The NeoReformed movement of which I speak is an attempt to capture evangelicalism, redefine it by some clearly-defined doctrines that are Reformed, and kick the
rest of us -- and there are lots more "of us" than the NeoReformed --
off the village green. When we are in need of profound degrees of
cooperation (as we see in someone like J.I. Packer), we are finding a
division of the evangelical village green. No, in fact, they are not
dividing the village green; they are constructing a Reformed fence
around it. (Well, maybe not. The impact of what I see going on with the
NeoReformed will result in a division of evangelicalism.)Are you sensing a division? one coming? Do you think there's room in the tent for us all? What are the themes in theology that seem most divisive?
Furthermore, the NeoReformed have come to equate the meaning of "gospel" with Calvin's "Reformed theology." And those who aren't Reformed are somehow or in some ways denying the gospel itself. When gospel is equated with double predestination, often said in harsh terms, we are seeing a good example of the spirit of a NeoReformed approach. This leads, inevitably, to seeing what they call the "doctrines of grace" as defining both "gospel" and "evangelical."
The groups they've chosen to exclude witness to the new kind of Reformed. The sweeping impacts of the Finney revivals and Wesleyan gospel preaching and the charismatics are simply not, in the view of the NeoReformed, evangelicals. Anabaptists aren't even on the map. A number of historians have clearly demonstrated that evangelicalism in the USA cannot be properly understood without reference to the powerful revivals of the Wesleyans; one thinks of David Hempton or Donald Dayton. Their careful studies on the rise of American evangelicalism are often ignored. The approach of Mark Noll and David Bebbington, which is broader based than just a list of Reformed theological ideas, is also rejected as inaccurate.
Oddly enough, a group not formerly connected with evangelicalism, the Southern Baptists, have (from the Reagan years on) become increasingly associated with evangelicalism. And many of them are now advocating very strong forms of Calvinism -- something previously not at all characteristic of the SBC. I could be wrong here, but my own reading of Southern Baptist stuff over the years shows a dramatic rise of Calvinism and a desire to be called evangelicals. I'm open to hear how the SBC see this trend.
And here's another issue: the NeoReformed are deeply concerned with complementarianism and see it as a test case of fidelity. Fine, argue your points, but complementarianism is hardly the center of orthodoxy. You wouldn't know that by the way they write or talk. Some see it as the litmus test of evangelical orthodoxy these days. This grieves me. Don't we have more significant battles to wage?
And they also have chosen to make one of their targets today the New Perspective on Paul, and for some odd reason they've landed squarely on the door step of Tom Wright. They see him as the problem. The Problem. When Tom Wright is our problem, it is we who have the problem. I blurbed Tom Wright's book recently with some strong words, and one blogger posted my blurb -- a blogger who had not read Tom Wright's book -- and it drew within one day about 75 comments, and I'm pretty sure only one commenter on the entire thread had read both Piper's book and Wright's book. The rest were pretty sure I was wrong. Those who were all riled up about the blurb are the NeoReformed -- ironically, they were wondering who I had in mind when I used "NeoReformed" in the blurb. I thought that was obvious.
If I had to sum it up I'd put it this way: the NeoReformed are those who are obsessed with God's holiness and grace and have not learned that grace makes people gracious. These folks are America's newest religious zealots and they are wounding, perhaps for a generation or two, evangelicalism.
My brothers and sisters, because God in his mercy has made room for all of us at the cross, there's room enough for all of us on the village green. Grace would make it so. We might not be able to agree on theology or in some of the finer points of our confessions, but the village green -- evangelicalism -- is covered by a big tent, and there's room for all of us who call ourselves evangelicals.
What are options? I keep asking myself. Welcome one another in a common mission or send those we don't agree with to another location?
