UPDATE II: Trevin Wax agrees and disagrees with Scot.
UPDATE: Now tell me again, where are they keeping that secret book?
‘Twas not so long ago, on a Calvinistic web site you’ve all visited, that one could hear a serious call to present one’s reformed credentials if one planned to be part of the discussion.
‘Twas also not so long ago, on more than one Calvinistic web site, that a person disagreeing with the main points of the host would be asked to answer “What is the gospel?”
And ’twas not so long ago, that I said, “I’m not a Calvinist,” an announcement that has now earned me at least a weekly email or two telling me that I am about to leave the faith or become a Roman Catholic.
In my own journey, I had happy days as a Calvinist. My days at Southern Baptist Founder’s Conference meetings as a “Timothy George” type SBC Calvinist were good times. Then there were the bad times. Posts about me at certain flaming blogs. Days of posts about me after the word went out through certain Calvinistic chat rooms that I was leading my audience outside of accepted boundaries. Letters to publishers and my employer, and weirdness on comment threads where my name was invoked as “emerging” and “apostate.”
When I finally swore all this off, it wasn’t to become an Arminian, or a Catholic or a one man band. It was to get the heck away from whatever was/is going on among the newly energized reformation police.
More than once- more than a hundred times- I thought to myself: “Is it just me?” Am I the only one who is experiencing as much fundamentalism as reformation here? And isn’t that just wrong?
Well apparently I’m not as crazy as some of you thought.:
One of my favorite Reformed theologians is Michael Horton. We don’t agree on theology but I like this guy and I like to read his stuff. Michael recently wrote a piece that uses a different image than the big tent image above. He says evangelicalism is like the village green of early American communities. It was where folks, all folks, gathered to chat and share commonalities. He says evangelicalism is the village green but evangelicalism is not the church. Churches have confessions, and his confession is Reformed. He says we need to worship in our churches and that the village green is not enough; it is where we join with Christians most like us. The key point I make here is the distinction between being evangelical and being Reformed. Michael Horton, I am assuming, thinks the best form of evangelicalism is Reformed; and he probably thinks Arminians and Anabaptists are wrong at some important points. Fine. (I think the same of Reformed, and I think they are sometimes wrong at central points.) But Michael Horton knows that a local church (or denomination) is not the village green. I agree with him 100%.But … and here’s our problem…
The NeoReformed, for a variety of reasons, some of them good, don’t recognize that evangelicalism as a village green. Instead, they want to build a gate at the gate-less village green and require Reformed confessions and credentials to enter onto the village green. Put differently, they think the only legitimate and the only faithful evangelicals are Reformed. Really Reformed. In other words, they are “confessing” evangelicals. The only true evangelical is a Reformed evangelical. They are more than happy to call into question the legitimacy and fidelity of any evangelical who doesn’t believe in classic Reformed doctrines, like double predestination. The palpable observation here is that many of us think the NeoReformed are as attached to Tradition (read Westminster etc) as they are to sola scriptura.
In effect, the NeoReformed are a new form of Fundamentalism, so one might describe them accurately as the NeoFundamentalists. Which means they seem to need a trend or an opponent upon whom they can vent their frustrations (see Rene Girard). This results in two clear traits: the exaltation of some peripheral doctrine to central status and the demonization of a person. The goal in such cases seems to be to win at all costs.
I close with this:
I recently wrote to a friend of mine, a Reformed theologian, and described what is the essence of this post and this is what he wrote back:
The problem, as I see it is these, whom you are calling neoreformed, are to me simply the old fundamentalists in nicer clothes with better vocabularies. They are just as mean-spirited, just as graceless, and just as exclusive. I believe that the fundamentalism of my youth was harmful to the gospel. I believe that anyone who refuses to come out of his “room” (confessional church) and into the hall of “mere Christianity”, to use Lewis’s term, is doomed to a narrow and problematic exegesis of the text. Who is going to tell us that we are wrong if we only stay in our room and speak to people who agree with us all the time?
That’s most of Scot Mcknight’s new post at Jesus Creed, first in a series on the “Neo-Reformed.” Here’s the second post. Keep track on your own.
Call ‘em what you want. I’ve been saying this for three years now: In many places, it’s fundamentalism as much as it’s Calvinism. In fact, one of the worst internet tomato tosses I ever received was when I said the spirit of Jack Hyles was doing just fine among quite a few of the internet Calvinists.
