The troubling trends in America’s ‘Calvinist revival’
美國‘加爾文主義’復興惱人的張力
By Jonathan Merritt
=====================================================
When Mark Oppenheimer declared that “evangelicalism is in the midst of a
Calvinist revival” in The New York Times earlier this year, he was only
partially correct.
當Mark Oppenheimer在今年年初於紐約時報中宣稱‘福音派主義如今在加爾文主義的復興
中’的時候，他的論點只有部分是正確的。
According to a 2010 Barna poll, roughly three out of 10 Protestant leaders
describe their church as “Calvinist or Reformed,” a proportion
statistically unchanged from a decade earlier. According to the research
group, “there is no discernible evidence from this research that there is a
Reformed shift among U.S. congregation leaders over the last decade.”
根據一項2010年的Barna調查，大約30%的抗議宗領袖描述他們的教會是‘加爾文主義或改
革宗’，這個比率與一個世紀前嘗不到。根據這個研究機構，“這個研究中並沒有任何明
顯的跡象顯明美國在過去10年中的領袖們展現出改革宗神學的轉移。”
And yet, Oppenheimer is correct that something is stirring among American
Calvinists (those who adhere to a theological system centering on human
sinfulness and God’s sovereignty that stems from 16th century reformer John
Calvin). While Calvinist Protestants—including Presbyterians, some Baptists,
and the Dutch Reformed—have been a part of the American religious fabric
since the beginning, Oppenheimer points to a more vocal and visible strain
that has risen to prominence in recent years.
然而，Oppenheimer關於美國改革宗主義者（那些堅稱一種源自於16世界的宗教改革家約
翰加爾文，以人類的罪並神的主權為中心點神學系統）間有一種騷動的觀點卻是正確的。
在同時，加爾文派的抗議宗——包括長老會，部分浸信會以及荷蘭改革宗教會——從而美
國一開始就構成了美國宗教信仰的一部分，Oppenheimer指出在這幾年中，有一種口頭上
並可見的張力變得越來越顯而易見。
They’ve been called the “young, restless, and reformed” or neo-Calvinists,
and they are highly mobilized and increasingly influential. Their books
perform well in the marketplace (see John Piper or Paul David Tripp), their
leaders pepper the lists of the most popular Christian bloggers (see The
Gospel Coalition and Resurgence), and they’ve created vibrant training
grounds for raising new recruits (see Reformed Theological Seminary,
Westminster Theological Seminary, and The Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary).
他們被稱為“年輕，躁動並改革宗的（young1, restless, and reformed）”或新加爾文
主義者（neo-Calvinist），他們具有很強的機動性，並越來越有影響力。他們的書籍銷
路不錯（參考John Piper 和Paul David Tripp），他們的領袖建立了最具有人氣的基督
教博客（參考福音聯盟與復蘇運動（The Gospel Coalition and Resurgence）），他們
為了新募集的人員創立了富有活力的訓練中心（參考改革宗神學院，衛敏斯特神學院，南
浸信會神學院。）
This brand of Calvinists are a force with which to reckon. But as with any
movement, America’s Calvinist revival is a mixed bag. None can deny that
many have come to faith as a result of these churches and leaders. The
movement is rigorously theological, which is surely one of its greatest
contributions. Just as Quakers teach us much about silence, Mennonites teach
us much about peace, and Anglicans teach us much about liturgy, so Calvinists
spur us on with their intellectual rigor.
這一派的加爾文主義者是一股引人注目的力量。但是，就像其他所有的運動一樣，美國的
加爾文主義復興本身就是一個大雜燴。沒有人能夠否認，許多人透過那些教會和領袖們得
到信仰。運動本身具有嚴格的神學性，這肯定也是其最大的貢獻。就如同貴格會教導我們
如何安靜，門諾派教導我們什麼是和平，安利甘會教導我們什麼是禮儀一樣，加爾文主義
者則教導我們理性的嚴謹性。
And yet, from where I sit, there are several troubling trends that must be
addressed if this faithful faction hopes to move from a niche Christian cadre
to a sustainable and more mainstream movement.
然而，從我的立場而言，若這個源自於一種原本恰當的基督教核心觀念的宗派要進一步成
為一個更為持久甚至成為一種主流的運動，有幾個惱人的張力必須被提及。
ISOLATIONISM—孤立主義
One of the markers of the neo-Calvinist movement is isolationism. My Reformed
friends consume Calvinist blogs and Calvinist books, attend Calvinist
conferences, and join Calvinist churches with Calvinist preachers. They
rarely learn from or engage with those outside their tradition. (My feeling
is that this trend is less prevalent among leaders than the average
followers.)
