ere's the closing zinger from an article in this weekend's New York Times Magazine:
[The] New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.
Reading that sentence made me feel a little like David must have felt when he was on the receiving end of Shimei's angry tirade in
2 Samuel 16:5-13. While I don't think it's a fair evaluation of Calvinism per se, there's enough truth in the remark to warrant a humble acceptance of the rebuke.
We can quibble about the "always." We can also argue that Mark Driscoll (he's who the article is about) is atypical in just about every way. We can point out that "Calvinism" is by no means the root of the Mars-Hill-Seattle idiosyncrasies the NYT writer was criticizing. We can also plead that in a postmodern world where doubt has been canonized as a virtue, any sort of strong conviction is going to be dismissed as "arrogant."
Still, that remark about Calvinistic arrogance has too much truth in it to be dismissed completely.
What do you think? Talk amongst yourselves.
(And let's not make this thread about Driscoll, OK?)