Hey, I know a lot of Calvinistic good guys, and I know some of the neo-Reformed who are the best pastors/missionaries I could point at today. But the internet reformed have a tendency to ignore this issue of their own narrowing definition of evangelical and their increasing similarity to fundamentalism. If you don’t believe it, go to a popular reformed website in the neighborhood and say “Many of the continental reformed would have found Answers in Genesis embarrassing.” Then watch what happens.
No, Scot is right, and it didn’t take a seminary professor to see it. Dress codes. Young earth creationism. Gothardite approaches to rules. Authoritarianism. Movies are evil and away we go. Find me a Rook deck.
Do I want to discourage anyone out of Calvinism? No, I respect your journey. I think it has edges though; edges that can hurt without realizing it, and edges that need to be looked at, not overlooked.
I’m not looking for Lutherans to go “A-ha!” or revivalist Baptists to say “Exactly.” You’re all pretty dangerous too sometimes. I just hope that all of you who have entered into the burgeoning subculture of Calvinism will read what Scot is writing, disagree wherever you please, but THINK for a moment if he’s not right in the main. That would be good.
Listen: you either see it/experience it or you don’t. Plenty of the reformed have no idea what Scot is talking about because where they sit, it isn’t happening. But are they aware of the web sites, churches and ministries where it IS happening? I believe so, and at that point, I don’t understand.
You want complementarianism to basically be essential to the Gospel, a la Driscoll? Fine. You believe any views of sovereignty that weren’t copied from Edwards are open theism? Fine. You believe anyone who benefits from The Shack is a new ager? Fine.
I think the whole story here is what I said when I wrote Evangelical Collapse: the neo-reformed will be one of the communities left when the big tent collapses, and they are going to proclaim their much smaller tent, the NEW tent. Make of it what you will.
“Let’s go soul-winning with Brother Jack Hyles”– wasn’t that in The Sword of the Lord put out by John R. Rice who took the fun out of fundamentalism and about everything else.
It must be nice to be in the position to make the rules, determine the only correct way to interpret the Bible or live as a follower of Jesus define terms, etc. Check out Naked Pastor’s cartoon today fro some related humor in this regard.
Arminians like me can be just as bad, though, with our emphasis on how you’re not a real Christian if you don’t prove your relationship with Jesus through righteous behavior and good works.
It’s neither the beliefs (the Calvinist error) nor the works (the Arminian error) but God’s grace by which we’re saved. And are part of the village green, so to speak.
Mark Discoll has a great sermon from the Desiring God Conference 2008. Very powerful and necessary for reformed/fundamentalist/calvinists to hear and apply. It is titled:
How Sharp the Edge? Christ, Controversy, and Cutting Words
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/MediaPlayer/3261/Video/
And this is precisely the reason that I left the PCA for the PCUSA. The term reformed is understood more broadly and there’s room to appropriate the wisdom of the other Christian traditions. Its like a breath of fresh air. {There are some down sides too}.
I remember four years ago, maybe longer, when I first ran across some TR websites and initially found them helpful but quickly discovered the thing Michael and Scot are talking about. That disagreement is not tolerated; that every jot and tittle of the gospel (rightly understood) is a hill to be held at any cost.
Just recently one of the TR Elect got his knickers into a knot over the letter rather than the spirit of a comment an evangelical had made in a radio interview. It was obvious to most folks that while the statement could be read in a very logical way to mean X, it was clear that the guy who said it did not mean X and was not advocating X and was not the idiot he was made out to be. But the point of the post was not to acknowledge the perhaps unfortunate choice of words but to take a loose statement to its logical conclusion and then proclaim a kind of rhetorical victory that did more to illustrate the problem with the TR (I’m right!! I’m right about something inconsequential but I’m right!!) than to encourage or lovingly admonish a brother.
It became apparent to me, in other words, that there is a new reformed magisterium and it means that believing X and Y means you must also believe Z to have any credibility with these folks. I can think of a dozen friends interested in Christianity who would run for the hills if they had to cram themselves into a box with all the right labels on it. (TR folks also seem to enjoy labeling themselves. Go figure.)
