Amicus Curiae in the matter of DeSocio v. Driscoll
Petitioner’s brief can be found here. Respondent’s brief can be found in two parts, here and here
This all came about, as far as can be determined because of an article in Time. Unfortunately, as has become habit with mainstream news sources, they got the whole religious thing broadly correct, but in detail incorrect. It does seem true that churches espousing reformed Christianity are growing in size and number, but it is not clear at all that this is a result of some change in how they believe Calvinism. There is a growing movement towards something often referred to as the ‘emergent’ or ‘emerging’ church and variants, but this is certainly not a revision of Calvinism. Instead, it’s primarily a change in the theory of worship and a change in how churches attempt to impact the culture around them.
I’ll define what is classically thought of as Calvinism in a paragraph or two, but I want to get to my thesis first: The editors of Time are observing a real shift in thinking and actions of the Reformed Church at large, and, since the only thing they really know about Reformed thinking is Calvinism, assume that such a change can only be brought about by a shift in the Calvinist beliefs of the affected churches. It is this author’s opinion that Driscoll, intentionally or not, has decided to respond to the article on its own terms, due to his previous bias against strongly-defined labels (see his claim to be a 4½ point Calvinist). This doesn’t mean that he doesn’t understand it, necessarily, but there is little evidence to show that he does either.
Basically, it is the position of this author that the charge made by petitioner is untenable. Instead, the author proposes a different charge — rampant intellectual dishonesty in the form of ill-defined (or undefined) phrases in an effort to make an emotions based argument on the internet.
Respectfully submitted to the Internet At Large by Silas Snider, amicus curiae
