What is defined often is determined either by who is defining and whom one is defining. In Brad Vermurlen’s new book, Reformed Resurgence, we are treated to a survey of Who the New Calvinists [=NC] are want What marks them off from other forms of evangelicalism. I will propose near the end of this newsletter a very brief definition of the NCs but I want to dig into Vermurlen first. (Don’t skip ahead, please.)
As a pastor and church planter who came out of A29 (Acts 29), this assessment is spot on. For over a decade I championed the Reformed/Calvinist banner, proclaiming how the ESV was the "right" translation and that 5 (even 6?) points of Calvinism was "true" theology. Man, I saw quite a few people get hurt because of this, and mostly because questioning the Calvinist status quo was not welcomed. Currently, I pastor a church that is not Calvinist at its core. Although I still adhere to much of Reformed theology, my preaching and ecclesiology has become much more Spirit-led and willing to ask questions about what God is up to.
Wade, maybe you can answer my question- I’ve seen many people say they are not Calvinist but they are reformed. I’ve even seen churches that I would say their denomination holds to a progressive stance in some instances (marrying homosexuals, for instance) but that local church calls themselves ‘reformed evangelical’ (and doesn’t follow progressive calls like that)- they’re flying under the radar of their denomination, I am guessing).
How do you define reformed but not Calvinist? 5 solas???
Good question. For years I considered that being reformed meant that you were a Calvinist, and to be a Calvinist was to be reformed; in other words, they're synonymous. Now, I would say (IMO) that Calvinism is a tenet of historical-theological Reformed Theology, but not the whole. To be a Calvinist means adhering to the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP), but to be reformed would mean adhering to the "3 C's of Reformed Theology": Calvinism, Covenental, Confessional. I think you can be a Calvinist but not Reformed. I was this was for a long time. I adhered to TULIP but did not consider myself to be a covenantal theologian.
John Piper’s teaching that Christianity has a “masculine feel” has done much damage to both women and men. The fact that many follow him after all of the spiritual abuse at Bethlehem Baptist, etc. is reflective of the way Christian patriarchy still has a stronghold on too many minds and souls. To see Mark Driscoll and Tullian Tchividijan also included is just a stark reminder of the fruit of this toxic masculinity. If Christianity has that kind of “feel,” no thank you.
Lori, I agree. There is an ex- pastor from that church who did his PhD on how Calvinism abuses people and the trauma the teachings themselves cause to people. Leighton flowers interviews him on Soteriology 101 and the book costs about $80 or I would buy it. This book was funded by Bethlehem while he was on the staff as a help to pastors on how to avoid causing this trauma with the teachings. But a year after writing it, he’d left the church- and left his faith altogether- too traumatised himself. Now he’s on TokTok talking about it.
There are so many aspects that cause pain. Once you start to truly think through determinism and the ‘belief’ taught that nothing on earth happens without Gods meticulous planning and instigation, and Piper’s insistence that, yes, the rape of a child, was not only known by God, but the thought in the mind of the perpetrator was put there by God. And the examples go on if you only delve into the website. The pain such things cause families who’ve seen family members undergo awful things. But worse, to then have to equate this with a God who loves them. To get their mind around this stuff. The NC doesn’t go so far as to say such things but you only have to scratch the surface a bit and it’s there- follow an idea through to it’s logic end to find it. The women thing is just one arm of it all.
Mary, wow. Didn't know all that. If the book weren't $80, I'd buy it too. Let me know if it goes on sale. :) The trauma of all of this is a tsunami wave.
Ah, for me a trip down memory lane - all those familiar names that have given me headaches over the last three decades. Now, in the end, I think "so what?" - when all of this talk completely avoids the basic gospel emphasis of our Lord Jesus. What I'd want to know is how these guys live with Jesus' response to that ancient lawyer in Luke 10: "do this and you will live." And what was that lawyer's statement calling forth such praise from Jesus? Love God and love others as you love yourself - and do that with all your heart, soul, strength and mind. All the fulminations by those who self-identify as evangelical have somehow overlooked the gospel of Jesus. I 'm relieved that I no longer have to listen to that "fundamentalist theologizing." Okay, call me naive. NO, call them naive for thinking that their fulminations have anything to do with God's kingdom.
I can’t believe I spent so long in this movement nit picking about the details of why I believed and how things happened at the cross (and why all those others have got it wrong), with little to no focus on following the actual teachings of Jesus- the WAY! Once it hit me, some serious sorrow and repentance was needed.