There is an unhealthy psychology at work here, and it does not lead to conversion. It is, as Scot says, the work of one who builds walls.
It’s a really sad thing. Within this new magisterium, there is only the Elect and the Deluded. And the deluded are folks like me who can’t dot every i and cross every t of TR interpretation of holy writ. How can any of us possibly follow Christ when we aren’t young earthers or we voted for a Democrat or we did five other things that mark us as evil, wicked and reprobate?
I haven’t read Scot’s piece but the summary in Michael’s post is very familiar.
Sad to see that there is enough pain to go around.
So everyone’s got their Inquisitions to deal with. Or better yet, the Catholic version may be the PPX people who are literally more Catholic than the pope.
Thank God for the Gospels.
Fortunately the Reformed gate keepers got ONE thing right: the sovereignty of God! If He chooses to bring down the walls of those “gated communities” (of denominational, theological or whatever flavor), it’s going to happen no matter what they think they can do to stop it!
As a reformed baptist I have to say I agree with Scot McKnight on much of what he has to say about the so called “neo-reformed” (a poor term I think, but will use it for simplicity). Although I am young enough to be classified as one of the “Young , Restless and Reformed” I have also been studying and wrestling with reformed theology much longer than most of these so-called neo-reformed and I am saddened by how they are undermining much of the positive (in my opinion positive) things that have happened with the rise of reformed theology in churches (primarily SBC and baptist churches). I remember sitting in baptist sunday school classes while in college and would be practically ostracized for saying anything against the prevailing dispensationalism. Sadly I feel the tables are starting to turn and the reformed folk are ready to throw stones at the first mention of the word “choose”. I had a discussion with a friend of mine recently who thought the song “I have decided to follow Jesus” was inappropriate for our church. Give me a break!
I think much of this is immaturity in young Chrisitans (or the newly reformed),which hopefully will fade as they learn more of the mysteries of God, but I must say the current trends make me not so optimistic.
A quick word on Scot McKnight however, while I can agree with him on much of his critique on the neo-reformed his blurb on NT Wright’s new book is simply inflammatory, with no value beyond name calling and an attempt to discredit anyone who would disagree. No different than a politician labeling someone a “liberal”, or “neo-con” and then just sticking cotton in his ears.
Michael THANK YOU for tackling this topic!
I’ve been on the blogosphere for less than a year and while I live in Australia, I try to have some antipodean interactions with other Christians in cyberspace. Had I read today’s post 12 months ago I wouldn’t have known what you were talking about.
I started posting on the Extreme Theology website last year and it was a shock to the system. I have NEVER come across a more toxic and noxious lot that squirts sulphur with such reckless abandon. I’ve done the rounds in ‘churchville’ for 22 years but have never met such an aggressive crop of Christians. The intensity of arrogance, condescension and hostility is second to none. Not only things said to me personally (I have thick skin and can hold my own for a while) but even reading the dialogues and the exchanges between other ‘Christians’. I have made open appeals to Chris Rosebrough (the site’s curator) to moderate the comments and vet them before they get posted, but to no avail. I stopped posting on that blog to keep my ‘emotional balance’ in tact as it brought the worst out in me (or revealed what was there!) I consider it a disgrace to the name of Christ.
I’ve come to the conclusion that they’re all genetically related through the Less family (Grace Less, Heart Less and Mercy Less).
The most disturbing observation I made is that those folk sleep at ease at night with the assurance of guaranteed ‘sovereign grace’ which has become their licence to use the sword of God’s word (Eph 6:17) to fight other Christians and not the enemy.
I’ve since visited more civil sites like Challies.com and what do you know? It is difficult to make ANY comments on ‘choice’, ‘free will’ or ‘good works’ and not incur the wrath of some Calvinist on heat!
These encounters have only helped intensify my disdain for Calvinism, and calling it “the doctrines of grace†is only a euphemism in my opinion. I wholeheartedly believe in God’s sovereign grace and work in salvation et al, but not to the point that he creates people to send them to hell for reasons unknown who will never have an opportunity to get saved no matter what and they have no choice in the matter.
I also think that ODM (online discernment ministries) is really code talk for SADP (self appointed doctrine police).
I’m glad I’m not the only one feeling this way!
Sorry one more quick afterthought!
