Sunday, December 05, 2021

Brad Vermurlen's Reformed Resurgence, another book I recommend as providing some background on the rise and fall of Mars Hill

Many years ago Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk, wrote about the coming evangelical collapse. 
 
Now, Brad Vermurlen has a book out that builds a case that in order to understand the rise of New Calvinism, real or perceived, we can’t  begin to properly understand that “Reformed resurgence” without understanding a dissolution of American Evangelicalism as a field rather than as any coherent, identifiable set of beliefs or practices.  Field theory doesn’t seem hugely difficult for me to understand but over at Mere Orthodoxy there were some jokes about how abstract the concept of relative growth of subcultures within a larger dissolving culture seemed to be.
 
 
Well, maybe, but since I have lived in Seattle for decades and kind of witnessed most of the rise and fall of Mars Hill nearly everything in Vermurlen’s book was Captain Obvious. The merit of the book, however, is that he decided to do a sociological scholarly work on the New Calvinism. Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll are inescapably in it and yet Vermurlen managed to chronicle that Mark Driscoll never said he exactly “was” Calvinist (a point Old Line Reformed know all too well!) and yet Driscoll became the emblem of the movement.
 
Vermurlen established up front this book is a modified form of his 2016 doctoral dissertation.

He also proposed that if we look at actual numbers there was no Reformed resurgence.  Even if church attendance and institution-creation rose in the New Calvinist scene it’s chicken feed compared to the sheer size and scope of mainstream evangelical churches, let alone Pentecostal or charismatic groups; yet even compared to the neo-Anabaptists and progressive evangelicals the New Calvinists simply didn’t grow enough to be thought of as having any kind of “resurgence”. Vermurlen defines a resurgence as competitive growth in comparison to other movements within a larger field of activity and communities and by that standard there has been no Reformed resurgence at all!  But he quickly built a case that there’s more than one way to talk about a “resurgence”, but first he sets about establishing a couple of things:
 

Reformed Resurgence: The New Calvinist Movement and the Battle over American Evangelicalism

Brad Vermurlen

© Oxford University Press 2020

ISBN 9780190073510 (hardback)

ISBN 9780190073534 (epub)

ISBN 9780190073541 (online)

 

Page 2

… the sociological strength of the New Calvinism is less a matter of market dynamics of supply and demand or happening to take the best posture toward culture—and instead is a direct result of religious leaders’ strategic and conflictual actions. The New Calvinism enjoys a vitality that has been fought for and won in the context of the broader field of Evangelicalism. Through the analysis in these pages, the Reformed resurgence is shown to be real and strong and nevertheless relationally constructed.

 

Page 3

  In the same storyline by which conservative Calvinistic belief has experienced a resurgence in its field, American Evangelicalism has turned in on itself—such that the strength and prominence of this neo-Reformed movement also reveals the increasing weakness, fragmentation, and incoherence of the Evangelical field as a whole, at least in the United States. For an institutional domain of life with no agreed-upon overarching leadership, with very little consensual meanings of important texts, and no real mechanisms of accountability, how is coherence in that arena finally maintained? The short answer is, after much conflict and struggle, it can’t.

 
That’s literally a bit scholastic, but the lack of definition of what Evangelicalism even is is a necessary precursor to understanding how and why New Calvinist happened.  That the movement emerged less as a genuine numerical uptick and more as a brand (cue the second half of Cosper’s Episode 6 in The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill) doesn’t mean the thing doesn’t exist:
 
Page 4

… The temptation is to think that the New Calvinist movement or Reformed resurgence is real only if there are significantly more Calvinists in the American religious landscape today than there were two decades ago. This book resists that temptation by arguing the New Calvinist movement is less about this kind of numerical growth than it is about relational, game-like contestation and the struggle for symbolic capital and power in one's field. At the same time I am not merely explaining a widespread though ultimately mistaken perception of a religious movement (one that does not actually exist), because the perception of such a movement, including the media attention it receives, is itself an indispensable part of the movement. What is important at the beginning of this analysis is not whether or not there is an actual numerical resurgence of Calvinism in American Evangelicalism (see chapter 3), but just that a lot of people are talking about one. [emphasis added]

