Dear readers of Reclaimingthemission.com,

I am taking a sabbatical from this blog beginning this week and ending Sept 1 2012. It’s ironic I do this at the beginning of Lent (I didn’t plan it this way) because I really dread doing this. I love blogging. It has become a regular discipline in my week for over 5 years. I am going to miss it. I am going to hate doing this. Even this week, when I knew I was going to write this, I had two episodes happen that I wished I could have used this blog to reflect theologically on. But I have to shut er down for a while because I have a set of obligations that demand my full time focus in the next six months. I’ve got to fast and focus.

The biggest of these demands is a book that I am contracted to write for a large (and unflexable ) publishing house that is due this summer. I have to make some serious space to write it amidst my other duties of teaching at Northern Seminary, pastoral life and various speaking engagements. This next six months is going to be crazy!!

The book itself, is going to be my first popular book, a book written for a non academic audience. I’m co-writing it with Geoff Holsclaw with whom I have co-pastored for ten years (which makes this all the more complicated). It sketches out a theology and practice for the church that I’ve been working on for years. It weaves in stories from our church life together, our journies through the Emergent and Neo-Reformed church discussions, as well as the church plantings we’ve been involved with. It leads us to some conclusions about the belief and practice we must think through for nurturing fresh expressions of the gospel in our culture. I think the book will be timely. I think its focus on the missional/Ana-baptist theological discussion for actual church practice on the ground will take the whole missional discussion to another level, at least theologically (may I be so bold?). It’s due out in Jan 2013. There’ll be more news to come I’m sure.

I Will Return!

Even as I write this, I’m chomping at the bit to return. I look forward to returning to blogging September 1st with a queue of posts that basically reflect off daily leadership/ministry/theological issues that pop up in my daily life as pastor/coach to missional churches/church plants/seedlings as well as in my travels. This really does feed my soul and I’m going to miss it.

In the MeanTime

Between now and September 1st, I’ll also be doing some speaking and stuff. I love doing this as always. For instance, I’m lecturing at Eastern Mennonite University Feb 29 2012, speaking at the Ecclesia National Gathering in Washington DC March 5-6, speaking at the Inhabit (Parish Collective) Conference April 20-21 in Seattle, speaking at the Aggelos Church Planter Training, May 7-11 in Richmond VA, and lecturing 5 times  June 12-14 2012 at Northeastern Seminary (Public Lectures) Rochester NY. The best part of these travels is interacting with people. I learn so much! If you’re around, why not join me?

You can also enjoy the archives of the blog and follow me on Facebook or Twitter where I shall remain active as ever having a good time interacting with folk over various issues that come up in life, ministry, theology and blog posts.

Blessings on the next 6 months! I look forward to being with you again on this blog September 1st!!

OK, that was a bit unprofessional (shouting in large caps like that). But I, the faculty, staff and administration of Northern Seminary are extremely excited to have Scot McKnight join us on faculty starting August 1.

Quietly, over the last few months we at Northern have been adding the pieces to form a seminary uniquely positioned to shape and form leaders for the future of Mission in N America.  This requires a kind of theological education that is:

a.)  practical yet theologically substantial enough to prepare students for the challenges of a vastly changing N. American culture, b.) flexible and deliverable so that students don’t have to leave their ministry contexts and spend three years in an incubator, c.) affordable so that students can go into mission not demanding high salaries from large churches, d.) spiritual forming so that students don’t come out of seminary knowing alot about God/Christ but little about walking within Him in His Mission. I think we are well one the way in all these areas and we have more to come in areas b.) and c.).

So now, with brother Scot coming on board, I couldn’t be more “psyched” about the faculty and culture God is shaping at Northern. Our faculty now contains as regular faculty a.) Bob Price evangelism and urban ministry, b.) Cherith Fee Nordling Theology and Biblical Studies, c.) Claude Marriotini Old Testament (currently writing a bombshell of a good book on slavery and the OT), d.) Michael Quicke  (renowned writer practicioner on preaching/leadership and worship – check this out), e.) me, David Fitch, in Culture, Theology and Ethics, f.) Ricky Freeman Pastoral Ministry and Formation, g.) Karen Walker Freeman Dean and Spiritual Formation, and now h.) Scot McKnight Biblical Studies. In addition we have key roles played by affiliate faculty members like Wayne Gordon of CCDA and Lawndale Community Church, Ruth Hayley Barton of Transforming Center, Sam Hamstra teaching Church History, Carla Waterman who leads us in the lineage of Robert Webber and more.

The things that excite me about this faculty are:

• A Theological Center that pushes an evangelical commitment into a Kingdom Gospel-Centered Trajectory.
• A Rich Diversity Among us
• An ability to lean into the issues that we must face in the decidedly new challenges of a Post Christendom Missionary cultural situation in N. America.

Here’s a seminary with a small compact but uniquely gifted faculty, with a community teaching culture that cannot be matched with a theology that can meet the challenges of Mission in N America. In addition we have a growing cadre of adjunct faculty that are committed to Northern beyond teaching a course or two. They get what we’re about. Truthfully, 5 years ago, if I would have tried to dream up a seminary where I would want to be, I couldn’t have done better than this.

