I was intrigued by Aaron Renn’s recent article The Maturation of New Calvinism. His thesis is that “New Calvinism has shifted from an ‘All-Star team’ model designed to exert influence over the broader evangelical world to a post-superstar model that primarily serves its own community. This represents the maturity of the movement, perhaps putting it on a sustainable footing for the future.” And what is that future? He believes it’s a future of being a subculture within broader evangelicalism rather than being what it may have once aspired to—a gatekeeper or shaper of evangelicalism. Its particular subculture is made up of “educated strivers in urban centers, college towns, and professional class suburbs.” Renn believes that New Calvinism would do well to simply embrace and serve this narrow but significant demographic rather than attempting to reach far beyond it.
All Stars
Renn points out rightly that many of the “all-stars” who were first associated with the movement, who took a leading role in it, and whose ministries drew many people to it have now died (e.g. R.C. Sproul, Tim Keller), retired (e.g. John Piper—from local church ministry, at least), or moved on (e.g. Mark Driscoll). It is certainly true that the movement does not have the same kind of “statesmen” it did in the heady days of the first Together for the Gospel. By and large, these leaders have not been replaced by younger alternatives whose voices reach far into broader evangelicalism. While this new reality means the movement is not drawing as many people as it once did, Renn believes this is actually a positive development as it ultimately offers greater stability and viability.
Taking my cue from Renn, I want to share a few of my thoughts and recollections about the early days of the movement and consider what its future may be.
Beginnings
I have no knowledge of anyone who was deliberately trying to manufacture a new wave of Calvinists around the turn of the century. Thus, I have understood the New Calvinism to have begun in a kind of spontaneous and decentralized way—a way that was unique to the early days of the internet but repeated across a host of interests, hobbies, subcultures, and even religions.
While there may have been many background factors, an especially important one was this: A lot of people in Western contexts found themselves restless in their traditional churches or church growth churches. They were looking for an alternative that promised something more—more than the triteness of church growth philosophies and more than the deadness of certain traditional churches. Some took the route of the Emerging Church and gravitated toward theological liberalism. Some took the route of the New Calvinism and gravitated toward theological conservatism.
In my understanding, then, this movement began on a peer level with people passing along sermons, books, and articles and forming online communities through the early forms of social media—forums and blogs. (Remember: at this time there was no YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, or podcasts.) As people engaged with this content, they went in search of churches that were pastored by men who believed the same things as the people they were reading or listening to—Piper, Sproul, MacArthur, and so on. This movement had all the passion and brashness of youth and grew quickly.
A Weak Core
In these early days, there was a lot of excitement about TULIP and the Five Points. There was excitement about the Five Solas, perhaps especially around 2017 and the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. Calvinistic soteriology was the heart of it all and to so many it was eye-opening and heart-stirring.
But over time, people stopped writing books and preaching sermons about Calvinism. The doctrine became assumed instead of explicit and optional instead of necessary. It became acceptable to be a four-point Calvinist or perhaps something more like a three-and-a-half-point Calvinist. The nomenclature changed from “New Calvinism” or “Young, Restless, Reformed” to “Gospel-Centered” at least in part because this framing deprioritized Calvinism and allowed broader inclusion. Now people could be part of the movement even if they did not want to accept or be associated with Calvinism or Reformed theology.
It quickly became apparent that the New Calvinism was not made up of a pure traditional Calvinism much less a pure and traditional expression of Reformed theology and practice. Not many were reading or following the Westminster Confession, The Belgic Confession, The London Baptist Confession, or other historical guides to Protestant faith and practice. Not many were following the regulative principle of worship or teaching their children the various catechisms. To use an analogy, the New Calvinism was never Amish furniture made of real hardwood but Ikea furniture made up of a veneer that covered a softer core. If this was true at the start, it became truer still as time went on. Many of the people who latched on to the movement and even began to lead it were interested in some level of Calvinistic soteriology, but not in a full and historically grounded expression of Reformed Christianity. Many latched onto it because for a time it was on-trend and exciting.
A major shift took place when what had once been a classic early-internet movement—decentralized and uncontrolled—began to become institutionalized. Institutions began to decide the issues that would define the movement and gatekeep the people who were permitted to influence it. Eventually, different institutions began to compete among themselves which caused both contraction and division. The core shifted from shared doctrine to shared institutions and allegiances. Commonality was no longer one of theology but of affiliation or loyalty. Now the New Calvinism was several New Calvinisms that no longer got along very well.
I Miss the Early Days
I often miss the early days of the movement—the days when people were drawing wide boundaries and expressing wonder at common theology. It was a time of excitement over shared doctrine and it was a joy to experience it. There was excitement in these days, though also arrogance and naiveté. It did not take long to learn that there was far less commonality than anyone had thought and that the movement was far less sanctified and unified than we believed. It took less to upend it than any of us would have imagined.
I will need to leave it to historians to explain exactly what happened, but certainly the sense of togetherness could not sustain all the theological differences or the differing perspectives on race and racism, pandemic responses, changing politics and presidencies, and so on. It seems to me that the movement sputtered on the basis of cultural factors as much as theological ones. Either way, it is now but a shadow of its former self and never reached the heights it had aspired to. As Renn says, “New Calvinism’s ability to project influence over the evangelical field has radically diminished.”
The Future
I wish I could speak confidently about the future of New Calvinism. Part of the difficulty in doing so is that the movement as a whole has pretty much ceased to exist. A label like “New Calvinism” doesn’t mean much anymore. “Young, Restless, Reformed” may have been accurate 20 years ago, but many who first fit the label are no longer very young, very restless, or very Reformed. “Gospel-centered” was tried and found wanting or inadequate. Whatever the movement is or was, it has now splintered into many parts, some of them antagonistic toward the others. There are few leaders who are respected across each of the splintered groups which means there is nobody who is likely to be able to bridge divides and bring reconciliation. I foresee no return to the unity of the early days.
But what I do see is lots of ministries continuing to create and distribute excellent resources. We have been spoiled with an endless flow of books, Bibles, and study resources and I have every reason to believe that will continue. Seminaries will continue to train future pastors who value these doctrines and love to exposit God’s Word. Even better, I see lots of churches continuing to press on with the doctrines of grace at their core and an emphasis on preaching the Word at the center of their worship. This may be the most enduring and important legacy of the movement.
Circling back to Renn, he says “New Calvinism has shifted from an ‘All-Star team’ model designed to exert influence over the broader evangelical world to a post-superstar model that primarily serves its own community.” That much seems demonstrably true. He also says that what remains best serves “educated strivers in urban centers, college towns, and professional class suburbs” and the movement should be content with this. I both agree and disagree.
I have spent time with Christians in something like 40 different countries that span a host of languages and cultures. I have been amazed to see the reach and the impact of resources we associate with the New Calvinism. Way out in the bush in southern Africa, far from electrical grids or running water, I spotted an ESV Study Bible on a pastor’s desk beside a stack of MacArthur commentaries. Deep in the south of Chile, I had several people bring copies of my books in Spanish so I could sign them. In India, Brazil, Mexico, and Mozambique I’ve been to bookstores filled with the books this movement has created, all translated into local languages. I have seen trucks loaded with 9Marks books bumping along rutted roads to deliver them to far-off places where these may be the only books local pastors will own.
So even as we necessarily analyze the movement from a North American and Western-world perspective, I think it’s important to appreciate the inroads it has made elsewhere, often delivering resources where they can be used and appreciated by people who have little interest in the petty quarrels that have torn so much apart. And so perhaps the future of New Calvinism is beyond the Western world and even the developed world and is even now putting down deep roots in the unlikeliest of places. We can but hope and pray.