 
Ironically, once he left Mars Hill Mark Driscoll found it useful to insist that it was the media who claimed he was a thought leader among the Young, Restless Reformed scene known as New Calvinism, as if to imply that you can’t trust the libtard lamestream media to get anything right, ergo, he’s never been in the New Calvinist scene.  Vermurlen touches on Mark Driscoll’s possibly pragmatic-to-opportunistic relationship to New Calvinism only a few times in the book, however.
 
Not incidentally, if Vermurlen ever gets a chance to have a second edition published there’s actually a pile of material from Cosper’s series that would help to establish that on the Mars Hill side of thing the development of Driscoll’s participation in New Calvinism could be traced back as far as 2000 with his nascent relationship to David Nicholas.
 
Despite the fact that much of what Vermurlen recounted was stuff I already knew as a former member of Mars Hill Church there were things he shared that I didn’t know about because of  being too immersed in being part of and then chronicling the rise, peak and fall of Mars Hill to have noticed.  Despite mainstream and progressive coverage to the effect that Mars Hill was a very white church, the New Calvinist movement was not racially monolithic across the board.  Paradoxically it is probably more racially monolithic since 2012 because, well, here I have to quote Vermurlen somewhat extensively:
 

Pages 36-37

A significant component of the New Calvinist movement consists of various African American pastors, professors, and other church leaders. Among these are Thabiti Anyabwile, who is a pastor at Anacostia River Church in Washington, DC, and who blogs for The Gospel Coalition (and formerly served as assistant pastor for church planting at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC, with Mark Dever); Voddie Baucham, Jr., who was the preaching pastor at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas, and a council member of The Gospel Coalition before moing to Lusaka, Zambia, to be Dean of the Seminary of African Christian University; and Trillia Newbell, a popular speaker, author, and the director of community outreach for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission with the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

Other notable black voices include Anthony (Tony) Carter, who is the senior pastor oof East Point Church, on the southwest side of Atlanta; Crawford Loritts, Jr., who serves as the senior pastor of Fellowship Bible Church in Roswell, Georgia, and a council member of The Gospel Coalition; Charlie Dates, senior pastor at Progressive Baptist Church in Chicago; Louis Love, Jr., the senior pastor with New Life Fellowship Church in Vernon Hills, Illinois; and Eric Redmond, a Southern Baptist, and now assistant pastor of Bible at Moody Bible Institute and a former council member of The Gospel Coalition; among others.

 

There is also a noteworthy portion of the movement that produces theologically rich Christian hip-hop, spoken-word poetry, and accompanying music videos. The most widely known among these Calvinistic hip-hop artists is Grammy-winner Lecrae, but this phenomenon also includes rappers such as Trip Lee, KB, and Tedashii with Lecrae’s record label, Reach Records; Flame and Mike Real with Clear Sight Music; Shai Linne, Json, and Stephen the Levite with Lamp Mode Recordings; Propaganda, Sho Baraka, and Jackie Hill-Perry with Humble Beast Records; Eshon Burgundy with NFTRY; and approximately a dozen others. …

 

Pages 38-39

Despite the presence of several prominent black leaders in the New Calvinism, the race story in recent years—particularly since research for this book began in 2012—has been dominated by what has been called the “quiet exodus” or “black exodus” from (majority white) Evangelicalism. Many black leaders previously within the orbit of the Reformed resurgence have distanced themselves from Evangelicalism (without abandoning their doctrinal or moral convictions) due to what they perceive as various race-based grievances, injustices, and frustrations, among them the underrepresentation in leadership, tokenism, unsympathetic response to police shootings of black men, the election of Donald Trump, lack of concrete advancement in racial reconciliation, and recurrent microaggressions and other insensitivities. Nationally recognized black leaders who have, in one way or another, given up on or stopped trying to engage (white) Evangelicalism in just the last few years include Lecrae, Jemar Tisby, Anthony Bradley, Leonce Crump, Jr., and Eric Mason, among others.