The Calvinists on heat I have come across can be characterized as the spiritual aristocracy of the cyberworld, with an inflated sense of elitism that would make the Athenian intelligentsia in Paul’s days seem humble in comparison.
I’ve got a story or two I’ve never told.
And I tell this with great love and respect for my Calvinist friends who have been supporters of my ministry.
The first time I ever ran into Calvinism, I had just preached at the church I was pastoring and I was met at the door and challenged over the invitational language I had used. Inviting people to “make a decision,” etc. Typical SBC rhetoric.
Now I have become much more careful in the invitational language I use, and I am glad I am, but this continued for a long time. If a song, sermon or invitation had any hint of personal decision, personal choice, etc. I would be challenged. Nicely, but firmly.
This is how I was introduced to Calvinism.
I never got used to that level of “word patrol.” I’m not a public invitationalist, but my denomination uses it and I have learned how to use it when I have to (about twice a year.) I appreciate the Calvinistic critique, but I will always think about what it felt like to be told that you couldn’t just tell people to choose to trust in Jesus.
My first real taste of Reformed Theology came when I read my first John Piper book. It was really like tasting honey for the first time. It was music to my ears, and the deeper in I got, the more I liked it and the more Biblical it sounded, up to a certain point.
Then I, like you Michael, started running into the people like the young-earthers and the extreme full-quiver crowd and the hyper-complimentarians. It wasn’s just that I didn’t agree with everything they said, it was that they didn’t seem to see any room for doubt or discussion about what they believed. I guess I’m Reformed, but I’m not that Reformed.
I agree with Al Mohler; I don’t want to be around hyper-Calvinists or people who are hyper about their Calvinism. That’s why this semi-reformed Baptist is quite happy in a pretty revivalistic Baptist Church. It keeps me from going to far in the other direction. It protects me from extremism.
I still love Piper and Driscoll, MacArthur and Mahaney. But there are plenty of people outside the Reformed crowd that have something from God to say.
Parsifal said, “It became apparent to me, in other words, that there is a new reformed magisterium….”
It has been my observation that in some cases it is not a magisterium, but more accurately a [Mod edited} To be castigated by that kind is nothing. It is nothing because at the bottom line their opinion is not worth a whole lot, and certianly not one that needs to be given much respect… That “emperor” has no clothes. Our security is in Christ, not their opinions…
Peace….
MOD Note: Pretty strong term there Bill. Connotations of racism and violence I’m not comfortable with. Don’t want to criticize others for being intemperate then actually be intemperate. Sorry to edit.
Rook?
Ouch!!
Don’t pick on my Rook
Actually, I really like the Village Green metaphor. It would be great to have that place in the real world, not just at places like internetmonk.com.
Michael,
Do you think that McKnight’s use of the term “Neo-Reformed” in his blurb of Wright’s book responding to Piper is appropriate?
I get that there are internet Calvinists who fit his description. But would you put Piper in that category?
Because it seems to me that the impression given by McKnight is that Piper is included in it.
Thoughts?
Michael (monk),
it sounds as if you’re just describing hyper-Calvinists. there are so many disgruntled Calvinist pastors out there who are basically fundamentalists… but there’s nothing “new” about them. they’ve been around forever. they’ve just recently discovered the Internet (once they gave in to the Devil’s prompting).
i was more under the impression that Scot was referring to the younger (literally newer) brand of Reformed folk who have recently tried on a new pair of John Calvin Klein jeans and are bonkers about them. them and their heros (e.g. Piper, Driscoll). i’ve gotten mixed impressions of Piper. until his recent response to Tom McCall’s criticism in Trinity Journal, in which Piper offered some very humble pastoral advice re: “hard truth”, i felt like Piper was very polemic. yet i still have several of his books and appreciate most of his insights a great deal.
my biggest beef has been trying to establish working relationships with Reformed folk, with whom i share much affinity if you subtract out determinism and paedobaptism. everywhere i turn, i seem to hit a brick wall.
While I’m not familiar with the Calvinist-cyber world that some of you and some of your commenters have alluded to, I did spend my early Christian life in PCA churches and now find myself back in a Christian Reformed Church. The first time I noticed this neo-inquisition was when I was visiting with an old college buddy, Ken about three years ago in Johnson City, TN. He is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and an elder in a PCA church in my old college town.
