Categories
Uncategorized

Putting the Conservative Reformed Theology movement (Piper, MacArthur, and Dever) in perspective

Summary of this post:

I think the Conservative Reformed Theology movement's emphasis on solid theology is good but I think there is a lot of other great theology being done today outside this movement. 

Why does the Conservative Reformed Theology movement matter?  

  1. Recently a reader of my blog from the UK emailed to ask me for seminary advice.  One of the things he mentioned was that one of his three favorite authors was John Piper
  2. Another friend recently told me that his congregation wished he preached more like John MacArthur
  3. Another friend who attends a United Methodist Church (not-Reformed) expressed her frustration with her own church and her appreciation for Mark Dever and his Reformed Theology
  4. One of my best friends attends Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

What do these four things all have in common?  Conservative Reformed Theology.   

Christianity Today's Collin Hansen described the movement in his September 2006 Christianity Today cover story positively as: "Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church."

Collin has now written a book called Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists (Mar 30, 2008) (which I haven't yet read).  Hansen covers the Passion Conference in Atlanta, John Piper's
Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota, Yale University's Jonathan Edwards Center, The Southern Baptist Seminary in
Louisville (Al Mohler), Covenant Life Church in Maryland (CJ Mahaney
& Josh Harris), The New Attitude Conference in Louisville, and Mars
Hill Church in Seattle (Mark Driscoll).

John Piper is perhaps the best known of these Conservative Reformed
leaders and is also a leader in some organizations that are not
explicitly Reformed but are strongly influenced by Conservative
Reformed Theology:   

Piper's fans admire him for his passion and academic rigor.  Who doesn't like that? 

But problems develop when Piper's fans don't realize that the Conservative Reformed Theology movement is only one slice of the church-renewing substantive theology being done today in a variety of places in a variety of theological traditions. 

1. Conservative Reformed Theology is just one particular kind of Reformed Theology.

I call this Piper-associated movement
"Conservative Reformed Theology," because there is Reformed Theology
that is associated with the Presbyterian Church (USA), Princeton
Theological Seminary, Jurgen Moltmann, Lesslie Newbigin, and Karl Barth which would not be related at all
to the Conservative Reformed Theology of Piper and friends.   I use the adjective "Conservative" because this is the operative word within American theological circles.  It is left over from the Fundamentalist / Modernist and Conservative / Liberal controversies within the United States in the twentieth century.  It bothers me that the Piper movement sometimes seems to portray themselves as the only theological heirs of Calvin when there are many more "Reformed Theology," "contemporary Calvinist" and "evangelical Calvinist" theologians.

2. Much of the Conservative Reformed Theology movement is Baptist-leaning.

Some significant parts of the Piper /
Dever /MacArthur / Mohler "Conservative Reformed Theology" are very
Baptist (rather than Reformed in their polity).  For example, unlike Calvin and the Puritans they often cite, many embrace
Believer's Baptism rather than Infant Baptism.  Non-Presbyterians Jonathan Edwards (Congregationalist) and Charles Spurgeon (Baptist) are
some of the people these Baptist-like Conservative Reformed Theology people see as
their theological fathers. 

3. Some of the Conservative Reformed Theology movement is Reformed in polity (that is, Presbyterian). 

But Piper and friends see theological kinship even with others who disagree with them about Baptism and other polity issues.  Piper writes, "I would gladly admit Ligon Duncan or Sinclair Ferguson or R. C. Sproul
or Philip Ryken to membership at Bethlehem (if I were allowed by our
constitution), and in doing so I would not be giving up my view on the proper nature of baptism" (from John Piper's dialogue with Wayne Grudem on infant baptism). As Piper indicates, there are people who are Reformed in their polity (church structure) who Piper sees as colleagues in the Conservative Reformed Theology movement.  Presbyterian Church of America people include Tim Keller and Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. Westminster Theological Seminary, R.C. Sproul's church, Reformed Theological Seminary are not officially part of the Presbyterian Church of America but are part of the Conservative Reformed Theology movement. Michael Horton of Westminister Seminary California (Reformed Episcopal Church and United Reformed Churches in North America) and Modern Reformation is also associated with the what I am calling the Conservative Reformed Theology movement. 

