Aside from her speaking being a shame and disgrace, the whole thing (regardless of one's opinion on the matter) was totally inappropriate to be taking place in the context of worship.
Later when discussing it at lunch, I was certain to point out that this point exemplifies the different roots of New Calvinism vs. more traditional expressions of Reformed theology.
The older tradition has centuries of struggle and reflection (and thus scholarship) on issues of liturgy and ecclesiology. Obviously there's a considerable spectrum and plenty of disagreement but one can find the discussion reduced to basic points that provide a basis for thinking and doctrinal development – questions such as what constitutes 'elements' of worship and so forth.
Many in the Reformed sphere would rightly say that even if it were a man speaking, the whole thing was inappropriate – and they might say this even if they're really devoted to the movement and zealous to promote it. That wouldn't be the way to do it. It's the wrong context for a talk like that – and they would be right.
New Calvinism does not have these roots – and despite the pastor arguing that he's Reformed, he's not. Embracing the Five Points of Calvinism doesn't make one Reformed – and I find that many don't even have a proper understanding of the context which birthed them, let alone the Scriptural, hermeneutical, and theological problems engendered by absolutizing them the way many are wont to do.
New Calvinism comes out of Evangelicalism and as such there are a host of foundational questions that are not only 'not' asked – they've never really been thought about. Thus the intuitions are different as are the principles. All too often it's not a question of turning to Scripture, or even arguing that it's permitted if Scripture doesn't forbid it, but rather what works. It's good old American pragmatism and all too often it functions under the aegis of the end justifies the means. The Sunday experience exemplified this in rather stark terms.
They are Evangelicals that have embraced a set of beliefs about questions concerning decretalism, providence, and soteriology. The larger questions that concerned historical Reformed Theology – the nature of theology and authority, confessionalism, ecclesiology – and thus worship, sacraments, and the like are not something New Calvinism has seriously entertained – and as such tends to have an Evangelical and thus rather low view of these things.
Another point that frustrated me was the reciting of the Apostle's Creed. I'm not terribly interested in reciting creeds but I don't totally object either – especially if it's just the Apostle's Creed. But even this has been distorted by New Calvinism's theological shortcomings and a-historical sensibilities.
As some readers will know it's not uncommon in these circles to drop out the bit about Christ descending to Hell (or Hades), since the theological leaders of the movement – men like Wayne Grudem and John Piper object to it.
I would argue this stems from a rather low view of Scripture and a very truncated understanding of Biblical Theology, but regardless I find it rather audacious that they bother to recite it and then modify it. What's the point then? How then is the creed unifying the congregation with historic Christianity and the confession of the Early Church? The fathers of the Church would condemn this abandonment of what they (rightly) considered to be a Biblical doctrine. We can talk about what it means to be sure – but to just drop it?
I'm afraid this started years ago when certain offensive and misunderstood words were tweaked. Many coming out of Fundamentalism would get quite upset over the term 'Catholic', thinking of course it means Roman Catholic. The problem is not the word but rather their ignorance. Teach them what it means and dispel their superstitions about the word. Catholicity is not a bad thing – Roman Catholicism is.
But this is changed to 'universal' – I realize the meaning is the same but the connotation is a bit different. And so bit by bit, the creed is chipped away and I would now argue has been undermined by New Calvinism.
If you don't want to recite it – then don't. But don't change it.
Again, the movement is Evangelical – or what used to be called Neo-Evangelical. It's not rooted in the old Evangelicalism of the eighteenth and even in some cases the nineteenth century. That was just another name for gospel-driven Protestantism in the context of state churches and nominalist Christianity.
No, the Neo-Evangelical movement emerged after World War II and was cut from a very different cloth and driven by a different set of priorities, standards, and goals.
To make things even more confusing, there was a pronounced shift and downgrade in the movement during the 1990's – as Mega-Church and Praise Team culture really started to take hold and spread, and you saw the explosion of celebrity culture, para-church ministries, and the open embrace of things like feminism, divorce, and psychology within the Evangelical sphere. One might also add there was a definite embrace of conspicuous consumption and clerical and 'ministry' salaries skyrocketed and many pastors and celebrity ministry types became very wealthy.
Older (once Neo-) Evangelicals began to contrast themselves with these 'new' or Neo-Evangelical types. Fundamentalism was still around but rapidly disappearing. That just added another layer of nuance to the already confusing scene. And in the midst of this – enter New Calvinism.
Ironically, New Calvinism shares a lot of characteristics with the 1990's neo-neo Evangelicalism, especially with its approaches to ecclesiology. That should give one pause (I think) when reflecting on the movement.
There are nevertheless some good things happening. The church in question is one of many old Fundamentalist congregations that have made the switch. Twenty years ago it would have been teaching Dispensationalism and some form of Arminian or Semi-Pelagian theology. Some New Calvinist congregations have retained the Dispensationalism, some have thankfully jettisoned it. Of course if it's simply replaced by Dominionism, I'm not sure that's a net gain. At least (I suppose) they are less likely to champion the Zionist state's many episodes of mass slaughter in the Levant.
But it really struck me how this has become a whole new tradition. From the ESV and the John MacArthur hymnbooks in the pew, to the big and busy screen and its promos for a Bible study using some Grudem book, to the modified creed and so forth – it's a strange new Calvinistic but not quite Reformed world.
As one who used to be conscientiously and quite zealously Reformed, I do confess it's somewhat off-putting but as I am no longer part of that camp (and in many respects opposed to the Magisterial Reformation heritage), my response is different – but I must admit, I'm still a little ruffled by it. Maybe it's the swagger that irritates me as I tend to view the leaders and these well-meaning and energetic but often young and less-than-informed pastors as somewhat ignorant – proclaiming things and claiming a heritage they clearly do not understand.
Functionally I can exist in a New Calvinist context while it's all but impossible for me to do so in the context of Confessional Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian congregations.
But I still don't like it much. But as the worship is relatively simple and the Word is preached, and I'm running out of options – I may have to seriously consider it.