 

(Anthony Bradley is a professor of religious studies and chair of the program in Religious and Theological Studies at King’s College, a Christian college in New York City; Leonce Crump, Jr., is founder and lead pastor of Renovation Church in Atlanta; Eric mason is the founder and senior pastor of Epiphany Fellowship in Philadelphia. Both Crump and Mason were formerly board members of the Acts 29 Network).

Vermurlen’s work would be good to cross reference with Maren Haynes Marchesini’s doctoral dissertation on the musical culture of Mars Hill. He doesn’t cite Haynes Marchesini’s work but he does refer to Jessica Johnson’s Biblical Porn regarding affect and labor as crucial elements in Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill. Vermurlen may not be adding a lot I didn’t already know about New Calvinism overall but he’s shown, at least, that he’s made a point of being as scholarly as possible in producing a sociological survey of the movement and has relied on one of the few works about Mars Hill I actually recommend.  It was sad to read that there were attempts to develop a hip hop musical culture within Mars Hill that got snubbed.  Though I’m a classical guitarist and hobbyist composer I’ve been interested in facilitating however I can theoretical tools for bridging the gap between American popular song and dance styles and classical musical forms as promulgated in “traditional” theory but I digress.

 
So, we’ve established after all that that there was a notable African American contingent within the New Calvinism but there was an exodus.  This is worth noting precisely because if you have read Haynes Marchesini’s dissertation and also listened to the CT podcast, it seems clear that multiple accounts had it that Mark Driscoll was busy consolidating his brand and his idea of cultural production and that this meant that other views were shunted to the side. Vermurlen’s thumbnail sketch of a “black exodus” from the New Calvinist scene regarding how indifferent the white power brokers seemed to be about racial inequalities reminds me that I’ve floated the idea that what Mark Driscoll had on offer were scripts of adulthood; if Mark Driscoll’s “good news” culminated in scripts of adulthood predicated on Driscoll exemplar rather than christus exemplar, how were people of color supposed to live out those scripts?  Although I befriended a number of African Americans at Mars Hill I don’t recall them marrying at Mars Hill.  The extent to which men and women were admonished implicitly and explicitly to be like Mark and Grace Driscoll didn’t seem to leave a ton of room for people of color or people with disabilities or people who didn’t fit Driscoll’s hipster upwardly mobile ethos to fit into those scripts of adulthood.
 
Of course by now we know that Driscoll resigned rather than submit to a restoration plan. Whatever Driscoll’s fulmination against the “woke joke folk” we might want to remember for him that there have been African American pastors who were on the board of Acts 29 who signed the statement saying he was being removed because of concerns about his character.

Note that Crump and Mason were both board members on Acts 29 when they were signatories on the statement that Acts 29 leadership had found Mark Driscoll unfit for ministry

 
 
Granting various concerns about Acts 29 as a network, I suggest people give a listen to Cosper’s bonus episode about David Nicholas to hear how Nicholas and Driscoll differed over whether Acts 29 ought to be a church planting network that truly planted churches from the ground up (as Nicholas wanted) or whether simply assimilating everyone and anyone who wanted to join up and counting that toward planting churches ought to count (which is what Driscoll wanted).  Whatever people may think about Crump and Mason, they were arguably in a position as board members on Acts 29 to know first-hand the extent to which Acts 29 was planting churches or assimilating applicants.   This is not a mundane detail precisely because, as Vermurlen’s argument goes, we need to know whether there even was a “Reformed resurgence” and, if there was actually one, what it was a resurgence of.  As Driscoll took pains to claim, it wasn’t all transfer growth …. but Cosper’s recent episode about David Nicholas invites us to wonder whether or not Driscoll felt an obligation to deny that it was all transfer growth precisely because most of that Acts 29 and perhaps even Mars Hill church growth actually was transfer growth.
 
