I made the mistake of letting myself get drawn into a Facebook discussion with several individuals who strongly espouse Reformed theology, otherwise and sometimes better known as Calvinism. The cause of my error in judgment was the following post made by one of my online Facebook friends:

“The alternative to a sovereign God is a sovereign man. The alternative to a determining God is a determining man.The idea of God predestinating from eternity (Eph. 1:4–5) is offensive to many. The alternative to a decreeing God, however, is a spectator God, one who is Himself subject to the actions of men in time and history.”

**For an overview of Calvinism, read “What Are The Five Points of Calvinism?” – an article I wrote over at Suite101 Protestantism**

While I agree fully with the Calvinistic premise of God’s full sovereignty and our (humanity’s) depravity, I nevertheless saw a logical fallacy here. My friend was presenting a false dichotomy. These are not the only two choices or options. So, I responded with the following statement:

“It’s only clear cut like this…if God is unable to decree. I agree that God has complete power, authority, and control. The issue is whether God, at least to SOME degree, delegates a certain level of choice to human beings. That God may choose to delegate doesn’t make Him a mere spectator.”

This triggered a fairly extensive and increasingly vigorous debate, in which I was clearly in the minority. And I must confess. I was not prepared for the fervor of it, and was not in the best frame of mind at the time. And I took some of the things said too personally. One of my weaknesses is that I can, at times, be overly sensitive. And my weakness came out in the discussion. Yet another situation in which God is working on toughening me up. :-)   Regardless of my personal involvement, however, the experience has caused me to reflect on a larger question: Why are Calvinists so negative and, at times, unfriendly?

Now, let me put out a quick disclaimer. I’m not suggesting that all Calvinists or all those who hold to Reformed theology are arrogant, hostile, and unfriendly. Nor am I suggesting that all those with whom I recently sparred are negative and unfriendly. And I’m not saying that those who criticize Calvinism are all “peaches and creams” all the time. There are plenty of hotheads to go around on this issue. Nevertheless, it does seem that there’s a tendency for more people on one side of this debate to be at least a tad more negative and argumentative than on the other side. I should also clarify that by “negative,” I am referring to their tone in how they handle debates and discussions surrounding the issues of Election.

There are quite a few anecdotes and examples that I could share to bolster my contention that Calvinists tend to be disproportionately negative and unfriendly compared with those with whom they differ. In addition to some interesting conversations I’ve had with fellow pastors and Christians over the years, I’ve read numerous online articles, blog posts, and Internet discussions where anyone who challenges any point of Calvinism is branded a heretic and/or dismissed as being biblically shallow or doctrinally ignorant.  I find this to be particularly distressing when Calvinists dismiss scholars like Norman Geisler, Paige Patterson, Elmer Towns, often in mean-spirited ways.

John Piper, a leading Reformed theologian of today, acknowledges this tendency. He writes: “The intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn’t tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic.” I can tell you that Piper is absolutely correct in this, and I appreciate his candor. I also appreciate how he classifies this tendency, for he goes on to say: “It’s a sad and terrible thing that that’s the case.” (You can read a transcript of Piper’s remarks at his own Desiring God website).  

This is, I think, one of the serious pitfalls of Calvinism. It is a doctrinal system that can lend itself to intellectual pride and divisiveness. This should not be the case. That we are part of the Elect is no cause for pride. It’s cause for gratitude. And that the Scriptures make the case for election (which they do – the difference I have with many Calvinists is on the nature of the election), it shouldn’t lead us to quarrels and division. As it says in 2 Timothy, we are not to “quarrel” or “strive” needlessly, but rather to engage in constructive study and discussion on issues such as this.

I would like to also point out that just because Reformed theology is intellectually satisfying, it doesn’t make it intellectually superior. As Ben Witherington says: “[I]t is perfectly possible to argue logically and coherently in a hermeneutical or theological circle with all parts connected, and unfortunately be dead wrong– because one drew the circle much too small and left out all the inconvenient contrary evidence. This sort of fault is inevitable with theological systems constructed by finite human beings.” (You can read Dr. Witherington’s full statement here).

I find myself applauding Witherington, when he goes on to say: ”I must confess that as a NT scholar I am inherently suspicious about theological systems like Calvinism or Dispensationalism or even Arminianism and the like which seem to foster certain kinds of feelings of intellectual certainty and even smugness about things that are in fact profound mysteries.”

Christians need to be much more humble, cordial, and gentle in handling such mysteries and controversies. It amazes me  how some Calvinists can argue for biblical authority and then point to scriptural passages to bolster their Reformed theology, and yet, at the same time, completely ignore or sidestep passages that call Christians to gentleness, unity, and humility. As stereotypical as this may sound, I simply haven’t met that many Calvinists who are “gentle” and “apt to teach” (2 Timothy 2:24). And while they talk a great deal about the wonderful gift of grace God bestows on us, they often show little grace to those with whom they disagree. Once again, I’m not suggesting that Calvinists are exclusively at fault here, but I find that the more committed they are to their Reformed doctrine, the more pugnacious they can be in their tone.

Some of my Calvinist friends reading this may argue that they themselves are not “pugnacious” or unfriendly when debating the merits of their position. This may be the case, but perception matters. As Abraham Piper (son of John Piper) writes: “To many, Calvinists [do] come across as self-righteous, condescending, arrogant, unfriendly, argumentative, and even stingy.” (Read “Be a Kinder Calvinist” by Abraham Piper). Perception matters, and Christians on all sides need to be sensitive to how they come across.

Finally, one has to ask to what “profit” this debate has for the Kingdom of God, when it takes on such tones and especially when it spills out into the mainstream, non-Christian culture. What kind of message does it send to the unsaved for Christians to go around emphasizing that they are part of the Elect, the Chosen Few? What does it say to an unsaved man or woman to hear or observe Christians harshly debating the nature of God’s grace?

In future posts, I will address the issue of divine election more specifically. But, my main point here is simply this…

I hope more Christians will model love, patience, humility, grace, and unity in handling this issue, for that is what God wants of His children and His church.