All My Calvinist friends and family members still surprise me by their vast concern about Getting the belief system right with little to no concern about how you treat others or some sort of blindness about loving people who may think differently (such as a newly transgender family member).
When I suggested to a church friend last week that loving them, embracing them in the family (since they already know your beliefs and that you don’t agree), showing kindness and extending Gods love in every way, he told me he’d never thought of such an approach. He was so caught up in whether the relative believed right and how to point out his faults. As if that was going to change his relative’s mind. This is where this teaching leads you. I pointed out how Jesus spoke to a divorced woman (despite having clear teachings on divorce)- never mentioning the theology but extending living water to her- how Jesus’ way is different to ours. It was a completely new paradigm to him, despite being in a reformed church all his life.
As one who listened to hundreds of Piper sermons and read many of his books during Bible college in the 2000s, your definition rings true. It was and is definitely a sociological movement, and I am thankful for much that I learned and also thankful I moved past the YRR stage. For myself I think I moved beyond it because I moved beyond the “I am of Paul/Apollos/Cephas” spirit by 1. Reading primary sources rather than only reading contemporary interpreters like Piper (eg learn to think for myself rather than be only taught what to think) and 2. By reading more broadly rather than reading only TGC authors.
I resonate with what you’ve said. Aaron. Piper, TGC was an important step along the way out of a church background where I just believed what I was told, into thinking more carefully on issues - with these sorts of authors, then moving further to church fathers, varying commentaries, translations, Septuagint, authors who make me think and question and ask , why do I believe such and such, instead of telling WHAT to believe. As you say, it’s more a concern about what Jesus was trying to get across and following him, rather than being in a modern ‘tribe’ who often think similarly.
Yes, and Piper himself was actually a good model for me in his deep appropriation of C. S. Lewis despite having significant disagreements with Lewis. That meant I could do the same with Piper et al. I found it so odd to make a hero out of Lewis without taking seriously Lewis’ debt to George MacDonald (because of MacDonald’s universalism and other doctrines). So, it only seemed logical to give MacDonald the fair hearing that Lewis got, and boy was that life changing. Still much I disapprove in MacDonald’s theology, but he is a must read for NC types as he himself was reacting to unhealthy Calvinism (and how could he not when he grew up watching fellow students get whipped when they gave a wrong answer to a Westminster Shorter Catechism question!). I discovered I needed the very corrections and criticisms that he had for the Calvinism of his day, most of all the need to learn from Jesus through immersion in the Gospels and not be so obsessed with doctrinal theology (which I still love!)
Interesting! When I think of “new”, I usually put some pretty specific parameters to my perception. In a big way, it’s brand new to a person or an organization. It’s not refurbished. I might call the “NC’S” - “Refurbished NC’s.” Yet Calvinism has never really looked or behaved totally as it does with any of the characteristics mentioned. BUT, does anyone or anything from day to day? Does that make any difference to those who are “the mission field”?
As a United Methodist pastor, I’m living into this right now.
Another thing I found interesting was that Tullian Tchividjian’s name was included. In reading posts a a book, he doesn’t seem to fit with the others. I’m not an expert about him, or the others, but he appears to have experienced, and lives by, God’s unconditional and unlimited grace, far more than most of the others. Maybe that’s part of my personal bias, as the current “splitting” of the UMC is all about whether or not we want to limit God’s love and grace. As always, Thank you, Scot, for thought provoking posts!
Thank you, Mary. Yes, we spent years in the movement for a couple of reasons. First, we were afraid of any alternatives leading us astray; second, as women we may have hoped that we would see change within the movement and should remain there as dependable examples within the movement. Now I see the movement not as an alternative, but as a power effort with no real awareness of the Gospel.
I’d say your summary is about right. Only many who call themselves NCs haven’t read much of Piper. His views on 9/11, God’s role in criminal actions and more, some of the Biblical manhood And womanhood stuff - because Maybe then they may not be such out and out fans.
These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. (2 Pet 2:17,18)
( Amplified Version)
17 These [false teachers] are springs without water and mists driven by a tempest, for whom is reserved the gloom of black darkness. 18 For uttering arrogant words of vanity [pompous words disguised to sound scholarly or profound, but meaning nothing and containing no spiritual truth], they beguile and lure using lustful desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error.