All of that to say, that one of the main things that unites this disparate group is the Conservative part of their theology.  The "Reformed" part varies greatly.   

4. What the Conservative Reformed Theology people have in common is the "the study of doctrine" and particular emphases on substitutionary atonement and limiting women's roles in church leadership.

The two greatest "doctrines" that I hear unanimously emphasized by the Conservative Reformed Theology people are (1) an emphasis on substitutionary atonement and justification by faith (See Piper's book in response to N.T. Wright) as the uniquely true interpretation of the cross; and (2) opposition to women in church leadership.  Piper was one of the founders of Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood with his Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.  I see very little else that starkly differentiates the insiders of the Conservative Reformed Theology movement from those outside. 

I agree with them that the inerrancy of Scripture is not something that is unique to their movement. That doctrine is closely associated with places that are not explicitly Reformed like Dallas Theological Seminary.  Furthermore, there are many people those who agree with them about the inerrancy of Scripture but would argue the Bible describes the work of the cross with a variety of metaphors not just substitutionary atonement.  There are also those who would subscribe to inerrancy but would argue the Bible teaches ministry according to gifts regardless of gender.  See for example the work of Craig Keener, William Webb and Gordon Fee – exemplified in Discovering Biblical Equality.   

5. The Conservative Reformed Theology movement wants to see theological depth.  This goal is being pursued as well by theologians from other traditions. 

Hansen writes in the following quote that Calvinism does partly unify the Conservative Reformed Theology movement but that opposition to shallow theological thinking may be the real common ground. 

Perhaps an attraction to serious doctrine brought about
3,000 ministry leaders to Louisville in April for a Together for the
Gospel conference. The conference's sponsors included Mohler and
Mahaney, and Piper also spoke. Most of the audience were in their 20s
and 30s. Each of the seven speakers holds to the five points of TULIP.
Yet none of them spoke of Calvinism unless I asked about it. They did
express worry about perceived evangelical accommodation to
postmodernism and criticized churches for applying business models to
ministry. They mostly joked about their many differences on such
historically difficult issues as baptism, church government,
eschatology, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. They drew unity as
Calvinist evangelicals from their concerns: with seeker churches,
church-growth marketing, and manipulative revival techniques. Roger
Olson, professor of theology at Truett Seminary, Baylor University,
said more than just Calvinists worry about these problems. "A lot of us
evangelical Arminians agree with them in their criticisms of popular
folk religion," Olson said. "I agree with their basic theological
underpinnings—that doctrine is important, that grace is the decisive
factor in salvation, not a decision we make."

I agree with Olson that the Conservative Reformed
Theology movement''s concern about the shallowness of much Christianity is not unique to them.  What I think the Conservative Reformed Theology people fail to recognize is that many other Christians are seeking to deepen churches but are drawing from different theological resources than they are.  Some of the Conservative Reformed Theology people like to cite Charles Spurgeon's quote:
"It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and
nothing else."  At Duke Divinity School, a United Methodist Church
school, it is easy
to see that there is much gospel work that does not call itself
Calvinist.  It is remarkable to me how circumscribed these groups are.
The Calvinists read Calvinist books.  The non-Calvinists can smell the
Calvinists books a mile away and ignore them.   

In my limited knowledge of what is going on theologically, I would submit that the strengthening of the church theologically is being resourced by a variety of different movements today. 

