Who is the Neo-Reformed Zealot?

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.

Getting Books Quicker

Justin Taylor has just pointed out that Pierced for Our Transgressions (a UK publication) has finally arrived in the States. Now get this – I visited a book store here in Cape Town over a month ago and the book was already on the shelf there. So for all of you out there who always complain that us South Africans get everything after everyone else – cheer up, things get here quicker than you think.

Are We Simpletons?

I’ve been reading a lot of blogs of late where my guess would be that the authors wouldn’t classify themselves as ‘evangelical’. I read them because I appreciate the way these folk wrestle with so many pressing issues and how they integrate multiple academic disciplines with such skill trying to probe into important topics facing the broader Christian movement. Yet as I read these folk I often wonder what they think of us.

Let’s say that by chance they drop by …daylight and browse around, reading some of the posts. I wonder what they think about 4 young evangelicals who believe the Bible is God’s authoritative, infallible word for life and salvation, that salvation comes only through repentance and faith in Christ because of his work of substitutionary atonement and that hell is a real and coming judgment for those who reject Christ? Do they think we’re simpletons? Naive in our faith? Closed minded and narrow? Anti-intellectual? Misguided? What do they think?

The Games Christians Play

I’ve been trawling through blog posts dealing with the ensuing atonement wars and I’ve become increasingly irritated by a common thread I see running through. Everyone keeps pitting their theological heroes against each other. It’s all N.T. Wright says this or N.T. Wright says that – and in defending ‘Pierced for our Transgressions‘ some bloggers have made mention of the long list of endorsements from the who’s who of evangelicalism (in fact I think I even did that – see I irritate myself!?!?). Its like this big power war.

And it doesn’t just happen over the issue of atonement but it happens in all areas where people disagree – these appeals to ‘power’ figures. This makes me think that people aren’t always concerned with coming to a God honouring conclusion but rather concerned with bullying people into their position. Now I must qualify and say that there is great value from learning from those more learned than us, and citing them when making points – but there’s a difference between that and pitting these Christian celebrities against one another in our low-level power struggles. And I hope you’re not reading this and saying ‘oh yes people who do that are terrible’ because I think we all do it. In the blogsphere I interact with Reformed folk, Charismatic folk, Emerging folk, those for Penal Substitution and those against – and you know what – you all do it! And so do I!

I think we need to dialogue more around texts of the Scriptures – I think we need to have more forums of people discussing the Bible – on the Bible’s basis – have discussions about the context, the grammar, the redemptive history of the passage, the way it would have been understood by the original readers, the difference Jesus makes to our understanding etc. etc. I think the reason that this doesn’t happen often (even on my blog) is because it’s hard work – and blogs are a quick and easy forum for discussion.

This is a rebuke for me as much as it is for anyone else who comes across it. Let’s get back to the Bible and get back with humility and a deep desire to understand.

The Battle Continues…

The penal substitution and atonement wars are still raging in the blogsphere. Today Adrian Warnock defends himself after he decided to interview the authors of ‘Pierced for our Transgressions‘. I’m with Adrian on this one – I think this is a battle worth fighting for.

Links and the Like

Back to blogging after a long weekend in the ‘burbs away from an internet connection. Here are some links to keep you going until I write a proper post.

Quite ironic that I re-posted something about Mark Driscoll and people taking pot shots at him a few days ago, because he’s managed to kick up another storm – here’s the skinny on it. From my side, I’ve watched the video and don’t really see too much wrong with it – I kinda enjoyed it – sorry Bill.

In light of the other storm going on (the penal substitution one), Adrian Warnock interviews Liam Goligher (not the guy from Oasis). Adrian also highlights the goings on in the PCA regarding NT Wright’s teaching.

Someone finally says something about Zimbabwe, but then Joe Carter complains about how many problems Americans have to deal with already. (HT – Justin Taylor)

More on Wright

How can Wright call Pierced for our Transgressions, (PFOT) ‘hopelessly sub-biblical’ and at the same time endorse Steve Chalke’s book? Remember that this sub-biblical book (PFOT) is endorsed by Peter O’Brien, Howard Marshall, J I Packer and Don Carson who I’m sure are in the habit of regularly endorsing ‘sub-biblical’ books!?!? This actually gets my goat. Read Douglas Wilson and get the scoop from his side.

NT Wright and Penal Substitution

Here’s a link to the reason that Tom Wright is beginning to disappoint me a bit, here’s what David Field thinks, here’s a link to the book that Wright thinks is ‘sub-biblical’, and here’s what I mentioned about the book in February.

Penal Substitution

Whilst I love being part of the Emerging Church conversation and interacting with what it truly means to be missional and committed to a Christ-centered orthopraxy I must confess that one thing that has really depressed me in the conversation is the number of times I’ve heard people dismiss the doctrine of penal substitution. Now it’s a horrible generalization to suggest that the Emerging Church has dismissed penal substitution but I don’t think it’s a horrible suggestion that there are many voices (sometimes loud ones) within the Emerging Church who have attacked penal substitution. That’s the part that depresses me. I must also grant that there are many, not associated with the Emerging Church, who likewise attack the doctrine, this is not an exclusive trait of the Emerging Church by any means.

In response to the attack upon this doctrine Steve Jeffrey, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach have written the book, ‘Pierced for our Transgressions’. There is an endless list of endorsements attached to the book from a fairly wide spectrum of well-known Christian names (including 2 South African Bishops!) and from what they say it seems that the book is very comprehensive in dealing with the subject and refuting the many common objections. They’ve launched a website to go along with the book where they’ll be posting articles, sermons and songs as well as a helpful little collection of ancient writings attesting to penal substitution – just for those people who continue to perpetuate the myth that the Reformers invented the doctrine.

All in all it looks like it might be a useful book to get hold of and to reclaim the importance of the doctrine as a central doctrine to all we live and do as Christians.