I follow Abraham Piper on Instagram, mostly because he has a ton of energy and it's entertaining to watch his thought process in his reels. He looks a little bit like his dad but his ideas are SO DIFFERENT and mostly in direct opposition. (He may be an athiest?) Anyway... I just think God uses our kids sometimes to challenge us and that's clearly what God has done. Maybe one day Piper will hang out with his son and loosen up a little. The new Calvinist thing is so weird with the way they view women and sexuality. I have a book on that (The Great Sex Rescue by Sheila Wray Gregoire). They really need to CHILL OUT.
Here's a global perspective of the impact of NC. I spent several decades serving in Indonesia. There are some large Christian denominations and seminaries/Bible schools in Indonesia which call themselves "Reformed" but in reality, they seem much influenced by NC and the teachers and writings from this stream. They tend to be very cognitive / focused on doctrine in their ministries, often legalistic, exclusive, autocratic, anti-charismatic and very male dominated. (In general, Indonesian protestant Christianity provides a wider space for women in the church and ministry, but the NC groups restrict the space for women.) In general, I found it challenging to partner with the NC "Reformed" groups in Indonesia. NC has had an impact overseas also, often through media, writings, and American missionaries and teachers who have assumed NC is the one and only Protestant way.
Great conversation opener thanks. Call it a cop-out by all means, but...I have always been more interested that people would 'come to Jesus, return to Jesus and go deeper with Jesus', than debating the mechanics of how that might work on some Calvinist / Armenianist continuum. That must mean I am a lover of Billy Graham over John Piper I guess? I can articulate where I am on such a fictitious spectrum but don't really see the point of it.
If Calvinism ultimately resides in the sovereignty of God, then I must be that thing, although as a South African everything in me resists that possibility because of the horror of apartheid theology that was born from Calvinism. To be fair though David Bosch (who you mention) was certainly not that thing...his theology of mission was for all peoples everywhere. An amazing man called home too soon.
If free will over-rides sovereignty, then I must be Arminian. If sovereignty and free will are on equal footing, then I must be both Calvinist and Arminan. The tribe I call home has at times been accused of having 'no theology', but that would not be entirely true. We would say our theology is vested in the ancient creeds (notably Nicean and Apostles) viewed through the lenses of the coming of the Kingdom.
I've never really understood why the theology of the reformers (most specifically Calvin) have been elevated to canonical status? Calvin is my least favourite reformer and Luther (with the exception of his notable anti Semitism) and Menno Simons my favourites. I guess that says quite a lot in and of itself.
The way I read the Scriptures God certainly changes his mind without changing the destination of his end goal. I don't see how changing the route map toward the fixed destination affects sovereignty in any way. Every move toward healing and wholeness vested in prayer somehow involves God's intervention and shifts in status quo / changes of mind. I waffle...thanks for the great conversations.
One thing that I do notice around the conversations is that (with notable exceptions) they are squarely based on the evangelical scene in the North Americas. I understand the reasoning. It's an American based blog from an American theologian (whom I appreciate btw). And to be sure the USA sets the tone for these discussions for both good and bad. But I really wish we would pay some attention to evangelical voices coming out of Bolivia, or Singapore or Kenya, or wherever else. How interested is God really in the USA over Eritrea?
I think part of the reason for the growth of calvinism is that many men in the church felt alienated in certain evangelical styles of spiritual practice that emphasized having a personal experience, emotional worship experiences, sharing your feelings. For someone who is not wired for these, the extremely complex system that is Calvinism and reformed theology is a breath of fresh air for someone who is more cerebral in their thinking. Unfortunately, all the complex wiring and mechanics of calvinism provides an endless source of deep theological thinking that distracts from its obvious incoherence that most people notice immediately when they hear the doctrines for the first time.
Hebrews 12: 7 You must submit to and endure [correction] for discipline; God is dealing with you as with sons. For what son is there whom his father does not [thus] train and correct and discipline?
8 Now if you are exempt from correction and left without discipline in which all [of God’s children] share, then you are illegitimate offspring and not true sons [at all].
9 Moreover, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we yielded [to them] and respected [them for training us]. Shall we not much more cheerfully submit to the Father of spirits and so [truly] live?
10 For [our earthly fathers] disciplined us for only a short period of time and chastised us as seemed proper and good to them; but He disciplines us for our certain good, that we may become sharers in His own holiness.
11 For the time being no discipline brings joy, but seems grievous and painful; but afterwards it yields a peaceable fruit of righteousness.
