The Young, Restless, and Re...uh...formed...

At the end of every year people write their evaluation blog posts. Kevin DeYoung has produced his where he critiques the Young, Resltess, and Reformed (YRR) "movement". I want to take a moment and give my own critique. I would encourage you to read his post to get a bit of background and also take note of his helpful suggestions. 

John-calvin

I think Kevin is correct in his critiques.  I would however add one and that is of dogmatic clarity. I think Kevin might argue that he holds to a similar critique when he argues for folks to go deeper into their ecclesiastical traditions. I am arguing here for something a bit deeper and more specific. 

Whenever conversations about YRR come up there are three terms that are used almost interchangably: Evangelical, Calvinist, and Reformed. It's as if to be truly Evangelical one must be a Calvinist and to be a Calvinist means that you are Reformed.  These words actually h

old specific meanings and while they are connected, they are by no means to be equated.

To be an Evangelical means, in its most simplest terms, that one believes in the Trinity, that the Bible is the authentic and authoritative word of God, and that to be reconciled with God one must trust in the atoning work of Jesus. To be a Calvinist, in its simplest terms, means that one holds to the soteriological position outlined in TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints). To be Reformed means that one holds to covenantal theology as outlined in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

What are the hallmarks of the Reformed faith beyond a Calvinist understanding of soteriology?

First, it is covenantal.  There are only two covenants, that of works and that of grace. The covenant of grace is revealed organically through history. This means that the Scriptures are a unified whole without discontinuity.

Second, this leads to two distinctions practically. The first is a federal form of government, often times called "presbyterian" because it is built through a connectional system of representative elders. It also holds to paedobaptism because children are clearly included in the covenant community in Genesis and are never stated to be excluded. 

This means that to be Reformed is very different from being a Calvinist. Calvinism is a part of being Reformed but it does not equate. The same can be said of evangelicalism.  A Reformed believer, necessarily is evangelical, but it does not go both ways. 

 

I think that we need to begin to more clear about who we are talking about as "Reformed."  Many Calvinist Baptists are equated with being "Reformed". This makes the dogmatic waters muddy. Michael Horton and John Piper hold to very different positions on key issues. Why? Because Horton is Reformed and Piper is not, he is decidedly Baptist. Their differneces are good and healthy because they hold to different perspectives on the Scriptures. While they are in the same camp, these brothers do not share a tent. 

Where do we go from here? I think that we need to let the YRR label go.  It is not properly descriptive.  It's time to clarify the positions that are being held to because they matter. These variety of positions will further the conversations that need to happen. If we can understand that there are real differences between Baptists and Presbyterians and Non-Denominationals and whoever else we will be able to have real conversations about real issues.

I am thankful for Calvinist brothers and sisters of other traditions.  But we have very real differences and those differences provide fertile ground for learning, growth, and development. In the name of unity we must not set aside our real distinctions but we must embrace them and allow the distinctions to draw us closer. When this happens, it will be evidence of maturity within the movement. 

Unity in diversity ought to be the hallmark of the New Calvinist (the appropriate label for the shift)movement.  Not a muddy murky sudo ecumenicalism that does not take one another seriously.

An Expedition...

Media_httpdanielmrose_yqnej
Over the last few days I have been interacting with folks about a great many things. Something that has struck me is the cavalier attitude toward doctrine. Many of us no longer seem to think that doctrine matters. We say things like, "I am not a theologian, but..." Here's the reality: doctrine does matter. What we believe matters. It matters big time. When hardship and conflict come it is what we believe that will determine how we respond. Because, what we believe matters. I have been heart-sick over the way those who hold a similar theological position as I have responded to a book that came out recently. They responded with polemics and rhetoric (some even before they had read the book!). Most have not responded with discernment or charity but have looked for a way to hang a "heretic". I have also been thoroughly disappointed in the way that those from other theological positions have either blindly defended or tried to move themselves away from a position which is the logical outcome of their own. I am more convinced than ever that what we believe matters. Then I read David Fitch's recent post over at Reclaiming the Mission and I understood again why what we believe matters. David coherently points out the distinctions between a "coalition" and an "expedition". As I read this post I kept thinking back to a friend's description of Jonathan Edwards as an "experiential Calvinist" and another concept that has been rattling around my head, the "experimental Church". It is sad to me that those who hold to the Reformed view of theology (not Calvinist Baptists like Piper, Driscoll, etc...they are not Reformed and as a result they are not in view here) have struggled to follow Edwards. It makes me wonder if we don't really believe what we say we believe. It seems to me that if Reformed theology is true then it demands from us an expedition into the experiential and experimental Church. Why? Because if Reformed theology is true then it is unflinchingly pointing us toward Jesus and his Kingdom. This requires us to follow Edwards to the frontier. It requires us to step out and actually act on our beliefs in the sovereign God, the in-breaking Kingdom, and the imputation and incarnation of Jesus. It is my opinion, that Reformed theology (not Calvinist Baptist theology) is best suited for a post-Christian world, because it necessarily drives us toward the lost, culture, transformation, community, and authenticity. But, only if we believe it. But, we will only believe it if it matters. It matters. Over the upcoming weeks we will look at how our beliefs drive the mission and as a result help us to understand why doctrine matters.

