Chinese Calvinism flourishes

Guardian.co.uk ^ | 27 May 2009 | Andrew Brown

[Alex Murphy]

John Calvin was a Frenchman, but he is being remembered in Geneva this week because it was here that he built Calvinism. Invited to reform the city in 1541, almost as what would now be called a management consultant, he formed an alliance with the city fathers. Over the next 20 years of preaching and pastoring they turned this tiny city, with a population then of only 10,000, into a model of church government and theology which has changed the world.

His followers now form the third-largest Christian grouping in the world. The world alliance of reformed churches claims 75 million members, and while this is a lower headline figure than the Anglican Communion's 80 million, it is not inflated by 25 million nominal Anglicans in Britain.

Although Calvinism is shrinking in western Europe and North America, it is experiencing an extraordinary success in China. I spent some time on Monday talking to the Rev May Tan, from Singapore, where the overseas Chinese community has close links with mainland China. The story she told of the spread of Calvinist religion as an elite religion in China was quite extraordinary. There may be some parallels with the growth of Calvinism in South Korea, where the biggest presbyterian churches in the world are to be found, but it's absolutely unlike the pattern in Africa and Latin America. There, the fastest growing forms of Christianity are pentecostal, and they are spreading among the poor.

But in China neither of those things are to be true.

Calvinists despise pentecostalists. They shudder at unbridled emotion. If they are slain in the spirit, it is with a single, decorous thump: there's to be no rolling afterwards. And in China, the place where Calvinism is spreading fastest is the elite universities, fuelled

[Dr. Eckleburg]

That is BEAUTIFUL! I’m recommending them to friends as we speak. Thanks.

[Terabitten]

Brutality seldom succeeds, but truth needn't be sugar-coated in order for men to realize the medicine will benefit them.

When I was young, and people asked me a delicate question, I'd ask if they wanted an honest answer or a polite one. I've since learned that they need not be exclusive.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lololol. That’s how I came to a better understanding of the doctrine of grace — by my husband’s example and his simple prayer like yours which says it all.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." -- 1 John 4:1-3

---

"Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart.

And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where." -- Luke 9:1-6

[Terabitten]

What's "lousy" about the worship? I'd give anything to have a PCA church in our vicinity. The closest one is 60 miles away.

Doc, keep in mind that I grew up in the Assemblies of God, where the worship service was a bit more... uh.. rollicking. Whatever their other doctrinal failings, they knew "the joy of the Lord." I've only attended a half-dozen or so PCA churches, but I've overall found them to be very somber, dreary, dare I say painful. What should have been a joyous experience was downright dull.

Now, don't twist what I'm saying -- I know worship isn't about how we feel. However, it should be uplifting and inspiring - not a drudgery.

I'm the sole musician at my church (small PCA church, about 50 on a Sunday morning), and so at least now I have some influence on it. You should've seen their faces the first morning I brought in my Les Paul.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lolol. I can always count on you to correct that mistake. I never get it right. I suppose I could look it up and learn it, but where’s the fun in that?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I’m OK with emotion so long as its not the fuel of faith, when that’s case the fire burns for too short a time. Also I believe Christians can suffer depression and if at that point your faith is based on emotion you are in real trouble.

Great post. Very insightful.

IMO the greatest fountain of psychological well-being is to rest secure in the fact that "all things" are ordained by God for His glory which includes the fact that a believer has been named as a member of His family from before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1. Who can believe it and remain downhearted?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

There have been less reformed threads lately so we should all try to post more of them. I hope your busy life is going well. I miss seeing your posts. 8~)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Honest and polite. Who can argue with that? 8~)

[vpintheak]

Good point.

[vpintheak]

The same people I see being emotional, dancing and waving are the same ones who always seem to have problems and praises. I guess it’s the way God made them, you know, kind of artsy-fartsy. God bless them, it isn’t for me.

[rdb3]

That is BEAUTIFUL! I’m recommending them to friends as we speak. Thanks.

You're welcome.

Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.

Oh, dear...

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Les Pauls are evidence for the existence of a gracious God. I bet you play beautifully. Just don't forget the older hymns. "How Great Thou Art" on electric guitar must be stirring.

My husband has an original Les Paul black double cutaway (whatever that is.) He hasn't brought it to church yet, but I wouldn't put it past him. 8~)

[Terabitten]

Les Pauls are evidence for the existence of a gracious God.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Most of what we do is hymns. We do a lot of RUF and Red Mountain Church songs.

I don't get to play the LP to anywhere near its capacity since I'm the only musician. I basically have to play just "cowboy chords" since there's no bass and no other melodic instruments. I'd kill for a bass player.

[Alex Murphy]

Here's a fascinating letter written to Schaeffer from Cornelius Van Til....This letter reminds me of Whitefield's letter to Wesley -- unvarnished, uncompromising, gentle, and ever aware of the import of its subject.

I used to post an excerpt from that letter on my profile page. It's well-worth reading, and a wonderful example of one brother correcting another in a biblical manner.

I know you like Schaeffer and I do, too, but you have to admit there was a somewhat passive side to him. I believe, ultimately, he was not as thorough-going as he could have been.

Dare I say it? "Heck yes!"

About 99% of what I know about Schaeffer comes from his writing, which is to say I know almost nothing of the man himself and of his primary ministry (i.e. an evangelist in Switzerland). And yes, I have to say he was not as thorough in thinking through things as I'd have liked him to be. I, quite frankly, think his eschatology hamstrung many of his arguments. More than twenty years later, I am still deeply indebted to Francis Schaeffer for his book A Christian Manifesto. That book literally changed my life. In comparison to the writers of his time, Schaeffer was a giant.

Gary North devoted nearly a third of his book Political Polytheism to the ministry of Francis Schaeffer. What he writes in that book provides a broader context from which to understand Schaeffer's personal ministry, and his written works. It echos many of my own thoughts re Schaeffer's shortcomings. But given how much Schaeffer "gets right", I prefer to gloss over the other issues when possible. Here's the "money quote" from Political Polytheism, which introduces the section on Schaeffer:

My essay on Rev. Schaeffer is mostly critical. I believe that he gave away far too much ground to the humanists and liberals who were the targets of his critiques. I believe that his apologetic approach, like Cornelius Van Til's, was deeply compromised by antinomianism and by eschatological pessimism. To prove my case, I have had to take a critical stand against him. This is a one-sided, specialized essay, not a well-rounded assessment of his personal ministry overall. I believe that on the whole, he (like Van Til) fought the good evangelical fight, given his self-imposed theological handicaps, his lack of formal academic training beyond seminary, and his geographical isolation in Switzerland (To some extent, all three were advantages: they kept him out of the increasingly debilitating clutches of the academic compromisers who control the humanities classrooms of the modern Christian liberal arts colleges). He inflicted serious wounds on humanists within the modern evangelical Church, which is why they are so vindictive, how that he is gone. Furthermore, his counsel and books brought many intelligent young people to saving faith in Jesus Christ in a turbulent period of Western history. Finally, he did elevate the terms of evangelical intellectual discourse from 1968 until his death. My disagreement with Rev. Schaeffer centers on the fact that he did not go far enough down the confrontational road. He waffled on key issues. He operated a halfway house intellectual ministry, with all the liabilities associated with any ideologically middle-of-the-road ministry. He did, however, sell over two million books. None of his published critics can match that performance, including me.

I am comparing him to what he could have been, had he remained more faithful to the older Puritan standards of the Westminster Confession of Faith that he affirmed at his ordination. I am comparing him to what he might have been, had he taken the Old Testament case laws more seriously. I am comparing him to what he should have been had he thoroughly abandoned the myth of neutrality that he publicly attacked, and had he really adopted the presuppositional apologetic approach that he sometimes claimed that he accepted. Most of all, I am comparing him to what we needed him to be, had he turned away from the political pluralism that he adhered to. Pluralism's moral foundation is relativism, which he forthrightly warned against--a warning which has outraged his neo-evangelical academic critics. But compared to Hal Lindsey, he was a breath of fresh air. Compared to Robert Schuller, he was a theological life-support system. Compared to Tony Campolo, he was the Apostle Paul.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

My husband says “Political Polytheism” is one of the greatest books ever written.

I’m not surprised you like it, too. Great minds, and all.

For anyone interested, “Political Polytheism” is free online here...

http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/21f2_47e.htm

[Terabitten]

My husband has an original Les Paul black double cutaway (whatever that is.)

Does it look like this:

Or more like this:

Sorry, couldn't find a black LP Junior...

[Lee N. Field]

MO the greatest fountain of psychological well-being is to rest secure in the fact that "all things" are ordained by God for His glory which includes the fact that a believer has been named as a member of His family from before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1. Who can believe it and remain downhearted?

Q. 27.What dost thou mean by the providence of God?

A. The almighty and everywhere present power of God; (a) whereby, as it were by his hand, he upholds and governs (b) heaven, earth, and all creatures; so that herbs and grass, ain and drought, (c) fruitful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, (d) riches and poverty, (e) yea, and all things come, not by chance, but be his fatherly hand. (f)

a) Acts 17:25-28; Jer.23:23,24; Isa.29:15,16; Ezek.8:12. (b) Heb.1:3. (c) Jer.5:24; Acts 14:17. (d) John 9:3. (e) Prov.22:2. (f) Matt.10:20; Prov.16:33.

[D-fendr]

If predestination is true: Why bother teaching anyone anything? To "change" someone? Not possible.

His principal objective was to raise the bar of the Law so high, explain the holiness required of God so well…

Why bother if predestination is true?

Listen to His message.

Why? Is there something that I could hear that would change my predestined soul? No.

Now, I just cannot do that.

You can't do anything. Whether you know this or not doesn't matter..

grace has come to overpower the stubborn elect, break their hearts, and drag them into the Kingdom in spite of themselves

This isn't a "ministry". It's a kidnapping.

[Alex Murphy]

This isn't a "ministry". It's a kidnapping.

In Arminianism, Jesus comes off like a wimpy wallflower who can’t get a date.

The reality that the Bible teaches us is that Jesus gets His way. Every single time.