Yesterday we examined Garrison Keillor’s portrayal of the fifth point of Calvinism (the T in TULIP), Perserverance of the Saints. This criticism appeared in an Op-Ed piece, �Tiptoeing through the TULIPs� which ran in the Thursday, April 26, 2007 Fort Worth Star Telegram. I lamented the fact that Keillor chose to work with a stereotype of the doctrine rather than do a little homework to see if he had his interpretation correct, which he did not. I was also honest in admitting that we all commit the same errors and we need to be willing to admit when we’ve misrepresented someone’s position.

Today I want to continue in that vein of honesty and look at a further criticism of Calvinism offered by Keillor, though it is not the point of his piece. Towards the end of his article, Keillor makes the following observations. Again, for the sake of clarity, I include the entire paragraph:

The Calvinists who came to America withstood drought and tornadoes and locusts better than almost anybody else, and they were abstemious, which was good for their health, but they took too much pride in their dogmatism. They were a fractious bunch. When you own the pure truth, you don’t care to have to listen to the foolish inconsistencies of the yahoos who sit in the pew ahead of you. While other, more tolerant Christians were feeding the hungry and caring for the sick, the Calvinists were debating the finer points of TULIP and taking one another’s temperature.

Though these scenes are again painted with Keillor’s characteristicly broad strokes, he does (accidentally?) get near the truth here. He touches on a sensitive nerve in many Reformed circles. I have commented on these issues before (here and here among others) so I’ll try not to repeat myself but Keillor does have a point that Calvinists need to consider. Keillor’s perception that Calvinists would rather correct one another’s doctrine than “feed the hungry and care for the sick” is one we need to heed. One of the rules of judging criticism’s validity seems to be that we at least need to pay attention if we hear the same complaint from a number of different sources. Keillor’s complaint is not a new one, nor is it one that has gone away.

Many who embrace Reformed Theology are often doctrinally minded to begin with and it is far too common for this increased theological growth to result in pride rather than humility. I have witnessed and I have been guilty of doctrinal pride. This is often a key criticism launched at many reformed believers because many of us are guilty as charged. Much Calvinist time and effort goes into finetuning doctrine which is not a bad thing. But it can become a bad thing if it leads to the neglect of other ventures.

I have gone through this process of finding myself leaning towards doctrinal pride, but looking back, it makes little sense. The realization that there is absolutely nothing we can bring to Christ (Genesis 6:5, Jeremiah 17:9), and that if we are to be saved, it is only through Him (John 6:44; 65, Ephesians 2:1-10, etc.) ought to breed humility (Luke 18:13, etc.). The fact that it often breeds not humility but pride is testimony to our sinful hearts and a reminder that we can take even the most glorious truth and twist it. These key Scriptural truths have often been used as a hammer and a means of exclusion rather than as fuel for worship.

If we’re honest enough to admit that, with Keillor, we all often misrepresent one another, then we also ought to be honest enough to bear valid criticism. I’m afraid that Mr. Keillor has some words that we Calvinists need to hear. We cannot elevate doctrine above care for souls. Doctrine is essential (Romans 16:17, Ephesians 4:14, 1 Timothy 1:3 , 1:10, 4:6, 6:3, Titus 1:9, etc.) but it is not to be used as a hammer to beat people with. Far too many of us have encountered argumentative Calvinists and that leaves a bad taste that doesn’t soon dissolve.

Though I believe Keillor paints too broad a picture, I do think that we need to admit that there is a grain of truth in his comments. Many reformed churches are quite insulated and sometimes even exclusionary. Though this problem is certainly not a specifically Calvinist one, it can seem particularly focused among the reformed. We must overcome this stereotype and show that even broad brush strokes are nothing more than a caricature.

Our churches need to do a better job at building up the Body in love and sound doctrine. These things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they ought to flow from one another. As we learn more doctrine (which simple means learning more about God and His Word), we ought to grow in our love for Him which will overflow in love for others (John 13:35, 1 John 4:21, etc.).

These problems are not owned by Calvinists alone, but since I am one, I can sound the bell from within. Too often churches focus on love or sound doctrine when we should be understanding, preaching and living the connection between the two. Thank you, Mr. Keillor for your perhaps unwitting reminder.

That’s the news from from colossiansthreesixteen.com where the women are strong, the men are good-looking and all the children are above average.

• Read Keillor�s article �Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs�
• Read The Five Points of Calvinism by Edwin Palmer
• Read Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof
• Read Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views by Dave Hunt and James R. White
• Visit the official Prairie Home Companion website
• Browse Garrison Keillor stuff