Make your decision. Our decision, friends, will shape the future of American evangelicalism. I pray to God we will find a way to focus on the mission of God.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
In case anyone missed it, I'm still looking for more responses to a few questions in order to de-escalate this evangelical mini-feud with a sort of Emergent-Calvinist peace summit. Scot was kind enough to post his responses on my blog (as have a couple of gracious Calvinists) but I'd to love hear Justin Taylor's responses. I've tried to comment on his BTW post, but he seems to have stopped receiving new comments.
5 Questions for emergent/missional/post-modern Christians
1. Can you name a Calvinist writer/thinker who has written a book you consider to be a helpful and worthwhile read?
2. Can you name a complementarian writer/thinker who you consider to be a faithful follower of Jesus?
3. Can you name a public policy issue on which your views are at odds with the Democratic Party's general platform?
4. Can you name something you appreciate about either J.I. Packer or John Piper?
5. Can you name something that concerns you about either Brian McLaren or Rob Bell?
Five Questions for Reformed/Calvinist Christians
1. Can you name an Arminian writer/thinker who has written a book that you consider to be a helpful and worthwhile read?
2. Can you name an egalitarian writer/thinker who you consider to be a faithful evangelical Christian?
3. Can you name a public policy issue on which your views are at odds with the Republican Party's general platform?
4. Can you name something you appreciate about either Dallas Willard or Eugene Peterson?
5. Can you name something that concerns you about either John MacArthur or Mark Driscoll?
Personally, what I think these kinds of problems partly point to, is the outdated nature of a term like "evangelicalism". I've mentioned before that I'm not sure why people feel it necessary, or even helpful, to keep talking about this entity as if it exists. I'm convinced the term no longer represents anything substantial enough to worry about holding it together -conceptually or otherwise. It is a relic like the steam train.
Unless, perhaps, people use it merely as a way to stand in distinction to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mainline theology/practice, and perhaps even some threads of emergent thought. But that seems like a silly endeavor. "I'm this because I'm not that!"
And to be totally honest, hearing how the neo-reformed want to hijack this term (evangelicalism), that I already think is virtually meaningless, almost makes me think - let them have it. We are of Christ, not Apollos, Paul, Piper, McLaren, Wright, Graham, etc... Let's get on with conversation and partnership - and, to use Scot's term, gospelling, without feeling the need to repaint and repair old, withering fences that for too ling have littered the village green.
I'm a member of a Southern Baptist church, and I wanted to comment on what you said about the SBC. In my church and all the SBC churchs I've been a part of, evangelism has been core to what we do. Every Southern Baptist church I've been to strongly emphasizes the importance of missions, and a percentage of the church tithes goes to support Southern Baptist missionaries world wide. We are constantly sending people out on missions, both short term and long, and we understand the value of the Great Commission.
That being said, I'm not sure of the trend of rising Calvinism in the SBC. I'm aware of several leading individuals who are staunchly Calvinist, but that doesn't necessarily speak of the pastors and the flock in the SBC. I know for myself, I am not Calvinist.
I was refered to this site from Ken Schenk's blog Quadrilateral Thoughts where I was reading part one of his review of Tom Wright's new book Justification which I just started reading.
In terms of the "neo-reformed" you reference -there certainly appears to be a sort of divide opening up within evagelicalism (or perhaps more broadly post-modern Western Christendom) which seems increasingly us and them oriented.
There also appear to be some identifiable leaders in each camp (although I think many would be irritated at the idea of being in a camp at all).
It seems to me too much to consider either perspective so organized that they would have rules of engagement. I would think the reality is more complex.
I wonder if the extremes are another ripple effect of what we are calling post-modernism in the West? Divides are forming not simply within Christendom but all over the place - politics to name one obvious choice. There is an inter-relationship to be sure. I think if one is to label neo-reformed as a somewhat reactive extreme (which I think it is and agree with your point on complimentarianism) then we need to understand that extremes often form as a response to fear.
The question then is - what are those we might label neo-reformed afraid of?
Oh, I now see why the Southern Baptists behave as they behave.
BTW: it's in the TULIP doctrine, it will be unavoidable when the system is put under pressure.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.