Calvinism

My roommate asked me the other day if I were a Calvinist. I hedged my answer, and came away sounding quite bad (or at least a bit incoherent), saying something along the lines of "Well...it's the tradition I was raised in...I'm OK with it...I guess you could say I'm a Calvinist..."

There were a lot of steps missing from that answer. The following is an attempt to hash them out.

1) priorities, limited time, and other present concerns
There's a lot of things to worry about and figure out in the realm of Christian doctrine, not to mention in life in general. There's only so much you can worry about and focus on at the one time. And, at the moment, Calvinism isn't that high a priority on my list. The truth of Christianity in general was a bit more of a preoccupation for some time. Right now I'm rather busy trying to figure out the nature and purpose of the church and its relation to the "world" (whatever that is). And the answer to the whole "what must one do to be saved" deal (which REALLY isn't as simple as it looks, once you get into Catholicism and Protestantism and "those who have never heard"). And what exactly Christ's death accomplished (just a payment? Or is there a reshaping of the entire cosmos going on, too?)

These things, admittedly, do touch upon the Calvinism/Arminianism/sovereignty/free will debate at times. So I do end up doing some thinking about them. Eventually, I think, I'll have to hit the issue head on. But right now, it's "out of focus," in the background, overshadowed and influenced by other concerns.

2) agnosticism, necessary assumptions, and moving forward
I don't know with any confidence that Calvinism is right. I haven't examined the issue for several years. I suppose I could just say "I don't know" or "I'm a weak agnostic on that issue." But, as I'm hammering through some of these other questions, I've found it necessary to have some base view of salvation to refer to and amend.

Maybe some people can manage to live in a constant agnosticism, floating in a murky grey fog until they've thoroughly examined and solidified an issue, then moving on to the next one. Gradually getting the fog to coalesce and clear, one area at a time. After about five years of pretty much living like that, I know that I can't in most cases. It's hard enough murking up one area at a time and resolidifying it.

So, needing some background view, I'll find something possible and viable, amend it when necessary, and toss it out the window and try again if the amendments start turning into epicycles. (At least that's how it should work in theory...)

3) viability and conservatism
It's possible to prove Calvinism from Scripture. And it's got some solid church tradition behind it. It's not some totally wacko cultish doctrine. I don't know if it's right -- but it's a workable, pretty coherent way of understanding difficult passages of scripture. As are more Arminian-leaning views, too.

But, as I was raised a Calvinist and not a semi-Pelagian, I use Calvinism as my base view. I don't usually change my views for no reason other than changing them. Since Calvinism is still viable, and since I'm not interested, at the moment, in deliberately examining (and changing if necessary) this particular inherited view, I'll shrug and stick with Calvinism for now.

That's basically what I mean by "it's the tradition I was raised in." If it's still workable, and if it's not too important at the moment, why not stick with it for now?

So far, I've found no earth-shattering reason to abandon Calvinism. It works, it's possible, it's what I'm familiar with, I have to choose something, so huzzah for Calvinism. Until it turns out that it or an amended version of it doesn't fit reality. Which is a very possible outcome. There are some things that are giving me pause, and time will tell whether an amending of my understanding of Calvinism will suffice, or whether it's so flawed a system that I do need to wipe the board clean and start over with a fundamentally Arminian-leaning view.