To all this we invite Scot McKnight and we look forward to what God shall bring the next ten to fifteen years in training theologically engaged reflective practicioners for God’s Mission in N America.

Welcome aboard Scot!!

Dear readers of Reclaimingthemission.com,

I am taking a sabbatical from this blog beginning this week and ending Sept 1 2012. It’s ironic I do this at the beginning of Lent (I didn’t plan it this way) because I really dread doing this. I love blogging. It has become a regular discipline in my week for over 5 years. I am going to miss it. I am going to hate doing this. Even this week, when I knew I was going to write this, I had two episodes happen that I wished I could have used this blog to reflect theologically on. But I have to shut er down for a while because I have a set of obligations that demand my full time focus in the next six months. I’ve got to fast and focus.

The biggest of these demands is a book that I am contracted to write for a large (and unflexable ) publishing house that is due this summer. I have to make some serious space to write it amidst my other duties of teaching at Northern Seminary, pastoral life and various speaking engagements. This next six months is going to be crazy!!

The book itself, is going to be my first popular book, a book written for a non academic audience. I’m co-writing it with Geoff Holsclaw with whom I have co-pastored for ten years (which makes this all the more complicated). It sketches out a theology and practice for the church that I’ve been working on for years. It weaves in stories from our church life together, our journies through the Emergent and Neo-Reformed church discussions, as well as the church plantings we’ve been involved with. It leads us to some conclusions about the belief and practice we must think through for nurturing fresh expressions of the gospel in our culture. I think the book will be timely. I think its focus on the missional/Ana-baptist theological discussion for actual church practice on the ground will take the whole missional discussion to another level, at least theologically (may I be so bold?). It’s due out in Jan 2013. There’ll be more news to come I’m sure.

I Will Return!

Even as I write this, I’m chomping at the bit to return. I look forward to returning to blogging September 1st with a queue of posts that basically reflect off daily leadership/ministry/theological issues that pop up in my daily life as pastor/coach to missional churches/church plants/seedlings as well as in my travels. This really does feed my soul and I’m going to miss it.

In the MeanTime

Between now and September 1st, I’ll also be doing some speaking and stuff. I love doing this as always. For instance, I’m lecturing at Eastern Mennonite University Feb 29 2012, speaking at the Ecclesia National Gathering in Washington DC March 5-6, speaking at the Inhabit (Parish Collective) Conference April 20-21 in Seattle, speaking at the Aggelos Church Planter Training, May 7-11 in Richmond VA, and lecturing 5 times  June 12-14 2012 at Northeastern Seminary (Public Lectures) Rochester NY. The best part of these travels is interacting with people. I learn so much! If you’re around, why not join me?

You can also enjoy the archives of the blog and follow me on Facebook or Twitter where I shall remain active as ever having a good time interacting with folk over various issues that come up in life, ministry, theology and blog posts.

Blessings on the next 6 months! I look forward to being with you again on this blog September 1st!!

Recently (in private e-mails) I have been getting some heat from some Neo-Reformed friends who feel I have either not been fair or too critical of Neo-Reformed theology on this blog. On other hand, some members of the committed Neo-Reformed have engaged me (again via private e-mail)  letting me know they appreciate my insights and dialogue. They have been encouraging. All this to say, I think dialogue between Neo-Reformed folks and Neo-Anabaptist Evangelical Missional people like me would be a very good thing. And I have been convicted of not doing enough to move us in this direction.

This is why I was so glad (even freaked out a bit) when my Canadian bro Darryl Dash (otherwise know as “Triple D” by another Canadian bro because he as a recent Doctor of Ministry degree) put this list of questions before me and asked me to respond for his blog. I sense a good impulse here. Dialogue together for the Kingdom. So at the risk of losing my reputation as a grumpy Neo-Anabaptist (evangelical), I answered these questions and I post them here. Darryl will be posting them on his blog as well here! I have hopes this will lead to further discussions of this kind. Way to go Darryl!!

1. There seems to have been a resurgence of the Neo-Reformed and Anabaptists at the same time. It’s almost like they’re parallel movements. What’s behind that?

If you ask me, this has to do with the cultural turning point facing the North American church. There’s a unhinging of sorts happening in N. American culture where the larger culture is becoming unhinged from the Christian moorings of its past. One can easily see this happening in Canada, Europe and the northern United States. And so now we, here in N. America, find ourselves in a “mission field.” We are forced to ask the question, how do we engage this newly secularized, even antagonistic-to-the-gospel culture? How can we be faithful to God’s Mission in Jesus Christ? In my opinion, the rise of Neo-Reformed and Neo-Anabaptists comes from responding to this cultural shift.  They can be interpreted as two parallel movements responding to this shift.

So I would say the “Neo-Reformed” group has responded to this shift by pushing for a purifying of the gospel. We’ve lost our way. We’ve given away the proclamation of the gospel in order to be relevant. And the church has declined. We need to restate it clearly and find ways to be present in that truth in our culture. This is a revival of past protestant orthodoxy (for some this is more towards Puritan thought than the Majesterial Reformation) for sure but it is more than that. It is an attempt to bridge that orthodoxy with a new sense of mission in the N American context.