Ken was sharing with me that my old PCA church had been put under denominational discipline and the pastor excommunicated.
“Why?†I asked. In the back of my mind I was starting to imagine that the pastor was having sex with women in the church, practicing satanic rituals in the basement or wrose, selling Amway out of the trunk of his car. It was none of those. Ken took a couple of bites of food and cleared his throat.
“Well, I have a degree in Calvinistic theology and it is hard for me to put into words. It has something to do with a booklet that the pastor wrote where he expressed a less than a total depravity in the mind of man and in the total separation of soul and spirit.†(I may not have it exactly right).
I was appalled. So “being under discipline,†meant that none of the normal PCA Christians in the area could relate to, dine with, talk to or spend time with the expelled ones and it was over a concept that very few theologians could express outside of their own heads.
I just finished Colin Duriez’s biography of Schaeffer as somewhat of a counterbalance of his son’s, Frank, perspective. I saw how much that Schaeffer took on the causes of orthodoxy in the face of rising liberal theology in the first half of the twentieth century and within that fight how the Calvinists began to splinter.
Maybe I’ve been at too many Astronomy lectures lately, but like dark matter and dark energy is the background echo of the ancient big bang . . . it appears that this neo-inquisition of my Calvinist brethren of today is the background echo of that huge big bang of the fundamentalist vs. the liberals of a century ago. It is just too bad that a healthy concern over orthodoxy has now gone to seed as a nitpicky exorcism of prose.
‘Calvinist on heat’
Now THAT is an image. I’ll have nightmares tonight.
It seem to me that it’s not the Pipers and Carsons and Mohlers and Mahaneys of this world – all of them I like and have benefitted from their ministries – that are causing the trouble. It’s some of their disciples, combined with the oh-so-common rudeness that is a feature of internet anonymity.
“You’re all pretty dangerous too sometimes.”
i am challenged to think often by what i read here and this morning as i read those words i was challenged to think where i might be dangerous.
so if i can ask a serious question without being mistaken as a griping whiny naysayer…
how are you dangerous imonk? have you thot about it?
and for the record im neither calvinist nor arminian. something about sticking mens names on my faith in jesus just doesnt seem right.
Ky boy but not now
For those of us who’ve not been tracking the hyper-Calvinist for the last decade, is there a secret decoder ring or online glossary of term we can use to “catch up�
I do not agree that people such as Piper, Mohler, and Carson should be labled as the neo-reformed which McKnight is trying to do this in his comment on Wright’s book. The obvious intent of his comment is to put a negative label on anyone who disagree’s with Wright’s New Perspective. One problem is it is more than just the reformed who have a problem with the New Perspective, it just happens to be reformed writers who have written some of the best critiques of this position.
Ky Boy,
if you’re looking for a “decoder ring” try this for a little humor on the subject.
http://purgatorio1.com/?p=128
Graceshaker:
Is that a way of saying something by way of a question? A statement will do just fine.
When I begin to rule people out of the Kingdom of God on secondary matters like complementarianism and young earth creationism, I’m dangerous. When I’m thinking like the Pharisees and the older brother, but am too full of being a fan of my own theology to see it, I’m dangerous. When I sit in God’s chair and speak for him without humility, I’m dangerous. When I excuse cruelty and verbal abuse by doublespeak, I’m dangerous.
ms
RP:
I think both Mcknight and others like myself have made it abundantly clear that not all the reformed share the same approach to the rest of Christianity. There’s a huge difference between many of the names you listed and, for example, the Baylys.
ms
Matt:
I don’t know any actual hypers among these Calvinists, though some act like it when it comes to evangelism esp. All would pay lip service to being evangelical Calvinists. As Mcknight says, they have a mythology that they ARE the only true evangelicals
“Ky boy but not now” said it first, but I’m lost here as well. This entire discussion reads like a chapter from an Umberto Eco dark-ages novel on heresy. I did some Google and Wikipedia “research” last night and didn’t get much better in my understanding of the players, let alone the rules of the game they are trying to play.
It seems the deeper we get into a discussion of our beliefs, the greater the chance for conflict over the minutia. Simple and peaceful would seem an easier way to live.
