Darryl Hart on "Paleo- & Neo-Reformed" (The Scot McKnight "Neo-Reformed" Issue)

http://oldlife.org/2009/02/25/paleo-and-neo-reformed/

Paleo- and Neo-Reformed

February 25th, 2009 by Darryl G. Hart

We didn't ask for this but when a respected Protestant scholar invokes the category of Neo-Reformed (which implies a Paleo version), members of the Old Life Theological Society take the bait with relish (tabasco would help).

In a blog that has gotten far more attention than it likely deserves, Scot McKnight complains about the efforts of the Neo-Reformed to capture evangelicalism. He faults them for being traditionalist as opposed to following the Bible, accuses them of displaying fundamentalist belligerency as opposed to evangelical niceness, and fears they aim to take over evangelicalism and exclude the non-Reformed as opposed to just getting along.

The intriguing aspect of McKnight's blog is the way it has been received. The Neo-Reformed have taken offense, as if McKnight is accusing them of shady dealings and unloving behavior. The non-Reformed have registered several amens and point to their own experience with the Neo-Reformed meanies. Throughout the interaction with McKnight are references to the Reformed theologians, Mike Horton and John Frame. Some of McKnight's sympathizers point to a similar diagnosis of Reformed pugnacity in Frame's  much cited essay, "Machen's Warrior Children." Meanwhile, McKnight himself points with a measure of agreement to Horton's idea that evangelicalism functions best as a village green that allows folks from different perspectives to talk to each other; the converse point Horton makes is that evangelicalism functions worst when it tries to make the village green into a permanent residence.

By invoking Horton, McKnight unwittingly makes an important point about the differences between Neo- and Paleo-Reformed, or between Old Life and New Life Presbyterians. The Reformed Protestants who are most intentional about recovering confessional (or better, ecclesial) Presbyterianism, the Paleos, are the ones least interested in taking over evangelicalism and excluding anyone.  For them (and us), evangelicalism is over.  Meanwhile, the Neo-Reformed, the ones who are most invested in reaching a consensus between Reformed and evangelicals, are also the ones who are most inclined to view evangelicalism from a perspective of Reformed doctrinal litmus tests and so turn a blind eye to the concerns of Wesleyans, Arminians, and Anabaptists. In other words, Neo-Reformed care about being evangelical; Paleos don't.

It is not Machen's Warrior Children who want to evacuate the evangelical village green of non-Calvinists and other free will or openness types. Horton readily fits as one of Machen's Warrior Children, and Frame likely had ecclesial Reformed Protestants like Horton and the editors of the NTJ in mind when he wrote his provocative piece. Rather, it is the opponents of Machen's Warrior Children, the allegedly nice and tolerant Neo-Reformed, who have designs on commandeering evangelicalism and keeping it for themselves. The Neo-Reformed are the ones who still think evangelicalism is a useful category and a Christian reality that needs to be saved from those who do not adhere to biblical inerrancy, divine sovereignty, or the vicarious atonement. To use McKnight's own categories, it is Frame who defended something approaching biblicism and accused Horton of being a traditionalist. And it was Frame who wrote Evangelical Reunion, a book about finding a consensus among all conservative Protestants, not Horton whose last volume of Reformed dogmatics, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology, vindicates the Paleo-Reformed high view of the church and its ministry.

Maybe McKnight had a point, even if he didn't know it.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 25th, 2009 at 9:25 am

P.T. Forsyth Book Downloads link

http://cruciality.wordpress.com/pt-forsyth-works/

Some of Ben Franklin's "Poor Richard's Maxims"

If you have time, don't wait for time.

 

Wish not so much to live long as to live well.

 

Observe all men; thyself the most.

 

Employ time well, if thou meanest to gain leisure.

 

Learn of the skillful: he that teaches himself, hath a fool for a master.

 

Up Sluggard, and waste not life; in the grave will be sleeping enough.

 

Men differ daily, about things which are subject to Sense, is it likely then they should agree about things invisible?

 

Who is Strong? He that can conquer his bad Habits. Who is Rich? He that rejoices in his Portion.

 

'Tis easier to prevent bad habits than to break them.

 

Dost thou love Life? then do not squander Time, for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

 

He that won't be counsell'd, can't be help'd.

 

A good example is the best sermon.

 

Lost Time is never found again.

 

"Liberality" is not giving much but giving wisely.

 

There are three things extremely hard, Steel, Diamond, and to know one's self.

 

He is a Governor who governs his Passions, and he a Servant that serves them.

 

The busy Man has few idle Visitors; to the boiling Pot the Flies come not.

 

Little Strokes, fell Great Oaks.

Classic Richard Niebuhr quote on Theological Liberalism

"A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America (1937)

Waltke quotes on Old Testament Theology

Two Quotes from Bruce Waltke about the nature of Old Testament Theology from his "Old Testament Theology" (Zondervan, 2007):

 

Nevertheless, biblical theologians aim to construct and formulate a theology that accords in some sense with the Bible, while essentially agreeing with James Barr's assertion: "What we are looking for is a 'theology' that existed back there and then" (James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 4) (Waltke, 29).

 

Brevard S. Childs adopts and defends a self-consciously confessional approach: "The role of the Bible is not being understood simply as a cultural expression of ancient peoples, but as a testimony pointing beyond itself to divine reality to which it bears witness. . . . Such an approach to the Bible is obviously confessional. Yet the Enlightenment's alternative proposal that was to confine the Bible solely to the arena of human experience is just as much a philosophical commitment. (Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology: A Proposal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 12) (Waltke, 31).

