I am a Pastor of a Reformed (Calvinist) Church. One of the unique positions of Calvinists is their belief in election and predestination and providence. These doctrines teach the totalistic Sovereignty of the God of the Bible. There is nothing that happens that God hasn’t ordained. God, in His Sovereignty, chooses some for eternal life and reprobates others unto eternal death. God chooses who will be high born and who will be low born. God chooses who will be winners (Jacob have I loved) and who will be losers (Esau I have hated). This is staple Calvinism. One cannot be a Calvinist who does not believe and hold to this understanding of Christianity.
Yet, almost two months ago now, “Rev.” Reggie Smith, spokesman for the Christian Reformed Church stepped right up to the microphone and in a press release faulted Christ the King Reformed Church for teaching a doctrine that,
“Teaches that God picks some people, while not picking others. There are winners and losers. (This doctrine) provides this sense of certainty that can contribute to an air of supremacy or entitlement in a church.”
This is like accusing Mary Poppins of taking care of children. It is like accusing Babe Ruth of hitting Home Runs. It is like accusing Jacques Costeau of scuba diving. It’s like accusing Homer of writing the Iliad and the Odyssey. Rev. Smith … Dude … I am guilty as charged. I am also guilty of teaching infant-baptism, total depravity, and limited atonement. So, shoot me already.
I freely admit that the doctrine of election to eternal life and even the doctrine of predestination to our various life stations can indeed and even has in the past contributed to an air of supremacy and entitlement in the church but all because a doctrine can lead to something negative because it is mishandled, doesn’t mean that the doctrine is not true. It only means that the doctrine can be mishandled.
If anything Smith’s incredible proclamation proves that the doctrine he is inveighing against (Kinism) is just your garden variety Calvinism.
I just finished reading Francis P. Yockey’s ‘Imperium’ and he speaks to this problem in today’s churches:
“Religious tolerance” is also part of the propaganda, and it is so interpreted as to mean religious indifference. Dogmas and doctrines of religion are treated as quite secondary. Churches are often merged or separated purely for economic considerations. When religion is not merely a compulsory weekly social amusement, it is a political lecture. Cooperation between the churches is constantly being organized, and always for some utilitarian aim, having nothing to do with religion. What this means is: the subservience of religion to the program of Culture-distortion. pp. 484-5.
Francis P. Yockey, ‘Imperium’
This was published in 1948!
Would you recommend that book Ron? Were you edified by the read?
It’s definitely a challenging read. In the sense that, as David Irving said: “There’s only one truth, and that is total truth,” I’d say it was an ‘edifying’ read, but it requires steadiness to reconcile his neo-Federalist position with his obvious distaste for men like Lincoln and FDR, and his understanding that the American War for Secession was a victory of quantity over quality.