The Doctrines of Grace & Modernism . . . One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other

I recently read an article in which Brian McLaren made the comment that Calvinism is the “highest expression of modernism,” explaining why he thought that most of his critics come from within the Reformed Camp. Puzzled by the connections, I briefly thought of whom he might be referring to:

John MacArthur – Emergent – No, Election – Yes.
D.A. Carson – Emergent – No, Doctrines of Grace – Yes.
Chuck Smith – Emergent – No, Predestination – No.

McLaren did say “most,” not all. Still, I found it odd that he could make such a bold statement as the “highest expression of modernism,” especially after declaring himself to be a Fundamentalist/Calvinist in 2004’s A Generous Orthodoxy. I liked the book. I agreed with some of it, disagreed with some more of it, but it made me think and I appreciated it.

Speaking of which, Brian used words quite similar to the above quote in the same chapter. Apart from poorly equating the Doctrines of Grace with a bastard-type of Fatalistic Determinism, he wrote two pages later:

“In terms of intellectual rigor, I believe that Reformed Christianity is the highest expression of modern Christianity, which is a sincere compliment – and a gentle warning, too. If we are moving beyond modernity in general, then the forms of Christianity that have most successfully adapted themselves to the thought patterns of modernity are in the most trouble.” (A Generous Orthodoxy, pg. 188)

Back up. Is Reformed Christianity the highest expression of modernity? Has Calvinism most successfully adapted itself to the thought patterns of modernity? I doubt I have to convince anyone that modernity emerged from the Enlightenment project; indeed, modernity was the natural outcome of such endeavours. John R. Franke, who wrote the Foreword to A Generous Orthodoxy has this to say about postmodernity: “[It has] significantly reshaped our common cultural and intellectual life in a variety of ways, including the expression of Christian faith since the Enlightenment.” (A Generous Orthodoxy, pg. 10)

He continues later:

“Foundationalism refers to a conception of knowledge that emerged during the Enlightenment and sought to address the lack of certainty generated by the human tendency toward error and to overcome the inevitable, often destructive disagreements and controversies that followed. This quest for certainty involved reconstructing knowledge by rejecting ‘premodern’ notions of authority and replacing them with uncontestable beliefs accessible to all individuals.” (A Generous Orthodoxy, pg. 10-11)

What is a premodern notion of Authority? God’s word. The Prophets. Christ Himself, who is, for the modern mind, a fairy tale, an imaginary friend, pie in the sky and by and by.

Who is correctly labeled the “Father of the Enlightenment?” The kaffir Voltaire. What I’m about to say is not shocking: The Enlightenment’s foundation was human rationality. It was man-centered, and believed that man was in control of his destiny. Man could, by his own strength, using logic, reasoning, science and technology, determine where he came from, where he was, where he would be going, and what his ultimate purpose would be. Man’s knowledge was essentially elevated to the status of god incarnate. Man, man, man, man was the beginning and end of all understanding about the world.

In sum: we were in control. The Enlightenment was one big middle finger in the face of Christ that screamed “I am, and there is no one else beside me.” (Is. 47.10) Thus when McLaren writes that the prefix post- can mean, “emerging from … and emphasizes both continuity and discontinuity,” we can see where postmodernism gets it’s “foundation.” Or, as we would say of a newborn child, “He has his grandfather’s eyes…”

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other …
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe these doctrines are very modern. But when I examine the origins, it appears that the exact opposite is more fitting. A system that emphasizes humanity’s sovereignty and our ability to not only rationalize our own destiny, our ability, even our right to choose or reject, our free and unhindered will is the Champion theology of modernity. Not a theology which above all demonstrates that humans, in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, “… presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: [and instead] believes in God, who alone knows it.” Augustinianism is very pre-modern. It is altogether anti-modern.

Or as Francis Schaffer puts it:

“The utopian dream of the Enlightenment can be summed up in five words: reason, nature, happiness, progress, and liberty. It was thoroughly secular in its thinking. The Humanistic elements which had risen during the Renaissance came to flood tide in the Enlightenment. Here was man starting from himself absolutely. And if the humanistic elements of the Renaissance stand in sharp contrast to the Reformation, the Enlightenment was in total antithesis to it. The two stood for and were based on absolutely different things in an absolute way, and they produced almost different results.”
Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We
Then Live? (Wheaton: Crossway), 1983. p. 121

Let’s look at this for what it is at the core: Libel. If you want to tarnish a movement or a person’s reputation in the Emerging Church, just sling some modernist mud their way. It’s a beautiful system, really. It does not require the one slinging the modernist label to define how certain theologies are modern; it is reducible to name-calling. At best. We can do better.

If you want a theology that has most successfully adapted itself to the thought patterns of modernity, which no one denies was the natural child of the Enlightenment, find a movement which emphasizes a soul’s absolute liberty. I’m not going to waste my time looking in Geneva.

As I mentioned before – maybe I’m wrong. I’m somewhat new to this whole ‘conversation,’ so maybe I’ve completely misunderstood Brian McLaren. Maybe I completely misunderstand Augustinianism. Maybe I’ve completely misunderstood Modernity. Maybe I don’t know how to read critically. Maybe Francis Schaeffer completely misunderstood the contrast between the Reformation and the Enlightenment. I’m open for correction if someone can show me a more excellent way.
Grace and Peace
Tyler Bennicke
2007

~ by Tyler on April 18, 2007.