一個新加爾文主義運動的標記是孤立主義。我的改革宗朋友們建立了加爾文主義的博客，
讀了加爾文主義的書，參加了加爾文主要的特會，加入了由加爾文主義牧師帶領的加爾文
主義的教會。他們很少學習或解除他們傳統之外的事物。（我的感覺是，這種張力在牧師
中要比在一般的跟隨者中嚴重。）
The most sustainable religious movements, however, are those which are
willing to ask hard, full-blooded questions while interacting with more than
caricatures of other traditions. When neo-Calvinists insulate and isolate,
they hyper-focus on those doctrines their tradition emphasizes and relegate
other aspects to the status of afterthought. The Christian faith is meant to
be lived and not merely intellectually appropriated. This requires mingling
with others who follow Jesus, are rooted in Scripture, and are working toward
a restored creation.
最能夠持久的宗教運動乃是那些願意極力學習，並與不同的傳統互動，而不是諷刺其他傳
統的運動。當新加爾文主義者將自己隔絕的時候，他們極端的關注與那些他們傳統所強調
的教義，進而忽視了其他的方面。基督教的信仰應當是活生生的，不僅僅是理性活動。這
要求他們與其它跟隨耶穌的信徒打成一片，需要根植與聖經，並努力恢復創造的狀態。
Gregory Thornbury, a Calvinist and president of The King’s College in New
York City, told me, “I think the ‘young, restless, and reformed” are
different than the Dutch stream in that they tend to stay with authors and
leaders that they know. It does run the risk of being provincial, but I don’
t think it is intentional. There are universes where people stay, and they
read the things they know.”
Gregory Thornbury，一位紐約市國王大學的加爾文主義者並校長，告訴我，“我認為，
‘年輕，躁動並改革宗的’與他們所認識的，並嘗試追隨的荷蘭改革宗作者與領袖是不同
的。這會產生地方主義的危險，但我認為這並不是刻意為之。人們或者不同的世界，他們
只能閱讀他們知道的東西。”
To guard against this, Thornbury says he encourages King’s College’s
students to be “intellectually gregarious” and to “read promiscuously.”
為了避免這種情況，Thornbury說他鼓勵國王大學的學生要更為‘理性的合群（
intellectually gregarious）’並‘廣泛閱讀（read promiscuously）’。
“People need to read outside of the tradition,” Thornbury says. “We say we
want to have contact with people outside of our culture, but we ghettoize so
easily.”
Thornbury說，“人們需要閱讀他們傳統之外的書籍，我們說我們希望接觸在我們文化之
物的人，但是我們非常容易成為少數民族。”
His words remind me of Yale theologian Miroslav Volf, who speaks of “thin”
and “thick” expressions of religion:
他的話讓我想起耶魯大學的神學家Miroslave Volf，他論到宗教的“薄”與“厚”的表述
：
“[Thin religion is] religiosity reduced to a single symbolic gesture. And
once you reduce religion to that . . . you can project everything that you
want onto that . . . [Thin religion] isn’t textured. It doesn’t have depth.
It doesn’t have relief. It doesn’t rely on a long history of that religion
with all the varieties of reflections that have gone on in the religion.”
“[淺的宗教是]從宗教的角度而言，被消減成為一個單一的符號學性的東西。只要你將一
個宗教消減到那個程度。。。。你就能預測你想要做的所有事情。。。[厚的宗教]不是質
地粗糙的。它也沒有深度。它也沒有減輕自身的內涵。它不依賴宗教本身悠久的歷史，並
該宗教所折射出不同的方面。”
Coinhabitation with other Christians guards a movement against “thin”
expressions of religion.
與其他的基督徒和睦同居房子一個運動成為以[薄]的方式表述的宗教。
TRIBALISM—部落化主義
Another troubling trend I see in the movement is tribalism. This is the
kinship tendency within a group to protect insiders while combating outsiders.
我觀察到另一個惱人的張力是部落化主義。這是一種當一個群體為了保護內部人士並同時
與外人征戰時產生的張力。
Several prominent Calvinists, for example, declined the opportunity to
comment on this story due to fear that their words might be used to disparage
the movement. Said one well-known leader via email, “I don’t want to be a
brick in a wall that’s used against the tradition/movement I identify with.”