With apologies in advance for introducing humor where it might come off as inappropriate to the gravity of the discussion, I will quote the great Emo Philips – and for those of you who don’t know him….well, I’ve never heard of half the theologians listed in the comments either
===================================================
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
Does anybody care that these arguments about what side of our eggs we crack at breakfast makes us all look like loons to the world? Let us not fight in front of the children.
“if you’re looking for a “decoder ring†try this for a little humor on the subject.
http://purgatorio1.com/?p=128”
Not bad. I liked # 22.
My only brush with online Calvinism of this stripe was on a discussion board years ago. It wasn’t a younger guy…I know this because every chance he got he proclaimed that he’d been “defending the Reformed faith for 25 years.”
Anyway, his favorite way to argue was to take others’ posts a sentence or paragraph at a time and reply to each and every word, which sometimes included entire sections from the Westminster Confession and frequently included veiled or blatant statements about the other’s inferiority, in his humble opinion of course. A couple times I was asked, “Are you sure you’re a Christian?” I not only gave up posting there because of the elite attitude, but because of his “nitpick into submission” style.
“Is that a way of saying something by way of a question? A statement will do just fine.”
dont take this as any sort of underhanded slight bc it isnt. in the short time ive been reading here ive come to respect and appreciate your willingness to say difficult things that need to be said.
of course its dangerous when we rule people out of the kingdom of god on secondary matters like complementarianism and yec and conduct ourselves as you have stated in your reply to my first comment.
i dont disagree with what youve said – im asking simply and honestly if you and i both wouldnt take a close look at the implications of our own thinking as well.
When I finally swore all this off
I swore off commenting on their websites – I may visit, but I am just a better person when I don’t engage their absurd narrow minded world view.
I also dropped my links – something I have noticed other sites doing too. The sites are caustic to the soul.
I welcome McKnight’s analysis, though it would be nice if he named some names. I have been experiencing the movement of the “young, restless, and Reformed” (I call them Resurgents) for the last four years of my Christian life, and I think it is something that has to be confronted.
The main issue is this: The Resurgents want evangelicalism to be defined by doctrinal boundaries. Those that fall outside of them are either not authentically evangelical or are on their way to leaving the fold. You can look at some of the titles of their books and papers to get a sense of their “sifting.” Egalitarians are on a “new path to liberalism.” Those that deny the eternal subordination of the Son are “tampering with the Trinity.” Open Theists are “beyond the bounds” of Christian orthodoxy. Those that glean insights from the NPP and share Wright’s views of justification “undermine the gospel.” Thinkers that find some merit with aspects of postmodern thought are “accommodating to culture” and are “eroding inerrancy.” And don’t even think about voting for a Democrat.
No matter what we think of these things, one thing is clear: certain evangelicals are NOT true evangelicals according to the Resurgent boundary lines. They, more or less, see themselves as inheriting the mantle of ministry being passed down from the Puritans and Charles Spurgeon. Their complaints about people who do not share their mantle are not new.
However, the problem with their problem with evangelicalism is that evangelicalism is not a church, it is a movement. And movements are more sociologically defined than theologically defined. Evangelicalism is essentially Protestantism’s grasp for catholic (small ‘c’) unity. In the late 1940s various Protestant churches and denominations (that were [and ought to be] defined by boundaries) entered into a kind of social arrangement that would “agree to disagree” about certain things, and unite over what is truly essential. Fundamentalism’s failure to hold back the tide of theological liberalism was due to its lack of cohesiveness and charity towards others. Evangelicalism sought to correct this problem with its “big tent” analogy. Therefore, it is necessarily defined by a centered set of doctrines (usually, biblical authority, substitutionary atonement, justification by faith alone, Christ’s return, belief in the Trinity, and Christ’s deity). Think of a pool where the “shallow end” is located in the center and everyone swims from their “deep end” to meet in the middle. That’s how evangelicalism works. And if you look closely, you will see that the more unity-inclined Resurgents work this way too (Infant baptism? No infant baptism?)
Resurgents, try as they might, will not be able to define evangelicalism with certain boundaries. They might strengthen (or weaken?) the center in some ways, but the center of “mere Christianity” will remain open to those who affirm it. Some of those people the Resurgents will not like.
It seems to me that because many of these type of “calvinist” are quick to judge someone else as an unbeliever, that it is easy to disregard an opposing opinion on something. They feel like they are arguing about colors with a blind man.