Necessarily, Vermurlen distinguishes between New Calvinism and neo-Calvinism, an obvious distinction for those of us who are Calvinists familiar with various strands of Reformed traditions but a point that needed to be established all the same:
 

page 33

A distinction should be made between New Calvinism and neo-Calvinism. Decades before the present-day New Calvinist movement emerged within American Evangelicalism, the term “neo-Calvinism” referred to a school of thought in the Dutch Reformed tradition, developed most forcefully by former Dutch Prime Minister and theologian Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920). Dutch thinkers Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977), and Dirk Vollenhoven (1892-1978) also had a formative influence on the neo-Calvinist movement. In addition to having a Calvinist doctrine of salvation, neo-Calvinism emphasized the sovereignty of God over all of creation, the need for Christians to create and engage with culture in all spheres of human life (the “cultural mandate”), the differentiated authority and responsibilities of different sectors of human life (“sphere sovereignty”), a distinctly “Christian worldview,” a rationalistic reductio ad absurdum strategy for defending the truth of the Christian faith (called “presuppositional apologetics”), as well as a cosmic all-encompassing understanding of redemptive history (not merely individuals’ sin, salvation, and piety).
 
Ironically, Vermurlen also established that there’s a significant gap between what we could expect leaders in the New Calvinism to affirm as doctrine compared to a significant minority of laypersons to not actually affirm.  To wit:
 
Page 152

… for an accurate sociological account of the New Calvinism, it must be recognized that a significant minority of laypersons are not aware that they are swimming in the Calvinist stream of American Evangelicalism.

 
So that’s another reason to wonder how “real” the Reformed resurgence has been by way of the New Calvinism. To put this harshly, there’s a case to be made that the New Calvinists are merely legends in their own minds.
 
Vermurlen makes a lengthy, complex argument that New Calvinism should be understood as both a reaction to the Emergent Church scene but also to mainstream evangelicalism and progressive evangelicalism.  Progressive evangelicals and neo-Anabaptists, for their part, took up the task of boundary definition right back:
 

Pages 159-160

… a crucial and multifaceted social cause of the Reformed resurgence is that New Calvinist leaders strategically position themselves as having clear, compelling, “black and white” answers to pressing ethical, social, existential, and doctrinal questions, and especially to young persons. For those invested in it, the New Calvinist movement offers a new generation firm moral, theological, and intellectual ground on which to stand amid the tectonic shifts of the post-1960s cultural and institutional environment in which they live.

 

Several of the non-Calvinist leaders I interviewed pointed to this as a reason why Calvinism appeals to a lot of young Americans today. As one neo-Anabaptist pastor stated in our interview, “With the neo-Reformed there is a very strong confident sense of getting something right, of getting the Gospel right. […] I think New Calvinism is so popular mostly because of its sense of certainty, and of being right about things, and being `black and white.’” Similarly, Tony Campolo, after explaining to me why he believes women should serve as pastors even though, as he put it, he does not have any good arguments either from the Bible or Church history to support it, said to me: “That’s the problem with Calvinism—everything is answered, everything is tied up. There is no question they can’t answer.” In our interview, Emergent leader Doug Pagitt opined: “I think that version of Christianity doesn’t make sense, but if you get plugged into a system that forces it on you … This is why Reformed theology people have to become so well-educated in Reformed theology, in my view, because it only makes sense as an insular system.” Or again, Rachel Held Evans stated, “There’s an appeal about how it supposedly answers every question. It has this cohesiveness about it that I think is really appealing. When you’re young, you kind of want and long for an answer to everything. You want to find somebody who has the entire world figured out, everything’s `black and white’, no room for gray. I think the neo-Calvinist movement is beautiful at presenting people with that.” Greg Boyd put it more simply: “Folks who don’t like loose ends—these are tough times for them.” Statements like these came up repeatedly among non-Calvinist Evangelical leaders.