例如，好幾位加爾文主義領袖拒絕評論這個故事的機會，因為他們害怕他們的話會被用來
貶低該運動。有一位廣為人知的領袖透過電郵說，“我不想成為我所認可的那個傳統/運
動中的害群之馬。”
To be sure, neo-calvinists don’t shy away from controversy and aren’t
reticent to critique those outside of the movement. (One might refer to some
Calvinist’s blistering responses to Donald Miller’s announcement that he
doesn’t attend church.) Yet these same leaders are often resistant, delayed,
and then tempered with their critiques of other Calvinists who seem to stray.
新加爾文運動當然不會懼怕任何的爭議，也毫無保留的批判那些在此運動之外的人士。（
有些加爾文主義人士可能會激烈的回應Donald Miller所宣稱他從來不去教會。）然而，
同樣的那一群領袖們往往有抗拒，拖延，甚至被他們對於其他看起來似乎偏離正道的加爾
文主義者引誘而發出批判。
An illuminating example of this might be the recent glut of Mark Driscoll
controversies—from sexist comments to charges of plagiarism to proof that he
bought his way onto the New York Times bestsellers list using ministry
monies. Leaders in the movement were effectively mum until a select few broke
the silence of late. The first accusations of Driscoll plagiarizing were
revealed on November 21st, but the first truly critical response posted by
neo-Calvinist mega-blog, The Gospel Coalition, trickles out on December 18th.
One might compare this with the response to Rob Bell’s book “Love Wins”
that was in full bloom before the YouTube trailer finished buffering.
最近發生的Mark Driscoll爭議可能就是一個非常好的例子——他以性別歧視的方式抨擊
對於他使用教會職事的款項作為購買並賄賂，以進入紐約時報暢銷書作者，並他的剽竊行
為的證明。這個運動的領袖出奇的保持沉默，直到11月21日，一個新加爾文主義者的大型
博客（mega-blog）才發出第一個真正批判性的回應。福音聯盟（Gosple Coalition），
在12月18日發動批判。有興趣的人可以比較對於Rob Bell的‘愛戰勝一切（Love Wins）
’這本書的批判在他的Youtube廣告推出前就已經大量出現的速度。
Even those who were brave enough to critique Driscoll were mostly moderate.
And several Calvinists told me off-the-record that many who offered
full-throated criticisms of Driscoll—like Carl Trueman of Westminster
Theological Seminary—have been relegated to the margins as a result.
甚至那些敢於批判Discoll的人都是最為溫和的人士。好幾位加爾文主義者私底下告訴我
，許多權利發聲批判Driscoll的人生——例如，衛敏斯特神學院的Carl Trueman——最後
都把他們的批判降級。
Tullian Tchividjian is pastor and blogger at The Gospel Coalition who has
been challenging neo-Calvinists from within the ranks. He announced just this
morning that what he calls “the powers that be” were forcing him to take
his blog elsewhere. The decision was less than ideal, he said, and is a
result of having “some differences with some of the other contributors.”
Tchividjian said the decision was “probably over due” since “the
messaging of The Gospel Coalition has morphed over the last seven years.”
Tullian Tchividjian是福音聯盟的牧師和博客編輯者，他一直在內部挑戰新加爾文主義
者。他宣佈，今早他所謂的‘那股力量’迫使他把他的博客移到別的網站。這個決定並不
是理想的，他說，這乃是‘與其他的支持者產生不同意見’的結果。Tchividjian說，這
個決定‘可能是’因為‘福音聯盟的資訊在過去七年中已經變形了。’
We might also make mention of Tim Keller, a paragon among neo-Calvinists if
there ever was one. Keller is a part of Francis Collins’ Biologos and a
theistic evolutionist. He holds many of the same views that triggered the
forced resignation of Old Testament professor Bruce Waltke from Reformed
Theological Seminary. Another Calvinist leader, Southern Baptist Seminary
president Albert Mohler, has called theistic evolution “a biblical and
theological disaster” and said that Biologos leaders were “throwing the
Bible under the bus” with “ridiculous” logic.
我們也可以提及Tim Keller，一位典型的新加爾文主義者，如果能夠有這麼一個典型的話
。Keller是Francis Collin的Biologos的成員，並神導進化論者（Theistic
Evolutionist）。他堅稱許多被改革宗神學院（Reformed Theological Seminary）強迫
退休的舊約教授Bruce Waltke的觀點。另一位加爾文主義的領袖，南浸信會神學院的院長
Albert Mohler，稱神導進化論為‘對於聖經並神學的災難’並說Biologos的領袖們都‘
用荒謬的邏輯把聖經放在巴士下任其碾壓。’
Because Tim Keller has become something of a prize hen for Calvinists—New
York Magazine called him “the most successful Christian evangelist in the
city”—you won’t likely hear other neo-Calvinists mention Keller’s views.