Observations on the Conversation

There have been a few (and by a few, I mean more than you can shake a stick at) posts by people responding to a book by a Christian famous pastor and author.  It's reaching epidemic proportions.  Almost to the point of being annoying. I am not going to write about the pastor or the book (I haven't read it, actually it was sold out at my local bookstore, so I couldn't buy it). What I do want to write about is the nature and tone of the conversation. I am appalled. I am appalled by the tweets, facebook posts, and one liners. Social media is short form and is not the proper place for the kind of interaction that topics like this need. There are some topics that require more than 140 characters. Issues of Heaven and Hell certainly fall into that category. This hit home for me last night after a weekly conversation called, Coffee/Doubt.  We spent an hour dealing with this topic and barely scratched the surface.  The questions were real and powerful. There was discomfort and passion.  The conversation could have gone on for many more hours. As we dive into the depths of what it means to be human and what it means to interact with the divine we must realize that the conversation will necessarily be long form. I appreciate the long form critiques that are taking place on a few blogs.  Sadly, blogs are typically group-think factories (this one is no different and yes I get the irony).  You don't necessarily interact with the blogs of those you disagree with. The comments of a dissenter are typically annihilated with polemic, by the readers, not usually the author. This is the kind of conversation that needs to take place around the table where representative people can really talk through it. This has always been the chasm. Scholarly papers used shoot past each other without either being read or digested.  Books would be published and not really interact with one another.  Magazines would publish response pieces that were inflammatory so that the magazine would sell.  The bloggers preach to the choir. The tweeters condense it all into 140 characters. My only solution is for the Church to engage in real dialogue. Face to face. Person to Person. That was the beauty of the ancient councils.  The Church leadership would gather, dispute, worship, pray, teach and decide. I like social media.  I like blogging.  I think they both have a place. But, I think they fall short as mediums for theological dispute (although I think blogging done right could be fantastic, a synchroblog on this issue could be worthwhile and helpful).

Turn. Turn. Turn. No, not that song.

In Matthew 18:3 Jesus says, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." The word for turn is straphēte.  The idea here is "to experience an inward change, turn, change (BDAG)". Jesus is not calling them to "repent", in Matthew that idea is expressed by the word, metanoeō.  However, he is calling them to change.  They must "turn". The disciples must experience an inward change.  From the inside out they must become something different. Consider where we are in the life and ministry and Jesus.  We are near the end.  Jesus has set his face to Jerusalem, he is going to be sacrificed.  These disciples were a group of men who were about have their lives changed dramatically.  They are concerned who is going to be the greatest in the kingdom and Jesus calls them to change. They are still proud, arrogant, and haughty.  They refuse to ask for help.  The disciples believe that they know it all.  There is not an answer they don't know other than "who is the greatest".  They sounds like typical adolescents.  These teenagers had become so caught up in themselves that Jesus called them to change. I think that the issue becomes more clear when we look at verse 4, "Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." There is a juxtaposition between the disciples question of "greatness" over and against the "humility" of the child.  To get there one has to have an inward change. Turn. Jesus simply calls them to turn. Turn to away from themselves to humility. This is the beauty of Jesus' call turn.  It is never empty.  It is always to something.  To act in humility, to be humble is a state of heart and soul. Most children I know are humble.  They ask for help.  They ask "why".  They know that they don't know.  They are interested but rarely self-interested. I think we must all face this call to "turn".  I know I do. How about you?  In what ways do you need to turn?

Kids are annoying, sniveling, little...or Theology of Youth Pt. 1

“At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me,but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:1–6 ESV) In our churches today children and youth are the silent ones.  They are dropped off in their wings of a church for two hours so Mom and Dad can "worship in peace".  The harried teachers are expected to form these young spiritually to make them into mature Christians.  Why? I think it is because we do not have a comprehensive understanding of youth and children from a scriptural stand point. Let's consider this statement by Jesus (the "founder and perfecter of our faith") from Matthew 18.  This is one of those passages that should cause to stop and think about things for a moment.  In the first century children were treated similarly to ours only without the cool cartoon characters and ping pong tables.  They were largely considered an inconvenience until they could be productive adults in the synagogue and society. Jesus says that one who has become like a child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  What does this mean? I think that we have a hard time understanding this because we push our kids to the fringes of our communities of worship. I love the fact that the Presbyterian tradition includes infant baptism because it drives home the reality that children are participatory members of the community of faith. While this is what we ought to be embracing, we do not. We are going to have a hard time knowing and understanding what it means to be a child in the kingdom when we do not worship with them. A child asks questions, incessantly.  A child laughs when things are funny.  A child laughs when things are inappropriate.  A child can not sit still.  A child finds mystery, wonder, and awe in the smallest of things (just watch one looking at the dust particles in a ray of sunlight sometime). A child believes their dad when he tells them something. A child loves the outsider. A child trusts. A child has fun.  A child dances to the beat.  A child loves to read.  A child loves. Unfortunately these things about children annoy us.  We find them disruptive.  "A child is to be seen not heard." It gets worse, they get pimples and hormones.  They get attitudes and they question everything.  They seek for identity and authenticity.  They no longer take simple answers to complex questions.  They grow and change and develop.  They look weird. They have awkward stages. Unfortunately these things about growing children annoy us.  We find them disruptive. Jesus is the great subversive.  He graciously embraces the fringes and broken.  Those without identity he shows them who they are.  So, the question is will you embrace the child? Our next post will focus on one word: "turn".