As a pastor and church planter who came out of A29 (Acts 29), this assessment is spot on. For over a decade I championed the Reformed/Calvinist banner, proclaiming how the ESV was the "right" translation and that 5 (even 6?) points of Calvinism was "true" theology. Man, I saw quite a few people get hurt because of this, and mostly because questioning the Calvinist status quo was not welcomed. Currently, I pastor a church that is not Calvinist at its core. Although I still adhere to much of Reformed theology, my preaching and ecclesiology has become much more Spirit-led and willing to ask questions about what God is up to.
Well said, Wade. Thanks.
Wade, maybe you can answer my question- I’ve seen many people say they are not Calvinist but they are reformed. I’ve even seen churches that I would say their denomination holds to a progressive stance in some instances (marrying homosexuals, for instance) but that local church calls themselves ‘reformed evangelical’ (and doesn’t follow progressive calls like that)- they’re flying under the radar of their denomination, I am guessing).
How do you define reformed but not Calvinist? 5 solas???
Good question. For years I considered that being reformed meant that you were a Calvinist, and to be a Calvinist was to be reformed; in other words, they're synonymous. Now, I would say (IMO) that Calvinism is a tenet of historical-theological Reformed Theology, but not the whole. To be a Calvinist means adhering to the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP), but to be reformed would mean adhering to the "3 C's of Reformed Theology": Calvinism, Covenental, Confessional. I think you can be a Calvinist but not Reformed. I was this was for a long time. I adhered to TULIP but did not consider myself to be a covenantal theologian.
John Piper’s teaching that Christianity has a “masculine feel” has done much damage to both women and men. The fact that many follow him after all of the spiritual abuse at Bethlehem Baptist, etc. is reflective of the way Christian patriarchy still has a stronghold on too many minds and souls. To see Mark Driscoll and Tullian Tchividijan also included is just a stark reminder of the fruit of this toxic masculinity. If Christianity has that kind of “feel,” no thank you.
Amen.
Lori, I agree. There is an ex- pastor from that church who did his PhD on how Calvinism abuses people and the trauma the teachings themselves cause to people. Leighton flowers interviews him on Soteriology 101 and the book costs about $80 or I would buy it. This book was funded by Bethlehem while he was on the staff as a help to pastors on how to avoid causing this trauma with the teachings. But a year after writing it, he’d left the church- and left his faith altogether- too traumatised himself. Now he’s on TokTok talking about it.
There are so many aspects that cause pain. Once you start to truly think through determinism and the ‘belief’ taught that nothing on earth happens without Gods meticulous planning and instigation, and Piper’s insistence that, yes, the rape of a child, was not only known by God, but the thought in the mind of the perpetrator was put there by God. And the examples go on if you only delve into the website. The pain such things cause families who’ve seen family members undergo awful things. But worse, to then have to equate this with a God who loves them. To get their mind around this stuff. The NC doesn’t go so far as to say such things but you only have to scratch the surface a bit and it’s there- follow an idea through to it’s logic end to find it. The women thing is just one arm of it all.
Sounds more like Islam than Christianity to me.
Many have hinted at such a similarity.
Mary, wow. Didn't know all that. If the book weren't $80, I'd buy it too. Let me know if it goes on sale. :) The trauma of all of this is a tsunami wave.
Ah, for me a trip down memory lane - all those familiar names that have given me headaches over the last three decades. Now, in the end, I think "so what?" - when all of this talk completely avoids the basic gospel emphasis of our Lord Jesus. What I'd want to know is how these guys live with Jesus' response to that ancient lawyer in Luke 10: "do this and you will live." And what was that lawyer's statement calling forth such praise from Jesus? Love God and love others as you love yourself - and do that with all your heart, soul, strength and mind. All the fulminations by those who self-identify as evangelical have somehow overlooked the gospel of Jesus. I 'm relieved that I no longer have to listen to that "fundamentalist theologizing." Okay, call me naive. NO, call them naive for thinking that their fulminations have anything to do with God's kingdom.
I can’t believe I spent so long in this movement nit picking about the details of why I believed and how things happened at the cross (and why all those others have got it wrong), with little to no focus on following the actual teachings of Jesus- the WAY! Once it hit me, some serious sorrow and repentance was needed.
All My Calvinist friends and family members still surprise me by their vast concern about Getting the belief system right with little to no concern about how you treat others or some sort of blindness about loving people who may think differently (such as a newly transgender family member).
