Reading the NYT’s recent article on Mark Driscoll and Scot McKnight’s blurb on NT Wright’s new book I thought I’d compile two lists of where I think the ‘neo-reformed’ are at and why in many ways we present something of a weird paradox to the rest of the Christian landscape as they try to figure us out:
Neo-Reformed (Things people don’t like):
1. We believe in the supremacy of God and his glory in all things.
2. We believe in the 5 solas.
3. We still believe in the inerrancy, authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
4. We are Calvinists – duh!
5. We still believe that people who die without Christ go to eternal conscious punishment.
6. We believe that the gospel is a word – i.e. you can’t ‘preach’ the gospel with actions – you can only proclaim it and live consistently with it.
7. We’re still complementarians.
8. We think that it is possible to develop a truthful systematic theology.
9. We will not budge on the importance of penal substitutionary atonement.
10. Yes, we think it is still possible to be a heretic and yes, there are quite a few those around in the church today.
Neo-Reformed (Things people like):
1. We have a largely open-handed approach to culture.
2. We’re always keen to re-think current practices.
3. Mission is a top priority for us.
4. In light of #3, we have a passion for church planting.
5. We’re more accepting of outsiders than previous conservative groups.
6. We’re into social justice and mercy ministry in a big way.
7. We’re greener than previous conservative groups.
8. #1, #6 and #7 are based on the fact that alongside our doctrine of Total Depravity and the brokenness of our world we’ve attempted to recapture the beauty of humanity and the creation through our understanding of the Image of God and Common Grace respectively.
9. Our Gospel includes the restoration of all things (See Tim Keller’s ‘The Gospel in All its Forms‘)
10. And horror of horrors – a lot of us still think NT Wright is a pretty good author and theologian even if we don’t always see eye to eye.
This is a great post. Possibly one of your best. I think you have hit the nail on the head with the don’t likes. This is where much of the antagonism comes from.
The thing that perhaps needs more refining is where we stand on the principles of reforming our theology, I do not think it is as open-ended as emergents make it or as closed as fundamentalists make. There is definitely room for revision and rethinking on certain areas, even if it is in the importance we have placed on certain issues way beyond their significance.
How would you attempt to articulate the principles that lie behind such things as a gospel that includes restoration, social justice, mercy, green issues etc. Which are all examples of a some kind of theological revision?
What I’m finding though as I attempt to reform my own theology is that still end up with a similar theology to various older reformed schools. So for example the whole revival of a theology of a restored earth is fairly similiar to the post-millenial theology of someone like Cornelius Van Til. Whilst I’d prefer to call myself an optimistic amillenialist I’m still ending up with a fairly similar theology.
I’m finding that as I reform my theology that changes that I end up with are minor and not very original. I guess those reformers were just a whole lot smarter than even we give them credit for.
Great post Stephen. As a charismatic calvinist working in an evangelical, charismatic Anglican Church (if there is such a thing), whilst also being confronted (at times quite violently) with the compromise of the emerging church stream with regard to theology and morality – I can relate to much that u have listed.
Agree with u regarding NT Wright – a great thinker, decent writer and a thoroughly nice guy… though much that I cannot take on board.
How’s this for a dinner guest list:
NT Wright (without category!), Mark Driscoll (neo-calvinist) and Bill Johnson (of the charismatic stream) discussing the person and work of Christ with special focus on Christ’s mission and the Kingdom of God – could be great fun!
Enjoying your blog!
Superb post! Would you say that another thing to put under the ‘Neo-Reformed- things people like’ list would be a greater appreciation of common grace, particularly in the area of the arts (iconophiles)? Or have I missed it?
Thanks Stephen for articulating things so well in this post. I’d like to think that one of the distinctives would be an appreciation for historical theology. Many of the other distinctives are as a result of giving careful attention to how giants of the past have understood and reflected on theology. In our post-modern climate, where history is often unfashionable, that might even fit into the “dislikes”.
Stephen in response to my earlier comment – I think you are right to steal from Ecclesiastes that there is nothing new under the sun (goes with Nils’ point as well). What I do wonder though is (even though I agree with much of Reformed theology) whether our history of Christian though needs to be broadened.
There is much to be learned from those who did not follow the mainstream of Christian tradition (influenced as that was by the giant of Christendom). I am thinking of movements like the Moravians, the Ananbaptists, the Lollards etc. Issues such as justice, corporate sin, a community hermeneutic and restoration theology is found (at least in thread form) in some of these other Christian histories.
Perhaps even some of the heretics had a point or a good corrective question, even if the conclusion they reached were wrong?
John – completely agreed.
Nils – I think historical theology is quite popular in emerging/pomo circles the only difference is that they choose to focus on a lot of alternative historical theology – e.g. catholic mystics, the great cappodiceans, erasmus etc. But I completely understand your frustration when they overlook more mainstream historical theology in the evangelical mold – that is certainly unfashionable in pomo circles but it is a distinctive of the neo-reformed (hence the picture above).
Hmm…
Stuff I don’t like…
Limited/particular atonement…and that is pretty close to an exhaustive list
Stuff I like…
Recognition of depravity…and much of the rest.
Sam, great point about appreciation of common grace in the arts. It is interesting that it would take the categories born of the systematic rigor of the neo-Reformed to appreciate some of the fantastic musical art our generation is producing. I had not understood the connection between the movement and what Stephen calls the ‘open handed view of culture.’ It just seemed a happy accident or the force of Dricsoll’s personality…but I think you are right…it is consistent with the theological system.
Re: Historical Theology, I have found nourishment and help in many of Christianity’s historical fox holes…but Stephen, your point is a very good one…I rarely hear the Emergent guys expand their historical theology tent to include the reformers or the Nicaean fathers (or, for that matter, their more recent state-side heritage like Mechen, Warfield or Henry)…at least Luther, who is very readable and, as Driscoll mentions, kind of edgy (I only read Luther with beer, it’s a little rule I have
).
Sorry, that is kind of a long ‘comment’.
i want a shirt like that!!
this is a very insightful post. very perceptive. Though I am not always sure if I like the neo-reformed label, it does give a category to what is seen as an odd mix of strong theology and cultural flexibility we have, which people struggle to comprehend. Thats something we find in being part of the Crowded House movement. It’s traditional yet radical at the same time.