Tribalists attempt to “clean house” when it comes to outsiders but “sweep
under the rug” when it comes to insiders.
因為Tim Keller已經成為加爾文主義者的金母雞——紐約雜誌稱他為‘紐約市最為成功的
基督教福音大師’——你可能不會聽見其他的新加爾文主義者提及Keller的觀點。當他是
加爾文主義的外人的時候，部落主義者嘗試想要“清洗”他，當他成為其成員後，部落主
義者則嘗試“遮掩”他。
As Roger Olson, Baylor University professor and author of “Against Calvinism
“, told me, “[Neo-Calvinist’s are] a tribe, and they’ve closed ranks.
Somehow they’ve formed a mentality that they have to support each other
because they are a minority on a crusade. Any criticism hurts the cause. I’
ve seen the same thing among feminists and black theologians.”
就好像Baylor大學的教授，並“反加爾文主義”一書的作者奧爾森（Roger Olson）告訴
我的，“[新加爾文主義者是]一個部落，他們對外是封閉的。但是，他們形成了一種思維
模式，就是他們必須彼此相互支援，因為他們是一個由少數人組成的十字軍。任何批判都
會傷到他們的動機。我已經在女權神學並黑人神學的神學家中看見同樣的現象。”
Olson says that when he speaks to Calvinist leaders, they will often critique
the movement and its other leaders in private, but never in public. My
experience has been identical.
奧爾森說，當他與加爾文主義的領袖溝通的時候，他們往往只敢私下批判這個運動並其靈
修，但是從未公開這麼做過。我的經驗與其完全一致。
“There is a fundamentalist ethos in [neo-Calvinism],” Olson says. “You get
pats on the back and merits for criticizing outsiders, but not for
criticizing insiders. There is a system where if you are young coming up in
the ranks, you get points for criticizing or exposing those outside the
movement but it’s not your place to criticize those who are above you in the
movement itself.”
奧爾森說，“在新加爾文主義者間有一種基要派的思潮（fundamentalist ethos），有人
輕撫你的背，鼓勵你批判外人，但從未批判自己人。這是一個你在年輕的時候加入，在其
中因批判或揭發這個運動之外的人士而得到獎勵點數的系統，但是你根本沒有資格批判在
這個運動中位於你之上的人。”
This tendency is more curious given that neo-Calvinists claim to be rooted in
the ancient rallying cry, “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda” or “The
church is always to be reformed.” You can’t maintain a constant state of
reformation when you refuse to self-reflect, when you preserve for
preservation’s sake, you’re your modus operandi is both “circle the wagons
” and “fire the canons.”
這種張力在新加爾文主義宣稱他們根植於古代教會的呼召並高喊“Ecclesia reformata,
semper reformanda”，或“教會不斷地在被歸正”的口號下，是非常怪異的。當你拒絕
批判自身的同時，你無法維持一種持續不斷地歸正狀態，當你因著護短的原因護短的時候
，你塑造了一種魚與熊掌都像兼得的運作模式。
Let me be clear: I’m not arguing that Calvinists should criticize themselves
more harshly. Rather, I wish they might extend the same grace to others that
they give to themselves.
我可以明確的說：我並不是在爭論加爾文主義者應當更為嚴厲的自我批判。我反而認為他
們需要把同樣的，賜予自身的恩典分賜給他人。
EGOTISM—自尊自大
A final troubling trend I believe plagues America’s “Calvinist revival” is
egotism. This one may sound like ad hominem at first blush, but I mean it
more as an observation of the movement’s predominant tone. Talking so much
of sovereignty and salvation and atonement can inflate the ego. It is the
type of thing described in Helmut Thielicke’s book, “A Little Lesson for
Young Theologians.” Attaining theological knowledge often leads to the idea
that one is in a better place to understand God or more in tune with God.