John Updike's "Seven Stanzas at Easter"

SEVEN STANZAS AT EASTER

By John Updike (1932-2009)

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells' dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His Flesh: ours.

The same hinged thumbs and toes,
the same valved heart
that—pierced—died, withered, paused, and then
regathered out of enduring Might
new strength to enclose.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping transcendence;
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the
faded credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.

The stone is rolled back, not papier-mache,
not a stone in a story,
but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow
grinding of time will eclipse for each of us
the wide light of day.

And if we will have an angel at the tomb,
make it a real angel,
weighty with Max Planck's quanta, vivid with hair,
opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen
spun on a definite loom.

Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty,
lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are
embarrassed by the miracle,
and crushed by remonstrance.

Courtesy of Justin Taylor, http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/01/john-updike-1932-2009.html

Series on Adler's "How to Read a Book"

Index: How to Read a Book « συνεσταυρωμαι: living the crucified life

Link: Best Commentaries

http://www.bestcommentaries.com/

Top 100 Theology Blogs link

http://www.christiancolleges.com/blog/2009/top-100-theology-blogs/

McKnight on N.T. Wright and Christopher Wright ("The Wright Brothers"), Earth and Mission

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2008/08/the_wright_brot.html

August 15, 2008

The Wright Brothers (in Christ)

Scot McKnight says N.T. Wright and Christopher Wright show the future of theology.

Recently I was asked where theology was headed. I assured my reader that I wasn't "in the know" but that I would hazard a guess or two. First I thought we were likely to see a more robust Trinitarian theology, one deeply anchored in the great Cappadocian theologians like Gregory of Nyssa. But in some ways all the main lines of Trinitarian thought have already been sketched by great theologians like Karl Barth, James B. Torrance and others. With this first idea now set aside, I had a second idea of where theology is going: "The Wright Brothers."

No, not those Wright Brothers, but another set of Wrights (who aren't even brothers, except in Christ): Tom and Chris. Even if they don't map where all of theology is headed, these two scholars and devoted churchmen, both Anglican, do set before us two words that have become increasingly fruitful and I think will be the subject of serious theological reflection in the future. The two words are "earth" and "mission." Each scholar discusses both, but I will focus in this post on Tom Wright's focus on "earth" and Chris Wright's focus on "mission."

Increasingly we are seeing more and more Christians own up to the earthly focus of biblical revelation—the claim God makes upon this earth through his Eikons (humans made in his image). We are seeing a deeper reflection on what it means to participate in the historical flow, in government and politics and society and culture, and we are seeing a renewed interest in vocation and work. One of the more striking elements of this new surge is that theologians who are deeply anchored in the Bible also see our eternal destiny having an earthly shape.

And not only are we seeing the increasing presence of "earthly," but we are seeing a reshaping of theology itself so that God's mission in this world becomes central. Everyone knows that the latest buzz word is missional but not enough are thinking carefully about what mission means in the Bible and what it means to speak about "God's mission" (missio Dei). But there is a surge of thinking now about this topic and it will continue to spark interest both for pastors and professional theologians.

Now to the Wright brothers.

Tom Wright, in his book Surprised by Hope, relentlessly critiques the gnostic-like preoccupation so many have with heaven as a place for our spirits and souls—the place where we really belong, and the sooner we get there the better. It is not that Tom Wright denies heaven; no, he affirms it robustly but he argues that the eternal home for the Christian is not that old-fashioned view of heaven but the new heavens and the new earth. And he argues the new heavens and new earth are something brought down from heaven to earth. (Read Revelation 20—22.)

I think some have made far too much of this, as if it is a revolutionary insight. What it is, in my judgment, is a strong critique of how dualistic we've become. And it is a welcome call for us to see that what we do now prepares us for what we will do in the new heavens and the new earth. I think Tom Wright's emphasis here is spot-on: we need to grapple more directly with the connection of what God calls us to do now as continuous with what we shall be called to do for eternity. I hope many will see their way to read Tolkien's Leaf by Niggle, for it addresses similar themes.

This emphasis of Tom Wright's actually forms a foundation for Chris Wright's exceptional study The Mission of God. Here we find yet another theme that is reshaping so much of where theology is going: mission. I wish people asked this one simple question: What is the mission of God in this world? Chris Wright, taking his cues from the Old Testament—he's an Old Testament scholar—says the mission of God is to make his glorious Name known throughout the whole world. This mission, found so often in the prophets, shapes how we not only read the Bible but how we live out the Bible in our world.

God makes his Name known through God's people, first Israel and then the Church. Most centrally, God's mission with a Name becomes fully visible in Jesus Christ—in his life, death, resurrection, and the gift of the Spirit. This Story, this grand narrative of God's mission, is reshaping how theology is being done.

There is a converging hook here: Chris Wright ends his book on the theme of God's mission involving the earth—the whole earth. Tom Wright ends his book about earth on mission—the mission of God in this world. I think they are both right.

I can't see into the future, but I can see down the road a bit, and what I see is an increasing emphasis on earth and mission. Those two themes are likely to take us into the next two decades.

Scot McKnight is the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University, author, and blogger.