Orthopathy

Darryl Hart has weighed in on the “angry Calvinist” meme. I actually agree with Hart that this is a slur. As I remarked recently:

Problem with this stereotype is that it becomes a vicious cycle. It’s often the same type of circular proof that’s used in Freudian psychology. Freud says sons suffer from a repressed Oedipal complex. When normal men deny this, the Freudian says that just goes to show the denier is in denial. His very denial of a repressed Oedipal complex proves the he’s repressed his Oedipal complex.

 

Likewise, if a Calvinist attempts to rebut the “angry Calvinist” stereotype, then the very fact that he defended Calvinists against the sweeping charge is treated as damning evidence that he must be an angry Calvinist.

 

It’s also like the stereotype of an “angry white male.” If you’re a white male, and you reject the accusation, then the accuser takes your very rejection as incriminating evidence that you must be an angry white male.

 

The whole thing takes on a Kafkaesque quality–where the allegation becomes unfalsifiable.

Unfortunately, Hart uses a legitimate point as a pretext to score some illegitimate points:

Which is why it is possible that the problem afflicting the evangelicals at the Gospel Coalition is one of sentimentality. That is, they value feelings more than doctrine. This is what Ken Myers called orthopathy instead of orthodoxy. This does not mean that the folks at TGC ignore doctrine. Obviously, they promote it. But they never let it function in a way that might make leaders, readers, or bloggers uncomfortable — that is, doctrine will never be offensive, especially to the co-allies. But they seem to have no problem patrolling the Christian world for incorrect emotions.

http://oldlife.org/2011/09/the-problem-of-sappy-evangelicals/

i) I don't see any evidence that TGC values feelings more than doctrine.

ii) Not every blog has to be cut out of the same cloth. It's good to have some blogs which present Calvinism is a more irenic and winsome fashion.

iii) I don't think "Confessional" Calvinists like Hart, Scott Clark et al. really place a premium on doctrine. In reality, they value loyalty over truth. Allegiance to their traditions.

They don't make much effort to prove what they believe from Scripture. Their orientation is more sociological than theological. Be faithful to the in-group. Kith, clan, and Mother Kirk.

JT, not really simplistic, binary, or boilerplate here since those who have a higher regard for the church than the parachurch know that discipline, even if angered, is beneficial. The church, not a coalition, is the biblical way. Why is it you guys never seem to concede that confessionalists are more biblical than evangelicals on this one?

Several problems with his reply:

i) Justin’s a blogger, Hart's a blogger. Justin’s an elder, Hart’s an elder. Same thing with DeYoung. So what's the big difference?

ii) Notice the false dichotomy between "church" and "coalition." Hart belongs, not merely to a local church, but to a denomination. Well, what's a denomination if not a coalition of churches?

iii) In addition, his objection is schizophrenic. He also criticizes you and other TGC types for not going after Piper on infant baptism, or for not going after Driscoll and Mahaney.

But these are pastors. They represent the "church" side of things.