Add to that the fact that most leaders surround themselves with like minded people who are constantly affirming them and you have a recipe for infallibility.
The thing is I see this in almost every stripe of christianity. The neocalvanist are just more articulate and better prepared to fight than most others.
There are bigger questions about perception and the apprehension of truth that we must all answer with much more humility than we tend to if we want to avoid the same pitfalls.
“Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.”
I consider myself reformed, but like virtually every branch of Christianity, there sometimes are add-ons to the actual Gospel. When there are, one can believe these for oneself, but cannot expect anyone else to do so. I reject young earth creationism, KJV onlyism, misogynism referred to as complementarianism, closed communion among others.
Christians make it so hard to be a…well…Christian some times.
Just a reminder that this entire thread was predestined.
Well, you don’t have to be reformed to act like an graceless idiot. I am a member of a SBC church, and have seen churches kicked out of state conventions because they support missions groups that the state didn’t approve of (like CBF), even though they fully supported the state and all other SBC entitie. If you keep narrowing the doctrine, you will eventually become a church of one.
‘Twas also not so long ago, on more than one Calvinistic web site, that a person disagreeing with the main points of the host would be asked to answer “What is the gospel?†— IMonk
Simple: Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles, Pin-the-Tail-on-The-Antichrist, and Culture War Without End, Amen!
As for Calvinism/Reformed/whatever, to me that means Total Predestination (like Islam’s “your fate written on your forehead by God before the creation of the world”) and Total Depravity (worm theology, which makes a mockery of Christ’s Incarnation and Crucifixion). The former leads to fatalism, passivity, and irresponsibility, the latter to vicious putdowns. We RCCs call it the Jansenist Heresy, after the biggest predestination-obsessor in RCC history.
Then I, like you Michael, started running into the people like the young-earthers and the extreme full-quiver crowd and the hyper-complimentarians. — Wade Phillips
I assume “full-quiver crowd” and “hyper-complementarians” mean “All Women Shalt Be Married, Barefoot, and Pregnant, dropping a new Christian every nine months! God Saith!!!”?
If you keep narrowing the doctrine, you will eventually become a church of one. — John
Well, that IS the theoretical ultimate end-state of Protestantism: Millions of Only True Churches, each with only one member, alone in their Utter Righteousness.
Headless Unicorn Guy
If you keep narrowing the doctrine, you will eventually become a church of one. — John
Well, that IS the theoretical ultimate end-state of Protestantism: Millions of Only True Churches, each with only one member, alone in their Utter Righteousness.
That is the price paid for not following a couple of simple rules.
1) Gather with the brothers (and sisters) often, don’t stop because some pet doctrine is challenged or worse yet ignored.(Heb. 10:25a)
2) To be great, start with humility (Matt. 18:1-3)
Somebody please do me a favor and give me a brief concise laymans defination of NT Wright and what he is teaching. I see his name a lot.
Also, someone give me a brief counterpoint to what he is saying? Or why are folks upset about it?
Thanks,
Austin
Adam O
that is the best definitin of evangelical I have heard or read.
Austin: Wright and concise aren’t allowed in the same sentence. Read him. It’s well worth it.
austin,
If you read through this interview and the comments section you should get a pretty good taste for both sides.
http://trevinwax.com/2009/01/13/interview-with-nt-wright-responding-to-piper-on-justification/
Adam O: They won’t name names, because 1) they don’t want to resolve where the true doctrine actually resides. It’s convenient for them to keep it out of sight and only referred to by those who are in the know and 2) We’d all find out that “Together” for the Gospel lasts about as long as it takes to say “baptism.”
dang Imonk,
throw a dog a bone, i was hoping for somebody to do the work for me:)
that’s what i get for being lazy
Okay,
I read a few things quickly. I need more time. I’m still confused. I have to go now and get my copy of Arminian theology that was recommended a few posts ago. I’m sure that will be even more to think about.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/
Wright is not part of the Calvinist/Arminian p—ing contest.
I think it’s okay to say “putting” but to each his own.
Michael (and others)
I’ve seen several mention McKnight’s recent review of NT Wrights latest. Can someone help me with this? Is the review of Surprised By Hope? Does anyone know of a link that I can find the review? I have the book. But I’m interested in reading what McKnight had to say. Thanks in advance.