For those not familiar with the whole Neo-Reformed issue, here is a summary from the article introducing Scot Knight, a Christian author who recently wrote a heated blog post on the subgroup of evangelical Christians he calls the "NeoReformed"
Who are the NeoReformed? According to Scot, the NeoReformed represent a particularly aggressive group of people who embrace Reformed theology and demonstrate an attitude of exclusion reminiscent of pre-evangelical Fundamentalism. The NeoReformed see anyone outside of their circle as unfaithful to the gospel and only pseudo-evangelical. Therefore, they exalt peripheral doctrines to “central status” and then ”demonize” others that disagree.
While a lot of others wrote of Scot as an arrogant raging lunatic, I couldn't do so completely. I agree that while a lot of his accusations of the group seem like over-exaggerated blanket statements, I have interacted with a lot of people who fit a similar description.
The article does a great job of sifting carefully through the issue fairly. I hope you find time to read it and leave some comments/thoughts if you have anything to say.
6 comments:
For whatever reason, I've tended to find myself in fellowship groups grounded firmly in the Reformed tradition. They've read their Augustine, their Calvin, their Piper, and they're passionate about it. It's a perspective that's so central to the way in which they view salvation and the intervention of God in human affairs that it's quite understandable that perhaps in their minds it sheds any trappings of adiaphora.
I have no problems with this. I like my in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas as much as the next person, but one cannot be sentimental about it. This side of Glory, we must accept that differences of thought within our tradition will be at times intractably divisive.
I'd agree with Trevin Wax (the writer) as well as with Alan... from my own personal experience, there's something very elegant, simple and profound about the way that Reformed theology forms its thinking. I think some of the arrogance comes from the scholarship that's required, though - the Westminster Confession is not easily accessible to most Christians, let alone new ones, so the feeling that you "get" Christianity as it is "meant" to be understood probably gives a feeling of superiority. Perhaps the subsequent opinion is that others are "too easy" on the faith...
Alan - I can identify; my upbringing is pretty firmly Reformed (HCC, and Geoff, for example). I've seen their passion and their perspective as well, and for most of college, I tried thinking in a similar fashion. Though I don't think I can wholeheartedly accept those old views, I can't discount their weight either.
This is why I appreciate Trevin's thoughts - he respects Piper, Calvin, Augustine, and the other sources from which Reformed groups draw, but notes that there is an issue, not (necessarily) with theory but with practice. I could argue the way the theology is formulated, but the complaint raised here is not apostasy but actions.
However, while I agree with the premise of your second paragraph, I don't agree with it's application to this scenario. Differences may be divisive and unresolvable, but one should not approach these differences with the assumption that I am right, so they must be wrong. You may hold the "perspective" you describe, but that is what it must be recognized as - a perspective and not an absolute immutable truth.
----------------
Peter - I think what you say is part of the issue (the scholastic arrogance), but I don't think that's the sole/root cause. Otherwise, this would imply any learned group would tend towards arrogance. However, some of the most learned Christians I know are the most humble; often, the more you attempt to know about a subject, the more you discover the subject is too large for any one person to boast in knowing (there are plenty of exceptions, of course).
I wish I could voice a more coherent and intelligible complaint, but I have difficulty doing so without falsely accusing someone. I identified with the post because there are specific Reformed Christians that seem to rub many the wrong way by being very hard-line and unwavering (and to some, closed-minded) on issues that may not explicitly be touched on in Scripture, sometimes ignorant of the reasons and justifications for alternative views. They may exist in other circles, but I do agree that most of the ones I've met fit this "Neo-Reformed" category.
Peter, I almost wonder if reasoning is the reason for this arrogance - unlike Calvin, it seems as if many of these "Neo-Reformed" consider Holy Scripture THE authority on an issue, seemingly without realizing 1) they are subject to their own interpretation, 2) God may have intended for Scriptural doctrine to be interpreted through reason, not superceding it.
Until I have a better grasp on the what the "Neo-Reformed" do wrong (and not just my current gut feeling), I think I should stop pointing fingers in this situation.
I appreciate the thoughts, sorry for the late response
Differences may be divisive and unresolvable, but one should not approach these differences with the assumption that I am right, so they must be wrong. You may hold the "perspective" you describe, but that is what it must be recognized as - a perspective and not an absolute immutable truth.
I'm sympathetic to what you've written here, but it seems one could go slippery slope with it -- to the point of gutting the ability of any given belief system or faith tradition to demarcate right from wrong.
I don't think humility entails jettisoning the firmness of one's conviction.
"I'm sympathetic to what you've written here, but it seems one could go slippery slope with it -- to the point of gutting the ability of any given belief system or faith tradition to demarcate right from wrong...I don't think humility entails jettisoning the firmness of one's conviction."
I agree. As I wrote it, I worried about what I said being taken that way. It's a fine line to walk, but I believe that we should avoid the polarizing extremes of both standing and moving for nothing. As Paul notes, certain ideas should be truth without which our faith would fail (Christ died and is resurrected), but even he admitted that certain ideas (eating meat sacrificed to idols, circumcision, etc) were ideas that were involved with but not central to our Christian lives. A gradient of truth should exist.
In light of this thought, I do think that these perspectives can (and should be) be vigorously defended if you believe in them. Having strong convictions should be backed up by holding strong reasons for those convictions. I believe one aspect of humility is understanding how far those reasons extend and on what assumptions they rely.
Post a Comment