When I suggested to a church friend last week that loving them, embracing them in the family (since they already know your beliefs and that you don’t agree), showing kindness and extending Gods love in every way, he told me he’d never thought of such an approach. He was so caught up in whether the relative believed right and how to point out his faults. As if that was going to change his relative’s mind. This is where this teaching leads you. I pointed out how Jesus spoke to a divorced woman (despite having clear teachings on divorce)- never mentioning the theology but extending living water to her- how Jesus’ way is different to ours. It was a completely new paradigm to him, despite being in a reformed church all his life.
Sorry- Jesus DID mention the divorced woman’s sin (told her she’d been married 5 times) but didn’t spend time holding it against her. He moved on.
But did He do it to demonstrate prophetic insight to deepen the conversation?
Truth
As one who listened to hundreds of Piper sermons and read many of his books during Bible college in the 2000s, your definition rings true. It was and is definitely a sociological movement, and I am thankful for much that I learned and also thankful I moved past the YRR stage. For myself I think I moved beyond it because I moved beyond the “I am of Paul/Apollos/Cephas” spirit by 1. Reading primary sources rather than only reading contemporary interpreters like Piper (eg learn to think for myself rather than be only taught what to think) and 2. By reading more broadly rather than reading only TGC authors.
I resonate with what you’ve said. Aaron. Piper, TGC was an important step along the way out of a church background where I just believed what I was told, into thinking more carefully on issues - with these sorts of authors, then moving further to church fathers, varying commentaries, translations, Septuagint, authors who make me think and question and ask , why do I believe such and such, instead of telling WHAT to believe. As you say, it’s more a concern about what Jesus was trying to get across and following him, rather than being in a modern ‘tribe’ who often think similarly.
Yes, and Piper himself was actually a good model for me in his deep appropriation of C. S. Lewis despite having significant disagreements with Lewis. That meant I could do the same with Piper et al. I found it so odd to make a hero out of Lewis without taking seriously Lewis’ debt to George MacDonald (because of MacDonald’s universalism and other doctrines). So, it only seemed logical to give MacDonald the fair hearing that Lewis got, and boy was that life changing. Still much I disapprove in MacDonald’s theology, but he is a must read for NC types as he himself was reacting to unhealthy Calvinism (and how could he not when he grew up watching fellow students get whipped when they gave a wrong answer to a Westminster Shorter Catechism question!). I discovered I needed the very corrections and criticisms that he had for the Calvinism of his day, most of all the need to learn from Jesus through immersion in the Gospels and not be so obsessed with doctrinal theology (which I still love!)
Interesting! When I think of “new”, I usually put some pretty specific parameters to my perception. In a big way, it’s brand new to a person or an organization. It’s not refurbished. I might call the “NC’S” - “Refurbished NC’s.” Yet Calvinism has never really looked or behaved totally as it does with any of the characteristics mentioned. BUT, does anyone or anything from day to day? Does that make any difference to those who are “the mission field”?
As a United Methodist pastor, I’m living into this right now.
Another thing I found interesting was that Tullian Tchividjian’s name was included. In reading posts a a book, he doesn’t seem to fit with the others. I’m not an expert about him, or the others, but he appears to have experienced, and lives by, God’s unconditional and unlimited grace, far more than most of the others. Maybe that’s part of my personal bias, as the current “splitting” of the UMC is all about whether or not we want to limit God’s love and grace. As always, Thank you, Scot, for thought provoking posts!
Thank you, Mary. Yes, we spent years in the movement for a couple of reasons. First, we were afraid of any alternatives leading us astray; second, as women we may have hoped that we would see change within the movement and should remain there as dependable examples within the movement. Now I see the movement not as an alternative, but as a power effort with no real awareness of the Gospel.
I’d say your summary is about right. Only many who call themselves NCs haven’t read much of Piper. His views on 9/11, God’s role in criminal actions and more, some of the Biblical manhood And womanhood stuff - because Maybe then they may not be such out and out fans.
These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. (2 Pet 2:17,18)
( Amplified Version)
17 These [false teachers] are springs without water and mists driven by a tempest, for whom is reserved the gloom of black darkness. 18 For uttering arrogant words of vanity [pompous words disguised to sound scholarly or profound, but meaning nothing and containing no spiritual truth], they beguile and lure using lustful desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error.
