Picked this up from David Wayne at Evangel. The following quote comes from Ann Douglas’ book The Feminization of American Culture.

For some time, roughly between 1740 and 1820 the rigor exhibited by the Edwardsean ministers seemed representative of the wider culture or at least welcomed by it. Edwardsean theology, however, outlived its popular support. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as in the twentieth, the vast majority of American Christians identified themselves as members of one of the various Protestant groups. Yet, the differences between the Protestants of, say, 1800 and their descendants of 1875 and after are greater than the similarities. The everyday Protestant of 1800 subscribed to a rather complicated and rigidly defined body of dogma; attendance at a certain church had a markedly theological function. By 1875 American Protestants were much more likely to define their faith in terms of family morals, civic responsibility, and above all, in terms of the social function of churchgoing. Their actual creed was usually a liberal, even a sentimental one for which Edwards and his contemporaries would have felt scorn and horror. In an analogous way, Protestant churches over the same period shifted their emphasis from a primary concern with the doctrinal beliefs of their members to a preoccupation with numbers. In ecclesiastical and religious circles, attendance came to count for more than genuine adherence. Nothing could show better the nineteenth-century Protestant Church’s altered identity as an eager participant in the emerging consumer society than its obsession with popularity and its increasing disregard of intellectual issues.

This was written in the 1970’s. It’s far more true today.

In his commentary on Ephesians, John Calvin has much to say about the believer’s necessary reliance upon the Word of God. Calvin did not hesitate to bring accusations against those who abused Scripture and often those abusers were found in the Catholic church. But while reading his comments the impression is left that his criticisms could easily apply to today’s abusers of the Word. Below are some of his comments on Ephesians 4:14:

There will always be impostors, who make insidious attacks upon our faith; but, if we are fortified by the truth of God, their efforts will be unavailing. Both parts of this statement deserve our careful attention. When new sects, or wicked tenets, spring up, many persons become alarmed. But the attempts of Satan to darken, by his falsehoods, the pure doctrine of Christ, are at no time interrupted; and it is the will of God that these struggles should be the trial of our faith. When we are informed, on the other hand, that the best and readiest defense against every kind of error is to bring forward that doctrine which we have learned from Christ and his apostles, this surely is no ordinary consolation.

With what awful wickedness, then, are Papists chargeable, who take away from the word of God everything like certainty, and maintain that there is no steadiness of faith, but what depends on the authority of men! If a man entertain any doubt, it is in vain to bid him consult the word of God: he must abide by their decrees. But we have embraced the law, the prophets, and the gospel. Let us therefore confidently expect that we shall reap the advantage which is here promised, — that all the impostures of men will do us no harm. They will attack us, indeed, but they will not prevail. We are entitled, I acknowledge, to look for the dispensation of sound doctrine from the church, for God has committed it to her charge; but when Papists avail themselves of the disguise of the church for burying doctrine, they give sufficient proof that they have a diabolical synagogue.

Note in the first paragraph that which is our defense against “new sects, or wicked tenets”. Calvin says that “the best and readiest defense against every kind of error is to bring forward that doctrine which we have learned from Christ and his apostles”. Where do we gain this insight into the mind of Christ and his apostles? Does it come from man’s authority and teaching? Hardly. In the second paragraph Calvin directs his criticism against those in the Catholic church who undermine people’s confidence in Scripture by claiming that right faith can only come through the authority of men – meaning the authority of bishops and popes.

This takes place today in slightly different manner. Many are they who “take away from the word of God everything like certainty”. A preacher will undermine the authority of Scripture by professing humility and claiming that he is not sufficient to the task of delivering the one true understanding of the text and it must be left to each individual’s subjective feeling to determine the meaning of the text. Rather than appealing to the authority of the Pope, such men appeal to the authority of every individual appetite. Such men are masters of telling you when your interpretation cannot possibly fit the Bible – very often criticizing the teachings that do, in fact, reflect God’s truth – but will shy away when pressed to deliver the universal meaning of the text.

So we must keep in mind the instruction and the warning given in the second paragraph: “We are entitled… to look for the dispensation of sound doctrine from the church, for God has committed it to her charge…” Calvin tells us that God has committed the church to dispensing sound doctrine and those who are part of the church are granted the freedom to look for sound doctrine in the preaching of the church. When a church fails to deliver sound doctrine, it says something awful about that church: “…but when Papists avail themselves of the disguise of the church for burying doctrine, they give sufficient proof that they have a diabolical synagogue.”

Apparently, the North American Mission Board has too much time on its hands.

I know nothing about the Catalyst conference. But I do know that NAMB has some folks there, recognizing that attendees are “inspired to make your mark in this world”. NAMB wants to join with that and “encourage you to touch the world through missions and minstry [sic]“. How they intend to encourage you is highly bizarre: “That’s why we’re giving away to [sic] iPod Touchs before the end of this year’s event.”

Somehow “missions and ministry” goes along with “make your mark in this world” and is powered by giving away an iPod touch.

I have no problem with gadgets and rather enjoy my iPhone 3g S, I’m just not sure how this will in any way help people be more devoted to glorifying God rather than self-interest. And mixing “missions and ministry” with “make your mark in this world” just does not seem to work.

The following came from a Letter to the Editor in the Alabama Baptist:

Calvinism paints an ugly picture of God. I’ve been a pastor of four Southern Baptist churches over the last 25 years. I tell every one I speak to that God loves them and has a plan for them. I could not stand in the pulpit and face people every Sunday and tell them that God created some of them to love and keep and some to toss into hell and there is nothing they can do about it. What a horrible message.

I honestly don’t understand how anyone who is unashamedly Calvinist can face a person and ask the key question knowing that person has no choice in the matter.

If I thought for a minute that there are people for whom the gospel of Jesus Christ is not meant, I’d go back to a secular job and just let God do what he’s going to do.

In my opinion, this heretical doctrine is the result of men who think they are so intelligent they can figure out what God knows, when he knows it, and what He would do with that information. They then squeeze an amazing, loving, patient and caring God into their tiny human minds and spit out this abhorrent thing called Calvinism.

I am not a Calvinist and I am not an Armenian (sic): I am Southern Baptist. My message from God’s Word will always be that God loves everyone He created and offers them a chance to come to Him through the blood of Christ. God bless Southern Baptist preachers and leaders who cling to that precious promise.

It continues to surprise me that Calvinists are the ones accused of being divisive. Twice this week I have seen or read things like this. What is almost tragic is that what they oppose does not exist or rarely exists. People who meet a real live Calvinist are often to surprised to find that the Calvinist is not the stereotype. That does not mean everyone will want to embrace Calvinism, but it does remind us that we need to be well informed before we publicly oppose something. At the very least, present it accurately!

As for the letter quoted above, most of what he opposes I also oppose. I’m just curious why he decided to label it Calvinism.