最後一個我相信正在橫掃美國的‘加爾文主義復興運動’的惱人張力是自尊自大。乍聽之
下，它聽起來就像是ad hominem(從個人偏好除非)的看法，但是我的意思是，你只要觀察
那個運動的主宰性的語調。過分論及神的主權，救贖並代贖會造成自我膨脹。這就是
Helmut Thielicke的書——“A Little Lesson for Young Theologians（給年輕神學家
的一封短信）”中所描繪的情況。得到神學的知識往往產生讓人覺得自己佔有瞭解神或與
神一致更為有利的地位。
As the ego inflates, the body rises and one begins to speak from above rather
than from across. This is often seen in the way neo-Calvinists speak as if
they are the arbiters of the term “gospel.” Search the term “gospel” on
the web site of the Reformed publisher Crossway and you’ll see what I mean.
Or listen to the way some neo-Calvinist leaders frame every ethical issue of
the day, not as a difference of opinion among Christians of mutual goodwill,
but rather an affront to the gospel itself.
當自我膨脹，身體飄升，人就開始站在高處，而不是以平等的地位說話。這在新加爾文主
義者往往以福音的‘仲裁者’自居的說話方式中看見。你只要在網路上的改革宗出版商
Crossway（十字架的道路）搜尋‘福音’這個字，就會看見我描述的情況。或聽聽某些新
加爾文主義領袖如何規範今日的道德問題，他們並不是以善意的方式在基督徒中提供不同
的意見，而是公開侮辱福音的本身。
“The perspective of many today is that if you aren’t a Calvinist, you don’
t really have a grasp of the gospel,” Olson says.
奧爾森說，“今日許多人的觀點乃是，若你不是加爾文主義者，你就根本沒有得到福音。
”
Sometimes it seems as if Calvinists view themselves as judge, jury, and
executioner of the Christian movement at large—determining who is faithful
and not, who believes the gospel and who doesn’t, who is in and who is out.
(One might call to mind John Piper’s iconic and infamous “Farewell, Rob Bell
” tweet.) Some within the movement talk of God’s sovereignty while seeking
to control the destinies of other Christians and often speak of man’s
depravity with a haughtiness that undermines it.
有時候，這甚至看起來就像加爾文主義者把自己視為審判官，並基督教運動的劊子手——
可以決定誰是忠信的信徒，誰相信福音，誰是基督徒，誰不是基督徒。（大家可以想想
John Piper滑稽並聲名狼藉的維特‘再見了！Rob Bell’。）有些該運動的人士在論到神
的主權的同時，同時卻又嘗試掌握其他基督徒的命運，常常用傲慢的態度論及人的墮落。
就像Scot McKnight，北方神學院的教授告訴我的，‘加爾文主義者會給人一個非常強烈
的印象，就是那些與他們持不同意見的人若不是不忠心，就是他們在神學或理性上缺乏勇
氣與膽量。那種張力還算是非常新穎的。’
A large ego often precedes a harsh tone—an surefire influence limiter.
Scholar Martin Marty says the religious world isn’t divided into liberal and
conservative, but rather “mean and non-mean.” Those who opt for a mean or
arrogant tenor—whether real or perceived—have a short-shelf life in the
span of history.
膨脹的自我往往產生尖銳的語氣。Martin Marty這位學者論到，宗教世界不能被分割為自
由派與保守派，而是“粗鄙與不粗鄙。”那些選擇刻薄或高傲的高調的人士——不論是他
們有沒有察覺到——在歷史中都只有短暫的生命期。
福音聯盟的信心與工作部門的主管Bethany Jenkins，認為她的某些加爾文主義同工的那
種語氣往往是不自覺的：“我認為某些加爾文主義者認為，為了成為忠信的人，你必須要
昂首闊步，但是你不需要這樣做。就像Tim Keller說過的，‘我們是選民，但是我們不是
做決定的百姓。’”
我反射的是保羅所觀察道的“知識讓人自高自大。”也就是說，自尊自大是一種人性的問
題，而不是加爾文主義的問題。然而，從另一個角度而言，這個問題不斷地折磨這個運動
。如果新加爾文主義者不被迅速的灌輸謙卑的觀念—必須非常迅速—那麼自我膨脹的觀念
就會成為掛在他們脖子上的磨石。
雖然這些問題都是很嚴重的，我仍然願意隨時隨地的高舉基督，並宣告基督教的福音。我
有許多在新加爾文主義圈子中的朋友，他們往往用他們對於屬靈忠誠的獻身並基督的超越
性挑戰我。如果美國的‘加爾文主義復興’最後變成一種驅策的力量，我希望他們能夠也
被恩典充滿——裏裏外外。是的！恩典。恩典是另一個令人愉悅的改革宗美德。