 
No Mark Driscoll, no Rachel Held Evans.  These brands competing for status within the evangelical field needed each other even if the people in the branded movements didn’t necessarily like each other.
 
There is a curious irony, however, in Vermurlen’s work.  He mentioned an interview he had with Mark Driscoll and the topic of John Piper came up:
 

Pages 171-172

… In one of my conversations with Mark Driscoll during my time in Seattle, I explained that I saw how Mars Hill was innovating culturally, as well as how in a different way Redeemer is involved in “culture making,” but I had trouble seeing how Bethlehem [Baptist Church] was engaged in similar work; Driscoll responded: “Piper is like the grandfather of the neo-Reformed movement. He doesn’t need to be cool. You don’t want your grandpa to be cool; you want your grandpa to be wise.”

 
Yet it’s impossible to ignore a thread of statements throughout Mike Cosper’s The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill in which former members and staff said that when it was suggested that Mark Driscoll submit to John Piper as an authority to keep him accountable Driscoll’s conventional dismissive response was that he wasn’t going to or couldn’t submit to someone who had a smaller church than he had. One of the things that slowly and steadily emerges about Mark Driscoll is that there was a public persona who met with people and interacted with outsiders and the person behind the scenes within Mars Hill. What Mark Driscoll said to people interviewing him for journalistic or academic coverage about John Piper was apparently not much like what he privately said when he knew whatever he was saying wasn’t going to be on the record.
 
As to what Driscoll became infamous for, we know by now, but Vermurlen highlights that Driscoll, more than any other New Calvinist, insisted upon prescribing scripts of adulthood, especially for young men, and that reaching young men in urban centers was crucial for his sense of mission:
 
Page 179

… In his 2013 interview with conservative media host Glenn Beck, Driscoll said:

 

Culture is made “upstream” in the city and then it flows “downstream” into the suburban and rural areas. A lot of people of faith, a lot of conservative families—husbands, wives, kids—they’re in the suburbs, they’re in the rural areas, because [of factors like] cost of living, education, all the very real variables. Meanwhile, all the single college-educated culture-makers are flooding into the cities—the very places that the churches have tended to flee over the generations prior. And the question [for Evangelical leaders] is, is there an opportunity to plant churches, to go back and to re-evangelize major urban centers, especially young men.

 
There’s a curious aside in the book when it comes to Trump.  Although people have compared Driscoll and Trump and made connections to them, Vermurlen notes that in contrast to other evangelical and Pentecostal groups the New Calvinists leaders did not seem particularly eager to endorse candidate Trump.
 
From pages 187 to 191 Vermurlen surveys the New Calvinist scene and notes that leaders in the New Calvinist movement, with the conspicuous exception of Wayne Grudem, seemed to dissent from broader evangelical endorsement (reluctant or otherwise) of Donald Trump’s candidacy and presidency. From Russell Moore to Collin Hansen to Al Mohler to Kevin DeYoung to Tim Keller to Justin Taylor to John Piper Vermurlen noted their agreement that Trump did not seem to have the character or competency required of presidential candidacy or office.  As an aside, Crawford Gribben noted that there was a distinct lack of enthusiasm among people he interviewed in the American Redoubt scene for his book studying survivalism and Christian reconstructionism in the Pacific Northwest. 
 
What were the New Calvinists enthusiastic about?  Picking fights about who did or didn’t deserve to be considered truly evangelical, of course!
 