I follow Abraham Piper on Instagram, mostly because he has a ton of energy and it's entertaining to watch his thought process in his reels. He looks a little bit like his dad but his ideas are SO DIFFERENT and mostly in direct opposition. (He may be an athiest?) Anyway... I just think God uses our kids sometimes to challenge us and that's clearly what God has done. Maybe one day Piper will hang out with his son and loosen up a little. The new Calvinist thing is so weird with the way they view women and sexuality. I have a book on that (The Great Sex Rescue by Sheila Wray Gregoire). They really need to CHILL OUT.
Precisely why this happens to children as he must not be chosen if his dad is SO chosen
Lol!
Here's a global perspective of the impact of NC. I spent several decades serving in Indonesia. There are some large Christian denominations and seminaries/Bible schools in Indonesia which call themselves "Reformed" but in reality, they seem much influenced by NC and the teachers and writings from this stream. They tend to be very cognitive / focused on doctrine in their ministries, often legalistic, exclusive, autocratic, anti-charismatic and very male dominated. (In general, Indonesian protestant Christianity provides a wider space for women in the church and ministry, but the NC groups restrict the space for women.) In general, I found it challenging to partner with the NC "Reformed" groups in Indonesia. NC has had an impact overseas also, often through media, writings, and American missionaries and teachers who have assumed NC is the one and only Protestant way.
As far as "missional", many of these types of churches see good doctrine and heady teaching as the way to be "missional".
Great conversation opener thanks. Call it a cop-out by all means, but...I have always been more interested that people would 'come to Jesus, return to Jesus and go deeper with Jesus', than debating the mechanics of how that might work on some Calvinist / Armenianist continuum. That must mean I am a lover of Billy Graham over John Piper I guess? I can articulate where I am on such a fictitious spectrum but don't really see the point of it.
If Calvinism ultimately resides in the sovereignty of God, then I must be that thing, although as a South African everything in me resists that possibility because of the horror of apartheid theology that was born from Calvinism. To be fair though David Bosch (who you mention) was certainly not that thing...his theology of mission was for all peoples everywhere. An amazing man called home too soon.
If free will over-rides sovereignty, then I must be Arminian. If sovereignty and free will are on equal footing, then I must be both Calvinist and Arminan. The tribe I call home has at times been accused of having 'no theology', but that would not be entirely true. We would say our theology is vested in the ancient creeds (notably Nicean and Apostles) viewed through the lenses of the coming of the Kingdom.
I've never really understood why the theology of the reformers (most specifically Calvin) have been elevated to canonical status? Calvin is my least favourite reformer and Luther (with the exception of his notable anti Semitism) and Menno Simons my favourites. I guess that says quite a lot in and of itself.
The way I read the Scriptures God certainly changes his mind without changing the destination of his end goal. I don't see how changing the route map toward the fixed destination affects sovereignty in any way. Every move toward healing and wholeness vested in prayer somehow involves God's intervention and shifts in status quo / changes of mind. I waffle...thanks for the great conversations.
One thing that I do notice around the conversations is that (with notable exceptions) they are squarely based on the evangelical scene in the North Americas. I understand the reasoning. It's an American based blog from an American theologian (whom I appreciate btw). And to be sure the USA sets the tone for these discussions for both good and bad. But I really wish we would pay some attention to evangelical voices coming out of Bolivia, or Singapore or Kenya, or wherever else. How interested is God really in the USA over Eritrea?
I think part of the reason for the growth of calvinism is that many men in the church felt alienated in certain evangelical styles of spiritual practice that emphasized having a personal experience, emotional worship experiences, sharing your feelings. For someone who is not wired for these, the extremely complex system that is Calvinism and reformed theology is a breath of fresh air for someone who is more cerebral in their thinking. Unfortunately, all the complex wiring and mechanics of calvinism provides an endless source of deep theological thinking that distracts from its obvious incoherence that most people notice immediately when they hear the doctrines for the first time.
This makes the gospel plain:
Hebrews 12: 7 You must submit to and endure [correction] for discipline; God is dealing with you as with sons. For what son is there whom his father does not [thus] train and correct and discipline?
8 Now if you are exempt from correction and left without discipline in which all [of God’s children] share, then you are illegitimate offspring and not true sons [at all].
9 Moreover, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we yielded [to them] and respected [them for training us]. Shall we not much more cheerfully submit to the Father of spirits and so [truly] live?
10 For [our earthly fathers] disciplined us for only a short period of time and chastised us as seemed proper and good to them; but He disciplines us for our certain good, that we may become sharers in His own holiness.
11 For the time being no discipline brings joy, but seems grievous and painful; but afterwards it yields a peaceable fruit of righteousness.