The Economist assumes that disagreements about theological matters (e.g., the validity of the pope’s office) will cause conservative Calvinist evangelicals to refuse to work with conservative Catholics on social and political issues. Obviously, they are unaware that this is the exact opposite of what most Calvinist evangelicals believe.
Within evangelicalism, the use of the term ‘co-belligerence’ was popularized by the Calvinist intellectual Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer, whose influence on evangelical politics is incalculable, emphasized the importance of activism that leads neither to compromise nor separatism because of theological differences. As Schaeffer once wrote, “A co-belligerent is a person with whom I do not agree on all sorts of vital issues, but who, for whatever reasons of their own, is on the same side in a fight for some specific issue of public justice”....Francis Schaeffer, the godfather of the Religious Right, wrote about co-belligerence 33 years. Albert Mohler, the “perceived leader of the Calvinist camp”, wrote about co-belligerence 10 years ago. For Calvinists, the concept of working together with Catholics goes back more than 400 years. In other words, Calvinism is likely to have the exact opposite effect that The Economist seems to think it will have.
This article is fine. The reviewer is misunderstanding it.
It is ENTIRELY true that critics of Calvinist Southern Baptists say that the Calvinist Southern Baptists are fatalistic (only a few saved, why bother?).
That is demonstrably true.
These critics, however, are mistaken. The reviewer of the original Economist article is making the mistake of reviewing the author of the article as if the author were engaged in the debate itself, rather than reporting on the debate.
So the Economist article is actually very accurate.
It is the combatants that the Economist article is reporting on who are making mistakes...namely...in mischaracterizing the end results of the Calvinist engagement with the culture.
Incidentally....and I side with the Calvinist Southern Baptists....Calvinists make the same mistake all too often. They (er, we) say things like, well if the pre-dispensationalists are right, then, why bother reforming the culture? They (we) then mischaracterize all evangelicals as just trying to get as many into the life raft as possible.
While this has been PART of the pre-dispensational legacy, speaking broadly, it is absolutely NOT part of the legacy of the most recent and most engaged pre-dispensationalists.
Look at the life and work of Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye and the many that they inspired. They are DEEPLY engaged in the culture. We Calvinists might say, well, that is in spite of their theological convictions. That is likely not fair at all. They are smart enough to know the full implications of their theology...yet...their theology led them to engage the culture in a way as deep as any Calvinist would ever hope for.
So.
The point being...and this is the point of the Economist article...”our” side of the ledger (conservatives) contain many opportunities for alliance across theological convictions.
It also contains a LOT of potential for misunderstanding among those who are in these alliances. The fault lines identified by the article are real.
Yet, the exceptions are also very real and a full treatment of this phenomenon would give consideration and an account for those exceptions, as well. (ie, what changed with Falwell? Why was he so great in engaging the culture?).
And finally....the Economist author is quite correct. Al Mohler IS the titular head of the Calvinist Southern Baptists. He wasn’t elected and he doesn’t have an official jersey or anything. But....when he speaks, we listen.
This Calvinist will march alongside of Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentacostals and anyone else under the blood of Christ, just so long as our goal is to be salt and light to the world. Our intramural differences are of no account compared to our struggle against the Prince of this world.