contend with this constantly as Mark Shea so brilliantly chronicles (http://markshea.blog...).

That Worthen is a Yale grad tells us all we need to know about her religious IQ...it's five points below retarded.

Fr. Philip, OP (http://www.hancaquam...)

...and then there's the lies about Calvin

Calvin emphatically did not "have heretics burned at the stake," as the article claims. It is true that ONE heretic (Michael Servetus) was burned at the stake while Calvin pastored Geneva - but he was vociferous in his opposition to burning as a punishment.

 It IS nonetheless true that Calvin had no problem with Servetus's execution - and neither did virtually the whole of Western Christendom, whether Roman Catholic, Lutheran or Reformed. (Servetus was only safe in one or two cities in Europe, which was why he travelled clandestinely. He showed up in Geneva because he had a fixation with Calvin.)

The Lutheran Phillip Melanchthon - called by many "the gentle Reformer" - wrote Calvin after the execution, exclaiming how posterity would praise him for his role....

So what was that role? And if Calvin opposed burning, how could it happen?

Calvin did not run Geneva in any sense (in fact, he was run out himself for a few years). He was a pastor, pure and simple, and was only granted citizenship in Geneva very late in his life. He had no civil authority whatsoever.

Calvin's role in the prosecution of Servetus was as an expert theological witness. As much as that shocks us today, there was scarcely a city in Europe that wouldn't have called upon a similar theological witness to do exactly the same thing had Servetus showed up there instead. We may dislike Calvin's times and the way things were handled in those days - but the execution of heretics is not something that defines Calvinism any more than any other magisterial tradition of the Church from the 16th century. Only (some) Anabaptists would have disapproved at the time.

http://www.changeint...

As a devout Christian, I

As a devout Christian, I have real problems with the doctrines and beliefs of Calvanists and can understand why a non-believer has problems. 

For example, the distinguishing difference between fatalism and Calvinism is only God (through TUPLIP).  To the non-believer, this is not difference.

Regarding the age-old subject of "Freewill" ... I have had Calvinists tell me that it is a "myth" that man has freewill.  To the believer and to the non-believer alike, this is contrary to logic and to Scripture (John 3:16 for one of many).

I don't mean to stir up anything here, but... :)

Heresy

There's nothing Calvinistic or even Christian about Driscoll.  He, Rob Bell and Brian McLaren are part of what is called the Emergent Church movement which does not stick to Christian doctrines, in fact rejects them.  Here's some info on it:

http://www.carm.org/emerging/whatis.htm

 

Bell is super squishy and

Bell is super squishy and McLaren practically denies penal subsitutionary atonement. Driscoll fully affirms the substitutionary atonement. As far as Calvinism, he has slightly modified view of the "L" in Limited Atonement, which he explains on his Web site but as far as I can tell seems more semantic than anything else. Most Calvinists I know are fully comfortable with his soteriology, even if they think his preaching style should be more staid and traditional.

Indeed, if you listen to his sermons, you'll see his has healthy respect for expositional preaching and for explicitly proclaiming the Gospel, whereas Bell, McLaren, et al put a premium on "dialogue." Driscoll, I believe, has made the point that Satan is the king of using dialogue to bring deception, pointing to Adam and Eve's fall in the Garden of Eden as the chief and primary example.

Driscoll has made clear that while he was close friends with McLaren and others years ago, he parted company from the direction they were taking, which is decidedly liberal and heterodox at best and heretical at worst.

wrong

It is true that Driscoll was at one time a part of the emergents, but he left it a few years ago, and if you want to see how emergents view him now, read Tony Jones' "The New Christians", where he not exactly sparing in his shots at Driscoll. Jones is an emergent 'par excellance', and he's no fan of Driscoll's.

Also, one can find several places online where Driscoll has spoken very biblically and critically of emergent teachers, particularly McLaren, Pagitt, and Bell.

I'm not a fan of emergent at all, and frankly think it little more than an attempt by liberals to infiltrate evangelicalism. But Driscoll is not now a part of that movement.

 

"Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true."

Chesterton, Orthodoxy 

Do your self a favor

Calvinism is the Gospel and that leads to the Christ.  Thank God for how He works, I hope that many will visit Reformed web sites.