Page 191-192 

Self-Appointed Gatekeepers

 

In addition to the ways already described in previous chapters, several New Calvinist leaders also strategically position themselves as the rightful gatekeepers of their field’s established “orthodoxy”, functioning as if they had real authority to claim which other players are “in” and “out” of the American evangelical field. Stated differently, some (though not all) New Calvinist leaders enact their accumulated symbolic power in the American Evangelical field as part of a “classification struggle” over which Christian leaders (in addition to themselves) ought to be classified or categorized as belonging to the field at all. This is accomplished mainly through the force of their public “speech”, especially on the Internet, in which they draw symbolic boundaries marking off “lines” of inclusion and exclusion for being an Evangelical. The concern is: who really, truly is an Evangelical Christian, and who, despite what they may say, is not? Which beliefs fit within Evangelicalism and which are out of bounds?

 

This observation is not missed among leaders themselves. Propaganda, a hip-hop and spoken word artist who has moved mostly in Reformed circles, reflected on his experience: “Somehow or another the [R[eformed world centered itself as the sole protector and purveyor of orthodoxy. And I’m still seeing how the depths of how much that ruined my ability to see the absolute grandness of Christ incarnate really is [sic].” Leaders in challenger positions, especially, are aware of this ongoing dynamic of the Evangelical field. As feminist writer Rachel Held Evans told me during her interview, the New Calvinism, in her estimation, is “a movement of gatekeepers, and it seems very focused on keeping the wrong people out and just really strict definitions for what a true Christian is and [that basic definition] seems to be Calvinist.”
 
In that sense, Vermurlen notes, all of the thought leaders in the New Calvinism, whether Mark Driscoll or others, could be construed as self-anointed arbiters of culture and gatekeepers of orthodoxy within evangelicalism. 
 

Pages 225-226

… an additional mechanism contributing to the New Calvinism is incumbent religious leaders publicly presenting themselves—and being presented by challengers and the media—as a significant new movement for orthodoxy. An important variant of this mechanism is writing about and documenting themselves, including giving themselves a moniker, so as to construct and present themselves as an identifiable tribe. Clearly, the most important version of this is the writings of Collin Hansen—first his 2006 article in Christianity Today and later his 2008 book Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists. In this manner, Hansen’s work is just as much a part of and a milestone for the New Calvinist movement’s development and rise to prominence as it is a description of it.

 

Another example is a lecture Mark Driscoll delivered in February 2009 at an Acts 29 boot-camp in Raleigh, North Carolina. The seventy-two minute lecture was titled, “We Are a  Movement,” and it served to inform and encourage church planters on “What God is in the midst of doing” through the Acts 29 Network. Among the attributes of a Christian movement, Driscoll discussed the importance of young people in their twenties, auxillary organizations, and cultural production like music and publishing. He also emphasized that Acts 29 is  collaborating and networking (“clumping,” as he called it) with other like-minded Evangelical organizations and leaders (he mentioned Carson, Keller, Grudem, Akin, Mohler, Mahaney, Dever, Piper, Greear, and the organizations they lead), and how these ministries are coalescing into the larger New Calvinism as “an overarching movement of God.” Driscoll also highlighted Hansen’s work that identified and named the movement. Later, Driscoll provided a brief history of the Calvary Chapel and Vineyard movements, and pointed out how much more quickly Acts 29 is planting churches than those two movements did. Acts 29, he explained, is intentionally organizationally lean and noninstitutional; he stated: “What holds us together is love and theology and mission.” His lecture was bookended by two prayers, the first of which included: “We want to be part of a movement, not simply because we want to have our way, but because we want the Church of Jesus Christ to flourish.” And in closing, Driscoll prayed to God “that You’d keep us from becoming a museum. I pray we would stay a movement.” For anyone who saw or heard Driscoll’s lecture, whether in-person or online, the point was clear: this expansive, young, urban, culturally savvy, complementarian, Calvinistic energy is a significant, identifiable movement.

 
Vermurlen’s attribution was unfortunately sparse on this last point.  He just provided a Vimeo link.

https://vimeo.com/9154887


But if you didn’t already know which event was being referenced the Vimeo link would not give you any idea when Mark said what at the where that was mentioned. 
 