  • The Conservative Reformed Theology people turn to Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon and the Puritans. 
  • Evangelicals and Biblical studies people look for more depth by
    turning to the Scriptures. Examples of this mentality are as diverse as N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington,
    Scot McKnight, Walter Brueggemann,
    Eugene Peterson, Dallas Theological Seminary, Rob Bell, and the Evangelical
    Theological
    Society. 
  • Others look for answers in reading the Church Fathers, the Great Tradition and liturgy. Examples of this include Chris Hall, Thomas Oden, Bryan Litfin – see CT interview, Robert Webber, see Chris Armstrong's CT cover story, Warren Smith at Duke Divinity School, and Rowan Williams. 
  • Many post-liberal mainline theologians at Duke Divinity School and
    Princeton Theological Seminary turn to Karl Barth as a way of exploding
    liberal theology and forming a biblically-rooted theology.
  • Tony Jones of Emergent Village likes Jurgen Moltmann.  Brian McLaren draws eclectically from all of the above. 

Disclaimer:

This is my take!  This is my perception of what is going on in the theological landscape!  I have not read all of the books by the 100 or so people mentioned in this post!  I am happy to have my perception corrected by others who have carefully read particular people mentioned above.   My goal is to sketch the theological landscape and my hope is that my orienting might help some people understand where they are and perhaps where else they might want to explore!  Two years ago I wrote a post called Seminaries for Evangelicals which similarly aimed to help orient people about the seminary landscape however fallibly.   Grace and peace, andy

Related Reading:

a. Conservative Reformed Theology movement News
Justin Taylor often covers (he is like a reporter) what is happening among the Conservative Reformed Theology crowd at his Between Two Worlds blog.

b. Responses to the Conservative Reformed Theology movement
A guest blogger on Between Two Worlds, Thomas McCall, assistant professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, wrote a post April 29, 2008 called Two Cheers for the Resurgence of Calvinism in Evangelicalism: A Wesleyan-Arminian Perspective. McCall is not Reformed but appreciates much of what these young Calvinists are about.  Still he warns them about a few things.  Because of his appreciative but critical perspective, this is a very helpful way of seeing the movement in my opinion. 

On November 26, 2007, North Park New Testament professor Scot McKnight posted a letter from someone about his experience with some Conservative Reformed Theology people.  There were over 200 comments from people discussing the phenomenon.  See Letter about those pesky Calvinists

This week there has also been a five-part dialogue at Christianity Today:

Emergent's New Christians and the Young and Restless Reformed
Tony Jones and Collin Hansen find connections as they discuss each other's books and movements.
Collin Hansen and Tony Jones | posted 5/01/2008

c. Non-Reformed Theological Reflection
It is worth noting that there are explicitly non-Reformed theologians pushing for depth and vitality.  For example, in the blogosphere, there are some good United Methodist blogs worth watching:    

Adam Hamilton – Seeing Gray – megachurch UMC pastor in Kansas
Andrew Thompson – Gen-X Rising, UMC pastor and Th.D. student at Duke
Ben Witherington – Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary
Scott Jones – Kansas UMC Bishop Blogs and Columns
Will Willimon – A Peculiar Prophet – Alabama UMC Bishop

Many of the other blogs on my List of 80 Church Leadership Blogs I am watching would not call themselves Reformed or Arminian/Wesleyan categories.  They would probably call themselves "ecumenical," "evangelical," "emergent," "Anglican," "Baptist," "Presbyterian," or something else. 

d. More Conservative Reformed Theology links
From the Conservative Reformed Theology perspective, you might read Mark Dever's 10 post series entitled: Where'd All These Calvinists Come From?
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10

See also my post from two years ago February 14, 2006 John MacArthur Attacks the Emergent Church For Questioning the Clarity of the Scriptures

17 replies on “Putting the Conservative Reformed Theology movement (Piper, MacArthur, and Dever) in perspective”

Hi. I’m a 2007 Taylor graduate (i was actually in your wife’s women’s ministry class and really liked it), and i’m planning on going back to taylor this september for the masters of arts program in world religions. In the meantime, however, I’m living at home, working part-time, and going to Reformed Theological Seminary for a couple of systematic theology classes to balance out the Taylor education. As someone who is not really familiar with the Reformed tradition and who is passionately egalitarian, I’ve struggled with figuring out the Reformed foundation in my classes. This post was helpful, though, so thanks.

great post – nice overview of all that’s happening.

i have a number of related posts at my blog, most of them bemoaning the rise of Calvinism and the arrogance of everyone associated with it in thinking that, finally – FINALLY – after 2,000 years of arguing about all this stuff, a group has come along with all the right answers at just the right time. praise God – where would we have been without them?…

i specifically am amused at how the only people consistently arguing for strict election are those who consider themselves elected… imagine that.

to say that the T4G was dominated by white males would be the understatement of the year. and they actually refunded my money for the associated ‘band of bloggers’ meeting for which i’d registered and asked me not to come! 🙂 so much for agreeing to disagree…

good luck with your studies. were i 25 years younger i’d like to be in your shoes – it would probably have kept me from becoming the voice-crying-in-the-wilderness heretic my momma never wanted me to be…

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

These conservatives are not as interested in their roots in the heritage of the Reformation, as they are in the actual doctrine of the Reformation. In other words, they are distinctly different than Barthian, PCUSA, and other flavors of Reformed. Your reference point for all of this is to compare the “conservatives” with the truly “Reformed.” You brush off the Reformed as only different in the source of how they seek to deepen the church. In the eyes of conservatives, whether or not the source is Scripture makes all the difference in the world.

You said:
“But Piper and friends see theological kinship even with others who disagree with them about Baptism and other polity issues…one of the main things that unites this disparate group is the Conservative part of their theology. The “Reformed” part varies greatly.”

The kinship of Piper with many non-Baptists (around conservative theology) is understandable to me. What has sometimes mystified me is his kinship with C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace, which is neither Reformed nor Baptist in its polity, some would say apostolic/authoritarian in its approach to leadership and governance. I wonder if anybody else has noticed this…

Well-written post, but I’m not at all sure I got the main point of it…?

Is it, that there are other theological movements afoot apart from the Calvinistic resurgence? Or, that not everyone agrees with it?

Was any of that in dispute somewhere?

Gordan,
Thanks for reading it and if you got the points you mention, I’m glad.

Perhaps my post is a response to posts like your colleague Mole’s:
Surprised at the Reformed Resurgence?
http://reformedmafia.blogspot.com/2008/05/surprised-at-reformed-resurgence.html

He writes,

If you do not know by now, the doctrines of grace (a.k.a Calvinism), is on a resurgence among young evangelicals. Many may be surprised that the theology that many great men of faith professed, the greatest reformers, puritans, and evangelists, and the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention professed, is having an appeal to young minds everywhere. Are you surprised? Well you shouldn’t be. I have met many young Calvinists and the stories are the same. They knew something was missing. They knew what they had was not enough. They looked around in churches, and in their culture, and neither was giving them the answers they were seeking. So they turned to the scriptures . . . The resurgence is coming. Calvinism is making a comeback. Calvinism is having its struggles right now, especially in the SBC, but in ten to twenty years, the SBC will be predominately reformed. Just wait. The resurgence is coming!!

A warm mafia / galactical greeting to you.

grace and peace,

andy

Okay, call me Dense, but I’m not sure how you “responded” to a post like that of my man, the Mole. He was only saying there is such a thing as a Calvinistic Resurgence in the SBC, and then he in fact got argued with a little bit by other Calvinists who don’t yet think it’s really that big a deal.

But anyway, it is clear you did your homework in this article and I have no bone to pick with you.

Out of curiosity, though, since my roots were in the PCUSA, you mention at least a potential for Barth’s theology to sweep away liberalism. Is there any real-life example of this, as a liberal denomination halted in its tracks and got all Barthian? My own experience is that most of those who are happy to call themselves after Barth are also quite happy to go along with the liberal party-line, wherever that happens to be going. Am I wrong about this? I am hoping I am.

Blessings,
Gordan

Gordan,
You are right that the PCUSA and United Methodists and other mainline denominations continue to struggle but in my experience those who are trying to renew those denomionations are fueled by Barth!

Most of the professors at Duke Divinity School (Richard Hays, Stanley Hauerwas, Allen Verhey, Curtis Freeman . . . I could name the whole faculty basically), Princeton Theological Seminary (Darrell Guder of missional church fame and many many more) and Yale (George Lindbeck, Hans Frei, Brevard Childs, etc.) who want to see orthodox, biblical theology, give credit their awakening to reading Karl Barth. They believe Barth was saying “no” to the liberalism of his day and they turn to him for strength in doing the same in the mainline circles they find themselves in. Barth spends much of his systematic theology exegeting specific biblical texts. His Romans commentary was radical at the beginning of his career for suggesting that God cannot be tamed or watered down. Now all of this is a bit confusing and commonplace for evangelicals and fundamentalists who are very familiar with churches that take the Bible as authoritative. They ask questions like, “Does Barth believe in the inerrancy of Scripture?” and things like that. Barth, because he was not in the United States does not address the issue like that. Rather, he demonstrates his high view of Scripture by trying to root every line of his theology in Scripture. Now, evangelicals may have some disagreements with him – some wonder whether he was a universalist and as I mentioned before he does not use the uniquely American “inerrancy” word – but the name he is never called in mainline circles is “liberal.” There are a few evangelicals who have also found great strength in reading Barth because they grew up in anti-intellectual fundamentalists environments. They were relieved and heartened for find substantial academic engagement that supports a high view of Scripture and the orthodox understanding of God.

At Duke Divinity School, Curtis Freeman, a theology professor, gave a lunch-time lecture this spring for students that it is a basic Barth introduction.

It is available at:
http://dukesocraticclub.blogspot.com/2008/04/socratic-audio-files.html

Quote from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth) on Barth which supports what I said above:

Barth was originally trained in German Protestant Liberalism under such teachers as Wilhelm Herrmann, but reacted against this theology at the time of the First World War . . .
The most important catalyst was, however, his reaction to the support most of his liberal teachers had for German war aims. The 1914 “Manifesto of the Ninety-Three German Intellectuals to the Civilized World”[2] carried the signature of his former teacher Adolf von Harnack. Barth believed that his teachers had been misled by a theology which tied God too closely to the finest, deepest expressions and experiences of cultured human beings, into claiming divine support for a war which they believed was waged in support of that culture, the initial experience of which appeared to increase people’s love of and commitment to that culture. Much of Barth’s thinking is also a direct response to the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel and the theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher.

Eugene Peterson on Karl Barth’s The Epistle to the Romans (1933).

from Eugene Peterson, Take and Read: Spirtual Reading: An Annotated List (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 3

Barth wrote this commentary while pastor of a small congregation in the Swiss village of Safenwil. I read it when I was pastor of a small congregation in Maryland. I was trying to learn how to be a pastor in a territory bordered on one side by a believing (or semi-believing) congregation, on the other side by an indifferent (and occasionally scornful) world, and on the third side by the biblical text that I had promised to faithfully preach and teach. I was most at ease with the biblical text. When I had it to myself, it was almost simple. But when I realized that as a pastor I would never again have it all to myself, that I was not exposed on the two other fronts of church and world, I knew that I was in over my head and needed help. The textual front required intelligence and attention, but I was used to that and enjoyed it. The congregational front was a surprise. These people were my friends and allies, but they were constantly interpreting my interpretations through filters of self-interest. I found that the Scriptures that I was preaching and teaching were being rewritten, unconsciously but constantly, in the minds of my parishioners to give sanction to behaviors and values that, more often than not it seemed to me, were in the service of the American way (in which indulgent consumerism was conspicuous) rather than the way of the cross (where sacrificial love was prominent). The large Sinai and fresh Galilee proclamations that I made on Sundays were coming back to me on weekdays in the reporting that people unconsciously provide in their confidences and small talk as stale bromides and puny moralisms. I had, it seemed, a vigorous cottage industry in miniaturization thriving in my congregation. Meanwhile, on the third front, the indifference of the world to what I had grandly called the Kingdom of God put into question the validity of the whole enterprise. If I could be ignored so blithely and totally, could I be doing anything of significance? Barth helped me on every front in his commentary on Romans. He dove into the text, into these living waters, with abandon. He is such an exuberant exegete! It hardly mattered, I sometimes felt, whether he was right or wrong on a specific point; he was so patiently passionate with the text that it was at least safe from pedantry, a terrible fate. One the second front, the congregational, I found him page after page disentangling gospel spirituality from cultural religion, commending the former and rejecting the latter. All the subtle seductions to ‘another gospel’ that I was noticing around me Barth had also but more discerningly noticed. How much well-meaning religious nonsense he saved me from! As for the world, Barth was immensely knowledgeable but quitely unintimidated. He knew politics and labor and prisons; but he believed in prayer and Scripture and the cross of Christ. Every rereading of Barth’s Romans makes me less timid on the world front. Nobody in this century has done this better for me than Karl Barth.

Andy, thanks for this. I read his commentary on Romans a few years back, and have to admit that it sounds like we read different works! But I am glad to hear that God used it to increase your own passion for exegetical preaching. It’s hard for me to be too critical of a tree that bears that fruit.

(Although, I admit I came away from the Romans book thinking Barth had given away the farm, on the issues of the inspiration of Scripture, etc.)

Andy – As someone who’d probably get thrown in the young reformed crowd by most outside observers, there’s one other point that I think is important to make.

Within the young reformed crowd, there’s a general consensus on the doctrines of grace and women in church leadership, as you said. Beyond that, there’s a TON of diversity. There’s disagreement on church polity as you mentioned, but I think there’s two areas of disagreement more significant than polity: 1) Covenant theology – some are quite strongly covenantal, others are dispensational, others are somewhere in between. This plays a huge role in our understanding of the breadth of the gospel and our eschatology. It also affects our ideas about the church’s relationship to politics, social justice, etc. 2) Christ and culture. More disagreement. Some, like Keller, tend to have a very sympathetic, Christ-transforming-culture outlook. Others, like Mohler, tend to be either a very adversarial Christ-transforming-culture or an outright Christ-against-culture. This disagreement also manifests itself in issues of contextualization (IE Macarthur’s take on the issue vs.
Driscoll’s or Keller’s).

Anyway, all that to say, we’re actually a pretty diverse crowd and I think that’s going to become more apparent in the future as the T4G crowd and the Acts 29 crowd move in very different directions, with other groups like Desiring God and the PCA generally falling somewhere between those two groups. (IE, you’ll see Duncan and Sproul at T4G and Keller at Acts 29)

Good summary though :).

Interesting article…as someone who has lived on several sides of the Reformed world here’s my two cents…

What you term to be “conservative reformed” I would regard to be primarily centered on inerrancy, penal substitution, male/female roles & Calvinism (i.e. tulip).

Having grown up in the Reformed Church in America, a mainline “Reformed” denomination I would push back on the idea of their full orbed Reformed nature. My experience in the RCA and with PCUSA churches has been a significant emphasis on their Reformed polity. At times to the total neglect or outright abandonment of a Reformed understanding of soteriology. For them being reformed is about a presbyterian ecclesiology and paedo-baptism. Divine sovereignty/predestination in many of these churches is a secondary and debatable matter.

Terry above questioned the association of Piper with Sovereign Grace Ministries and C.J. Mahaney. First, the label authoritarian is highly pejorative and inaccurate. Second, the friendship makes total sense when you consider that SGM considers itself “essentially Reformed.” Which is to say Reformed in the same ways Piper, Mohler, etc would view themselves. They are exclusively Calvinistic in their view of salvation. They also share all the other common descriptors of the “conservative reformed” crowd: inerrancy, male/female role distinction and penal substitution.

As for Jake Meador’s thoughts…I actually sense an increasing association between the T4G & Acts 29 groupies. There seems to be a lot of cross-pollination going on. e.g. C.J. Maheney & J. Piper’s growing relationship with Driscol.

My view from the cheap seats…

I’d also submit that the “Conservative Reformed” groupies look to theological direction/depth in the areas of biblical studies & contemporary scholarship as well.

See the following: Richard Baucham, Thomas Schreiner, D.A. Carson, Michael Horton (whom you mention), Andreas Köstenberger, David F. Wells, Paul Helm, Vern S. Poythress, Carl R. Trueman, etc.

Matthew – That’s definitely a trend to some degree, there are some guys that are awesome at fitting in a variety of different conversations and groups. They’re a great blessing to the church. Mahaney and Piper are two perfect example of this sort of thing.

At the same time though, I think we’ll see the issues of contextualization and Christ & culture becoming more and more prominent in the conversations between different reformed guys and we’ll see areas of significant disagreement. Two areas where I think you see this are in how different guys define “the gospel” – Compare the definitions offered by Redeemer Presbyterian (Dr. Keller’s church) on their website with that offered by Mark Dever at T4G this year. Second, compare Mark Driscoll’s sermon on missional ministry from 1 Corinthians with Dr. MacArthur’s talk on contextualization at this year’s shepherd’s conference.

I think the takeaway from this is that we understand two things: First, it’s possible to have the same theology but very different world-views. I was just recently talking to a friend about a political issue and despite our shared theology, we saw the issue in totally different ways. We have the same theology but apply it in radically different ways.

Second, theology doesn’t cancel out personality. Some guys tend toward the bulldog for Jesus mentality, which makes them naturally suspicious of guys with different methodology – even if they share the same theology. Others tend to be more of the kumbaya, let’s talk about what we have in common and encourage each other mentality. And those different personality types will engage issues in radically different ways.

Also – good call on the commitment to rigorous scholarship, that’s one of the things I most appreciate about the movement as a whole :).

Matthew said:
“First, the label authoritarian is highly pejorative and inaccurate. Second, the friendship makes total sense when you consider that SGM considers itself “essentially Reformed.” Which is to say Reformed in the same ways Piper, Mohler, etc would view themselves.”

If the term “authoritarian” is over the top, please ignore it. What I mean by it is that in governance SGM seems to be a top-down pyramid structure with “apostles” appointed by one another (or by C.J. Mahaney) holding final authority at the national level—and at the local church level, pastors similarly appointed and holding final decision making authority in all matters including discipline. All of this without any authority vested in the membership gathered.
I’m sure none of the above would be out of the ordinary in the charismatic/apostolic tradition out of which SGM emerged (hence my inclusion of that appellation)but is quite distinct from any Baptist or Reformed folks I know of.

In fairness, I’ve gathered all this without ever having attending a SG church, so certainly correct me if I’m wrong. I have been to Bethlehem Baptist and have encountered John Piper’s fairly unequivocal teaching on polity, particularly the distinctive role of the congregation as final authority within the local church—this diametrically opposed to SGM’s teaching and practice, as far as I can tell.

So pejoratives withdrawn, my curiosity remains and my question stands. I understand the other commonalities Matthew listed, but find this a curious anomaly…it’s not making “total” sense to me.

Just a small correction…Justin Taylor’s site is called, “Between Two Worlds” not “Beyond Two Worlds.”

Just a small correction. I appreciate hearing a critique and comment upon the socalled Reformed Resurgence. You certainly were keen to name all of the key figures in the movement. Their confidence can easily be mistaken as arrogance but having some interaction with lesser known folks who identify with this “camp”, I think much of it is good-hearted even as they intentionally draw up lines of distinction and emphasize certain doctrines…especially as they are re-defined by others, particularly juxtaposed to N.T. Wright. You ought to see the video interview of N.T. Wright at the “Said At Southern” site…from a Southern Seminary blogger.

I study at Southern Seminary in Louisville, though I have not attended a T4G conference.

Your website has quite a bit that is good and useful. Thanks for making it available.

Comments are closed.