In regards to the Neo-Anabaptists, I would say this group has responded by stressing a renewal of the embodiment of the gospel in local contexts. Here, we need to pay attention to the “witness” of the gospel in the rhythms of our everyday lives. There is a push to figure out traditional Anabaptist themes for today: themes such as a.) Community together for God’s Mission, b.) Discipleship, c.) the subversive yet non-coercive ways of service, reconciliation, and peacemaking in the neighborhood. The gospel is defined here more broadly than for many Neo-Reformed– think Scot McKnight or N. T. Wright. We Anabaptists, I suggest, are more happy to accept the post-Christendom state of things. This however requires new modes of cultural engagement, listening, postures of humility. This is not the sectarian Anabaptism of times past.

So these are two different responses to the new cultural conditions in the West.

2. What can Anabaptists learn from the Neo-Reformed?

In my opinion, the strength of the Reformed movement is the seriousness with which they take the Scriptures, doctrine and belief. They push us to think about uncomfortable subjects like hell, the seriousness of sin, eternity and even the nature of the Bible’s authority. In my opinion these issues are extremely important for the new journey of faithfulness we are on. They should not be sloughed off. I might also add that the renewed focus on preaching and God’s grace is important as well. Although I don’t agree with many of my Neo-Reformed friends, I have learned a lot from them on all these things. Think Tim Keller and some things I’ve learned about preaching. Think John Piper and the nature of desire being shaped before God in worship. That’s good stuff.

3. What can the Neo-Reformed learn from Anabaptists?

Too many to mention (haha sorry ). But seriously, Neo-Anabaptism brings with it a serious critique and understanding about the ways the church aligns itself with power structures in society to therefore dilute and even neuter the gospel. We the church thereby become too easily co’opted by society instead of a transforming agent. I think the Neo-Reformed folks don’t get how much of their theology depends upon social constructs that don’t exist anymore for large parts of North America (could I have said that in an any more tactful manner?). I think Neo-Anabaptism pushes for integrity in our forms of gathering and being a people in the world for the gospel. Too much of Reformed ecclesiology is stuck in Geneva (could I have said that any less tactfully?). We need to think through a missional ecclesiology that takes seriously that the church is a witness to the Kingdom of God in Christ. The church is a sign to the world of where God is taking the rest of the world: the consummation of His Kingdom in Christ. This takes a way of being both in the world but as sent ones in the world. I could go on, but I might just write a book.

4. If you were invited to speak at a conference put on by The Gospel Coalition, what would you say to that group?

I would expand on questions 2.) and 3.) above and then have an altar call .

5. You live in Chicago, yet you seem to be a Canadian at heart. What made you so interested in Canada?

I grew up in Hamilton Ontario. I missed being born in Owen Sound, Ontario by 2 months! (when my parents moved to the states for 6 years) So that means I was conceived a Canadian! My grandfather founded the C&MA church in Ottawa and then ministered in Winnipeg. So I have a rich rich ancesteral Canadian heritage in my family. Despite the fact that I have now lived the majority of my life in the U.S., I am not always comfortable here.  The Empire mentality, the power posture of evangelicalism makes me ache. So my Canadian heritage is a gift because it gives me a unique perspective. And it also enables me to go visit all my friends in Canada on vacation every summer, hang in a Tim Horton’s and think hockey in the off season.

———

OK, that’s the interview! What do you think about the future of Neo-Reformed/Neo-Anabaptist dialogue? What would be first steps? Is this possible? What would be the hurdles? And for the sake of promoting dialogue, I will not reveal what the image in this post refers to!

I’m a pastor. Is my job to:

a.) lead everyone individually into the Christian life that I am already living? or

b.) to lead everyone into joining in life with God and His Mission wherever that might lead?

If it is a.) I am in trouble. Because I now have the pressure to have a perfect life so that having achieved that I can now give it to someone else. Here I am. Take a look at me. Here’s how to do it.

If it is b.) then I take an altogether different posture. I can reject the posture of “I am ahead of you.” Instead, I lead not as one who is “ahead” but as one who is “among.” We are in this together and, out of my gifts, I am inviting you to join in a journey together into the depths of life with God and His Mission. Let us journey together and along the way, there will be things you learn from me and there will be things I learn from you.  It is true, I have been walking along this way for a while. I am embedded in a direction. This however does not mean I will always be perfect. It does mean that I have been put on course in an unswerving direction.  I have been walking this direction and God has proven Himself again and again as Lord in and through Jesus Christ. But I cannot be everything to you and I will not be perfect in this endeavor. We must be in this together. God has found me in Christ and God has found you too in the same way. Yes? Then let us join in this journey together.

To continue on with model b.), We each have gifts. I don’t have everything. I cannot do everything. I am very limited actually. I may have been given certain gifts for leading, and teaching (let’s say). To the extent they are recognized in the community and given authority by the Holy Spirit out of my submission to Christ, I offer these gifts to my community (I think ordination recognizes, tests, and facilitates the gifts within the history of Christ). But you have been given gifts as well. I need you as much as you need me. The church body needs you as much as it needs me. We, and I emphasize “we” are the body. And God will use “us” to build up His Kingdom visibly in this place until He returns.

This model of leading (model b.)) requires character and direction. In this way I guess you could say I am leading from “ahead.” But I must grow too in my character. I must receive constructive truth-telling into my life. If I can’t do that, then I should expect no one else to either. Because I am growing too.  Because leading “among” requires modeling “growth.” It requires growing into new territory. The minute I stop growing is the minute I am disqualified for ministry. Likewise, if I take a different direction, a direction of rebellion against God, a refusal to repent when in sin, or if I fall having given myself over to sin in a way that reveals I have lost my direction in Christ, then these things as well disqualify me to lead in my respective gifting. This model of leadership requires character and direction. Part of that character is the posture of leading humbling as one “among.”

Applying this to Preaching

In a recent conversation with a pastor/leader of a missional community we were talking about the struggle of preaching regularly. Here the pastor (I use the title “pastor” as applied to those recognized to lead in N American church whatever gifting they might have) discussed how he struggled with his interior life (not to be confused with his thought life). He found himself asking “Am I measuring up?” “Am I in sync with God?” “Am I living the life I am calling other people to?” To me, this pastor was revealing the leading from “ahead” model of leadership (articulated above) so often embodied by American church. This is the temptation to preach from the posture from above the congregation, as one with all the answers. We all fall into this temptation. It forces us to be somebody we are not in the pulpit and elsewhere. The temptation is to put on a front. And you do this every week, and you’re killing yourself to try to come up with some original insight each weekend for the sermon. This, I assure everyone reading this post, is the death of leadership in Mission.

But following the leading “among” model our job is to listen to what is going on each day in the lives of people around us and in our communities and then to reflect theologically, out of Scripture so as to interpret for our gathering what God is calling us to as a people. This is the gift of preaching! We are given a text to preach within the lectionary. Study of this text is important for preaching (it goes without saying). But meeting with one, two or three people every week, listening carefully to what is happening and reflecting with them about what God is doing in their lives and in their neighborhoods, will be the source material for the sermon. It provides the material from which to reflect on via Scripture. Yes, preaching is about understanding the text well. But it is also listening to God and discerning through the text what God is calling us into as a people. This is leading from among, missional preaching, or contextual theology. It is one of the leadership tasks so essential for the birthing of communities in mission.

Many pastors would disagree with this approach. Mark Driscoll for one has said (in this video here) he’s an introvert and therefore doesn’t want to know anyone is his congregation, just let the Spirit lead and guide him to say what needs to be said in his sermon. This I contend is leading from ahead versus leading from among. This kind of preaching, I contend, will tend to draw a crowd of people who are like you and already get your language and style. This kind of preaching, I contend, tends to decontextualize. The attempts to contextualize from ‘above” always lead to efforts to be more “relevant.” Thus it’s really more marketing than embedding in a context.

So here is what I suggest. If you’re struggling in your teaching/preaching ministry to “come up with” a sermon for this week, have a cup of coffee with people in your community and listen carefully. Take someone out in your neigborhood to a bar or coffee shop and listen carefully. Read the text from Scripture before and after, do the work of study. But it’s that cup of coffee that the Holy Spirit will use to give context and energy for the sermon.  and you’ll have a sermon. Make it a weekly, monthly rhythm!

Agree? Disagree? Am I wrong about leading “from ahead” decontextualizing  preaching?

So my buddy and pal Martin Robinson from the UK put this video of me up on his web site. Martin is a missional thinker, author, leader. He’s the principle of Springdale College. He goes back to the days of the great one Leslie Newbigin himself! We were meeting up at Luther Seminary with Craig Van Gelder and Allan Roxburgh and many others. After our meetings were over, and I was heading to the car, he catches me. And then he pulls out this little camera and takes this video of me. What resulted was this interview about church planting. During the interview he (dares to) ask if the approach that I was pitching was “hard work.” My answer is on tape.  Have a look if you have 5 minutes. And then comment as to whether you think church planting is hard work and why. Thanks to Martin Robinson!! He’s the real deal!

David Fitch from Together in Mission on Vimeo.

It seems these days I’m getting “called out” for going to McDonald’s too much.  I admit, it’s part of my daily ritual. Evidently people out there are having a problem with this (smile wink). It would be nice if people were actually concerned about my physical well-being, but no, this has evidently become a problem of my moral duplicity. This is what tweeting will get you.

First it was my friend Will Clegg who dares to ask me about this privately (at least he did it privately) with the following FB message:

“David, on occasion you criticize American politics, capitalism and other facets of American life.(I have no problem with that) What I wonder about is why you go to McDonald’s on a daily basis? Isn’t McDonald’s the epitome of much of what you say is wrong with America?”

Will

Again, notice, no concern for my health, diet or physical well being (wink, wink).

Then today, while diligently minding my own business toiling away in my other office (McDonald’s cubicle 2, Rolling Meadows), my new Anabaptist revolutionary bro Brian Gumm, writes a post calling me out for my duplicitous McDonald’s misbehavior (smile wryly). He says among other things:

… one thing in particular strikes me about Fitch: He’s at McDonald’s a lot. I know this from his tweets. Just this morning he reported, “Gathering early at McD’ s w/ triad in the back to read, pray, check in and ask the questions – ahhh discipleship #fb.” What’s the deal?
I have a love/hate attitude about McDonald’s, and the fast food industry in general. To me, McDonald’s is an icon of the neo-colonial powers of late modern consumerist hypercapitalism. For instance, when I saw commercials for McD’s in Ethiopia – piped across an Arab satellite network – I cringed. (Thankfully there are no McD’s in Ethiopia…the government is very strict about foreign chains setting up shop in the country.)

That’s the hate side. The “love” side is that I’m an American who was a child in the 80s, bathed in  advertising with catchy jingles like the “menu song“. (Note how much the word “love” has been used in their advertising over the years. That matters.) We didn’t eat at McDonald’s frequently when I was a kid, but it wasn’t unusual and I was usually pretty excited to be there getting cheeseburgers and the occasional “Happy Meal.” Now with a family of my own, we’ve mostly exorcized fast food from our diet, but it’s still an option when we’re on road trips. We recently stopped at one in Pittsburg on the way home to Virginia from Iowa, wherein I grudgingly munched on a chicken sandwich from The Man. (I kind of liked it…but just a little.

But this David Fitch at McDonald’s thing?!

I’m sure he’s read all the stuff that I’ve read and more that would give one a bad attitude about the systems and clusters of practices surrounding fast food. But there he is. I imagine having this conversation with Fitch, at McDonald’s of course, with me giving all the reasons stated above. Fitch would nod and grin, barely concealing a mouth full of sausage, egg, and cheese biscuit. So why?

At the risk of sounding trite (and making too much of my habit of going to McDonalds), I think resisting the powers of injustice is mostly about doing the small things. We have to sit, be present, and cooperate with what is just, resist what is not, and of course bring the peace and reconciliation of God in Christ to everything in these places we inhabit. At the risk of making my McDonald’s habit more holy than it is (I admit I first started going to this McDonald’s because of it’s PlayLand. I took my 3 year-old and I was able to get some work done too. In other words, my McD’s habit might reflect poorly on my parenting as well as my eating habits if I were to be totally honest ), I think we must beware of concentrating too much on every way every system corrupts and/or undermines God’s justice and salvation in the world. Let’s pay attention for sure. Avoid what we can. But let’s not end up refusing to participate entirely in the systems (I’m thinking about voting this election!). We might find ourselves in paralysis by analysis. We might not even be able to walk out the door in the morning. We have to start somewhere and for me that somewhere is local. With my neighbor. Hanging where he or she hangs. Watching, praying, being with, all the while staying in integrity and doing what I’m called to be doing.  For me, in Rolling Meadows/Arlington Heights Illinois, that’s my local McDonald’s.

Will,
McD’s is where my peeps go … it is the intersection of Rolling Meadows/middle class Arlington Heights(to be distinguished from upper class Arlington heights) where I live. I admit it’s a bit of a compromise … but I follow Aquinas’s dictum “to my neighbors first.” Justice starts in my relationships communally in the neighborhood … here at McD’s is excellent place to have those relationships …
Now I admit, supporting McD’s and some of its overtly capitalist excesses might seem a problem. But the peeps here might indeed be undermining it. They can’t be making money on us. We mostly drink the coffee, and alot of these peeps take advantage of the “senior” discount. McD’s at times is forced to see injustice issues in the store (at times) … say treatment of immigrants etc…
If I had alternatives in the hood, that were not McD’s, I’d probably prefer it … but as is…given the ubiquity of McD’s everywhere … I just don’t see the advantage of singularly avoiding it when so many people go there … My strategy is to go and subvert … participate as much as possible .. ceasing to participate when it is sin (i.e. eating a Big Mac) … Perhaps this alone will bring McD’s to become a more just place?
… til then … til maybe we all meet at each others’ homes (which the McD’s peeps do sometimes) … I’ll continue to infest these places for Kingdom!!
Blessings .. good to hear from you!!

As a follow-up to the post last week on Mark Driscoll’s escapade with Justin Brierley on his British radio program, Unbelievable, I’d like to respond to two substantive objections voiced in the comments (typified by Scot McKnight’s comments in the post). The objections were: 1.) It’s time to stop calling the Neo-Reformed people Reformed. Call them Puritan because they are not Reformed (Kuyperian) in the purest sense. 2.) Mark Driscoll is an outlier in the Neo-Reformed movement (er Neo-Puritan) that, in his excesses regarding sexuality and crude language and behavior,  does not represent the Neo-Reformed/Puritan movement.

1.) Are The New-Reformed Reformed?

I don’t know if I agree with Scot on this one. The fact is that the group as a whole has dubbed themselves as “Reformed.” By and large, they have not been challenged by their purist brothers and sisters in Grand Rapids or elsewhere. Why then should I not continue to use this nomenclature? Collin Hansen perhaps began the nomenclature when he wrote about the movement for Christianity Today (see here) and then wrote a book with the same title as the CT article, The Young, Restless and Reformed. Then Time magazine did a cover story basically lopping them into one group named the “New Calvinism” (see here). Since then the great majority of their organizations including the Gospel Coalition, various bloggers (for instance Tim Challies has “Reformed” in his blog title), and speakers accept the moniker. I recognize there is a difference between the Neo-Reformed and the purist Reformed, but isn’t who gets to garner the name an in-house squabble? Isn’t it up to the purist Kuyperians to defend their turf? If the more purist Calvinists (or less narrow culturally) do not want to be associated with this movement, isn’t it up to them to challenge them instead of ignoring them? Until there is some clarity, then, most people know what I am referring to when I say “Neo-Reformed” and it’s a term I have to use. Right?

Secondly, is not the alternative name Neo-Puritan confusing? Is not Puritan family a member within the Reformed family? In fact it is at times hard to distinguish the Puritans from the Reformed because they do overlap (the emphasis on the depravity of humanity for instance). Tim Keller seems to be of the Reformed camp and Don Carson of Puritan camp and yet they speak together here for the Gospel Coalition (one of the main forum sites for the Neo-Reformed bloggers/pastors etc.). Again, isn’t it picayune to differentiate? And if it isn’t, and it is important, isn’t this a job best left to those inside the camp? Please, work this out (Kuyperians from Grand Rapids and the Neo-Reformed), come to an agreement so I don’t have to worry about his any more . What say u?

Third, despite the differences between Reformed and Puritan camps, I would like to propose a linkage that I think is undeniable and also illuminating. As I and others have argued, there is a linkage between European Reformed theology shaped under the Majesterial Reformation in Europe and what now appears as this kind of Puritan Evangelicalism in N America?

As I see it, when Reformed theology was uprooted from its cultural moorings in the Majesterial Reformation and transported to N. America, it lost what it was “reforming.” It’s reason to be – reforming Catholic Europe- was gone. It had to find an integrity in itself. Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Sola Christus had to stand alone. Sola Scripture no longer stood as a reforming princple reforming the corrupt traditions of Catholic church structure. It had to stand on its own as an adequate understanding of Scripture’s authority and principle of interpretation unto itself.  Sola Fide no longer stood as a reforming principle against the corrupt sacramental systems that fostered abuse and a works righteousness in Roman Catholic Europe. It had to stand on its own as an adequate understanding of God’s saving operations in the world. And Sola Christus could no longer stand on its own as a reforming principle against a monolithic church structure that made all salvation take place through her structures. It had to stand on its own as an adequate understanding of the church. The developments here, so I suggest, eventually led to an individualization of Christian faith, one that is inherently aligned with modernity and certain democratic capitalist culture systems. (Read C. C. Pecknold’s brilliant and concise narrative of how this all took place in ch.5-8 of Christianity and Politics).  It looks a lot like the Neo-Reformed Neo Puritan evangelicalism of my brothers and sisters in the Neo-Reformed camps. I don’t know if I want to give this linkage up. It’s a main part of the questions I have concerning whether Neo- Reformed theology can lead a Missional engagement of the church into N America. I hate to obscure that linkage.

For all the reasons above then, I think one has to stick with “Neo-Reformed” until my friends in the movement itself and at Calvin/other Reformed institutions give me the signal to change (by hashing this out at a conference or something?). I’m waiting.

Is Mark Driscoll an Outlier?

Several people argued in the comments that Mark Driscoll is an outlier in the Neo-reformed movement. His behavior, brashness, excessive antagonistic outbursts should not be seen as characteristic of the Neo-Reformed group as a whole. In Scot’s words, Driscoll’s “brash and crude edges clash dramatically with the sanity, care, caution and focus of the Puritans.”

I agree with Scot on this one. I do not think Driscoll’s personality issues should be attributed to all of the good ministers/thinkers within the Neo-Reformed movement. But I wasn’t saying that. I was suggesting that Driscoll’s outburst may reveal a weakness in the theology itself and the practice of it. The defensive outburst may (or may not) be a clue to understanding this weakness. In the post I tried to show a disconnect between Driscoll’s theology (which I argue is canon Neo-Reformed thinking) and the post-Christendom context he found himself in (in Britian). He did not understand the context and therefore got defensive. But is this not emblematic of a larger reality? Again, take his personality out of it. Look at my analysis of what got Driscoll upset? Then ask, whether Driscoll’s explosion is not a symptom of something larger. Is there a reason why his defensive insulated yet bold posture seems to wear well in the Neo-Reformed world?

This is what I meant when I asked in the post, “is Mark Driscoll just an outlier for the Neo-Reformed movement or is he the truth that lies at its core?” Is he an eruption on the skin (thin skin) of the Neo-Reformed movement. I suggested that this episode at least warranted the Neo-Reformed taking a closer look at this episode, at the disconnect between the Neo-Reformed theology and practice and the post-Christendom context. This is where a conversation with the more purist cultural Reformeds from Grand Rapids might be able to help. I closed by saying, how Neo-Reformed leaders/bloggers respond to Driscoll, like Tim Challies,  Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, Tim Keller, Collin Hansen,  James McDonald, will reveal more about the reality of this possible disconnect with post-Christendom. It will tell us whether they totally agree with Driscoll and therefore also don’t understand what just happened? Or whether they see that Brierley has some things to say and perhaps they will interact better than Driscoll in a way which is promising for future theology. In other words, how they react will indicate whether their theology can engage the post-Christendom context from where Brierely’s questions came from.

In summary, I sincerely hope the Driscoll flare-up, my post and all the other hundred or so posts on the Driscoll flare-up lead the Neo-Reformed movement to these kind of discussions for the furtherance of Christ and His Kingdom in the world.

In the meantime, what do you think? Should we have to change what we call the Neo-Reformed? or should we let them figure that out?

You can stop reading this post if you think I am going to review Mark and Grace Driscoll’s book Real Marriage. I have a much more boring post in mind.

Driscoll’s Real Marriage book is to the NeoReformed what Rob Bell’s Love Wins was to the Emerging church last year. They both stir up humongous sales with a media frenzy and in the process reveal the “cracking” (to use Scot McKnight’s word) taking place within the mainline N. American protestant evangelical church. As with Bell’s book, so also with Driscoll’s book, each brouhaha (to use Bill Kinnon’s word) reveals something of the theological pulse driving their respective movements.

This time the Driscoll fiasco revolves an interview done by the Driscoll’s about their book with Justin Brierley on the British radio program Unbelievable (here’s the podcast of the entire hour-long interview with Mark Driscoll). There was a “dust-up” on the interview. Driscoll was offended. He then calls it “the most disrespectful, adversarial, and subjective” interview he’s ever had. And now it’s all over the internet driving up sales of his (and his wife’s) new book.

My take (and the angle I want to pursue) on the interview is that Driscoll’s “act” simply doesn’t translate well into the very post-Christendom context of Britian.  In fact the whole encounter reveals the Christendon assumptions that drive his theology. There are three missional “bugaboos” that he clashes with Brierley on. Each bugaboo represents a theological position we Missionals fear/resist because of the way these things work against mission.  In this interview, these bugaboos  are a.) Driscoll’s singular obsession with penal substitutionary atonement, b.) his commitment to hierarchical male authority in the church, and c.) his blind belief in the importance of preaching/successful preacher to the church’s identity. These bugaboos represent the Christendom assumptions behind Driscoll’s theology and way he operates. Yet I think we can make a case for interpreting Driscoll as  a symptom of the wider Neo-Reformed theological movement. So I think this episode reveals more than just Driscoll’s Christendom theology and mode of operation. I think it speaks to why the current Neo-Reformed revival and its theology will have a hard time leading missional–incarnational-externally driven church. So I put this theological psychoanalysis to the test before all my neo-Reformed friends. Let’s converse. Here goes!

(FYI: I’m riffing off of the account of the interview here and here, Driscoll’s response to the interview here, and Justin’s response to Driscoll as reported here).

1.) The Focus on the Substitionary Atonement. Towards the end of the interview, Driscoll asks Brierley if he believes in the penal substitutionary atonement. When Brierley affirms it as one of many ways to view the cross, Driscoll suggests he’s being cowardly about it.  Driscoll then insists on singular commitment to penal substitutionary atonement is essential to the success of the gospel.

To me this speaks to the singular focus on the penal subtitutionary atonement that is central in many parts of the Neo-Reformed matrix regardless of contextual considerations. Am I right? Driscoll is blind to contextual considerations concerning salvation. In other words, the atonement is many faceted (read McKnights Community of Atonement for example). One size does not fit all. It could be argued that penal substititionary atonement makes the most sense in Christendom, amidst a culture shaped under Medieval Catholicism, it’s theology and penitential system (Driscoll grew up Catholic). Moral guilt, you could say, was (and is) the singular Christendom condition into which Reformed theology was born. It is not however as universal in the West as it once was. If we insist on being locked into this one view of the atonement, we will in essence be narrowing our context for mission.

The atonement is wider, bigger and more multitudinous than substitionary theory. And the hurts and pains of the world we are engaging cannot be put fit into this one theory. I believe in the substitionary theory of the atonement. But it is limited. The work that God is doing in the world includes reconciliation, healing, restoration, justice, and the victory and authority of Christ over Satan, evil, sin and death. It is in short God at work through Christ making all things right.  A narrow focus on substitionary atonement disables the church from engaging the world outside Western Christendom culture. It discounts the manifold ways God in Christ has come to set the whole world right. Mark Driscoll can’t understand this. And so when he enters a post-Christendom context he gets frustrated.

Does not Drsicoll’s frustration then reveal the atonement myopia at the heart of the Neo-Reformed movement. Does it not reveal the weakness inherent in Neo-Reformed theology for those of us minsistering in post Christendom contexts (like Brierley’s Britian)? Does not his whole fiasco reveal how the singular focus on subtititionary atonement hinders missional engagement? Yes? no?

2.) The View that Authority is Hierarchical. Towards the end of the interview the issue of women pastors came up. It caused a bit of a flare-up in Driscoll’s intensity. Driscoll ends up suggesting that the reason why more people did not show up at Brierley’s church was because of a woman in leadership. To me, this has been a subtle persistent theme within Neo-Reformed ecclesiology: that men should be over women in authority in the church. Now it explodes on a radio interview in the UK. This I suggest is a Neo-Reformed habit learned and sustained in Christendom.

Authority in Christendom is viewed in hierarchical terms. Hierarchical patterns of leadership exist readily in established church systems where you have Christianized people who are already conditioned to respect clergy authority, where things can get done, goods and services distributed, decisions made, disputes arbitrated more efficiently among Christians who already submit. It is because of these ingrained habits of hierarchy that most Neo-Reformed views of church authority have struggles with women in authority over men (OK this is at least one of the reasons). Take hierarchy out of the authority question and it becomes much harder to interpret Scripture in a way that excludes women from leadership in the church.

In the post-Christendom world, authority is flattened in the church and pushed outward (Read this post for more info). Positional authority of anyone over someone else is not the way things work in the Kingdom (read Mark 10:42). Instead we work alongside each other out of our giftedness in the communities appreciating one another gifts and mutually submitting one to another in each one’s gifts (read Eph 4, Rom 12:3-8). The authority lies in one’s recognized gift. The idea that women are over men is as unthinkable as the idea that men are over women.

Flattened authority structures push leadership out amidst the organic work of ministry in context. Hierarchy pushes church ministry inward and upward for approval. Hierarchical authority inhibits dispersed missional engagement. Its structures will miss with people who submit to authority only as encountered via authentic relational engagement. Driscoll seems blind to these issues. He’s absolutely frustrated with Brierley’s inability to be impressed with the importance of top down male leadership. My question is: are these assumptions part of the larger Neo-Reformed movement as a whole and does this mean that the Neo-Reformed will always be inhibited somewhat from true missional engagement? (Can I say “just asking?”). It will always be a movement prone to attracting Christianized people who are already habituated to submit to a pre-established hierarchical (male) authority.

3.) The assumption that “success” is best measured by the number of people who show up to hear a male preacher preach. When Mark Driscoll finds out that Justin Brierley’s wife is a pastor and is questioned on the validity of a wife whose husband supports his wife’s leadership, Mark asks about the size and growth of his wife’s church.  He says among other things “You look at your results and you look at my results and look at the variable that is the most obvious.” In other words I have thousands in my church, and you have a few hundred. That proves female leadership is inferior.

To me this is more than blind Driscollian machismo. This reveals something deeper in the Neo-Reformed ethos. There is a tendency in the Neo-Reformed movement to put a large emphasis on the gathering to hear preaching. I believe in preaching! But I see its function differently in the mission of the church. For the Neo-Reformed – correct me if I am wrong – there is a confidence that non-Christian people will still come to church to hear a good sermon. There is therefore a default tendency in Neo-Reformed churches to see success in terms of the numbers of people gathering on Sunday to hear a male preacher preach. This is a missional bugaboo. Success in mission will not always look like big numbers listening to a preacher (has Driscoll ever heard of Fresh Expressions in UK?). I see preaching as formational for a missional people, not a place where mission actually takes place (although I am uncomfortable with making that split). As a result, though often unintentional, the Neo-Reformed movement often devolves into a male led preacher attracting already existing Christians to come hear a good sermon. It thereby mistrains the congregation to think this is what church and mission is all about. That’s perhaps an over-characterization. But is there any truth to it?

Again, I think Driscoll’s question about the size of his wife’s congregation is more than a slip of the Driscollian machismo, I think it reveals something at the heart of the Neo-Reformed movement that will hinder it in the formation of congregations for mission. What say you?

In Conclusion

I see in the Mark Driscoll dust-up with Justin Brierley a revealing of some of the Christendom habits deep within the Neo-Reformed movement although often covered over by the many good things they do. The fact that Mark Driscoll’s flare-up happens in the UK – a very post Christendom place – only reinforces my case.

Some have said in response, that Mark Driscoll’s church is in Seattle, the most post-Christendom city in the US. But here, in this post, he says boldly admits going to Canada or the UK is much harder to do ministry than even in Seattle. He states “You are in a cultural context that is more non-Christian, and even anti-Christian, than even the most liberal cities in the United States. I’ve taught across Scotland, Ireland, and England. Each one is more difficult to reach than my hometown of Seattle, which is one of the historically least-churched and most secular-minded cities in America. I’ve said for years that Britain and Canada are more secular and difficult than the United States.” He basically admits that he himself with his particular approach to ministry would have difficulty succeeding in his own approach to ministry. Does this then not reveal what I am saying here? Driscoll is largely dependent upon the harvesting of already Christianized populations in Seattle area (what’s left of them)? Is this then why he then goes with video churches to go capture other such populations elsewhere? Does this then reveal some things that my Neo-Reformed brothers have to examine about their own theological modus operandi? I genuinely ask these questions for the furtherance of God’s Mission in our times.

It may seem unfair to stigmatize the entire Neo-Reformed movement with the likes of a Mark Driscoll temper flare-up. But I’ve learned that these kind of escapades are the best places to look at the cultural forces at work in theology and poitics. For myself, Mark Driscoll is an irruption of sorts on the skin of the Neo-Reformed movement.  His flare-up, if closely examined, can reveal some of the theology at work and the forces behind these theological allegiances. How other leaders in the movement respond to him, like Tim Challies,  Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, Tim Keller, Collin Hansen,  James McDonald, will reveal perhaps even more. Is Mark Driscoll just an outlier for the Neo-Reformed movement or is he the truth that lies at its core?

For all those who ask what place non-violent demonstration has in our society (i.e. Occupy Wall Street etc.) and our participation in it as Christ’s church, here is a helpful reflection from MLK on the day named after his honor. Here, in this broadcast of Meet The Press, Dr. Martin Luther King responds to the statement by Harry Truman “the march of Selma was silly.” I think all missional communinities have to ask the question, how is God working (or not working) in the demonstrations we see in the world today, and how do we bring the authority of the Kingdom of Christ into these places when these demonstrations come into our midst. The rest of the piece (on just and unjust law for instance) is food for much discussion as well. Enjoy!