However, thanks to a Mars Hill archive I was able to narrow down the lecture to the following:

http://download.marshill.se/files/acts29/20090205_0e1515251_2009raleighbcmarkdriscolloutromovements.mp3

 
One of the conundrums of documenting the history of Mars Hill, Mark Driscoll and their respective roles within New Calvinism is that there’s an extensive history of purging content or redacting content in the controversial final years of Mars Hill or in the post-summer of 2014 era in which Acts 29 cast Mars Hill out of its network.
 
So that’s another reason a book like Vermurlen’s is useful. Academic accounts of things that seem obvious to anyone who has been in the New Calvinist orbits but given how much material gets purged or redacted in relationship to Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill (which Mike Cosper noted recently in “Aftermath”) any and all work that preserves what was said and done is appreciated.
 
But as Vermurlen reaches the conclusion of his book he highlights that the rise of the New Calvinism is explicable chiefly in terms of a general demise of evangelicalism.  At the risk of connecting Vermurlen’s thesis to Michael Spencer’s old 2009 idea, the rise of the New Calvinism was only possible because there already was an evangelical collapse by 2009.  New Calvinism evolved as a reaction to the Emergent Church, the floundering momentum of church growth movements from the prior century, and the perceived enervation of mainstream evangelicalism:
 
Page 231

… Calvinism’s resurgence in the Evangelical field, ironically, also reveals the field’s overall disorder, weakness, fragmentation, and incoherence. There certainly remain pockets of relative strength—most notably the New Calvinism, but also any number of polished, thriving megachurches that did not even enter the story of this book. But even with these pockets of strength, the underlying intractable conflict and divergent institutional logics and interpretations portend rough new for Evangelicalism in the hypermodern era. …

 
Had there been a more robust evangelicalism across the United States might we never have even gotten New Calvinism?  With respect to Mars Hill, had Mark Driscoll not gotten funding from a Presbyterian around 1999 might he have veered off into some non-Calvinist set of doctrines? All moot points but they are hypotheticals worth considering seeing as Driscoll lost no time claiming he thought the five points of Calvinism were “garbage” in 2019 before turning around and citing Arthur Pink when he seemed to think nobody was looking in 2021. The guy with the shock jock persona kept on doing shock jock stunts in mass media and then turning around and revealing in his increasingly sparse bibliographies that he was still more than happy to cite Don Carson and even Arthur Pink in his post-Mars Hill books. 
 
Vermurlen is aware that by the time his book came out Mars Hill had gone into a miserable death spiral but even if Mars Hill were still around today his next point is worth noting:
 

Page 235

… If an observer looks locally, these “churches like Piper’s” and many non-Calvinist megachurches besides are thriving—and Evangelicalism seems to be strong. But if one looks globally—that is at the whole of American Evangelicalism—one sees fragmentation, division, infighting, disorder, and doctrinal and ethical incoherence. In this sense, there is no “the Evangelical movement”; there is only an Evangelical field … . This is also how the New Calvinist movement, the Reformed resurgence, can be strong and vital while Evangelicalism write large in America is divided. Indeed, as should now be clear, the former cannot be understood or explained rightly apart from the latter.

 
Within the steadily declining field of American evangelicalism the Reformed resurgence only looked like a resurgence to the leaders and thought leaders who were buying their own hype and people who were grading them on a curve compared to the rest of the evangelical field. The resurgence of New Calvinism was real as a cultural process of leveraging symbolic power among mass media users (whom Jacques Ellul would’ve called propagandists) but it would seem that way mainly to other propagandists, activists and agitators.  It could be that in the end the Reformed resurgence and New Calvinism was founded and made famous by some men who were legends in their own minds. The hype was real and they believed their hype, but Vermurlen has pointed out that so far no one has been able to produce numbers reliable enough to establish that, beyond the very real cumulative branding culture, the numerical growth backs up the branding. But what a brand it has been.

No comments: