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!
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Good stuff here, David…as an Anabaptist working on an MA at a school that has a lot of Reformed background sitting in the middle of Anabaptist central (SE Pennsylvania)…I can agree compltetle with points 2 and 3…I find myself in that tension point of enjoying some of the gospel purity of the neo-reformed but seeking to live contextually as an Anabaptist…and honestly, I think that many of the traditional Anabaptists today (Mennonites) have gone too far in contextual relevance and need that pullback by the reformedd (although they resist vehemently). I find it disturbing that Mennonites have even gone to the point of engaguing in the power structures and losing site of their heritage of living against the grain rather than trying to make the world over in their own model.
Thanks for sharing!
The image looks like something out of the Martyr’s Mirror. I think the rounds between the neo-reformed and neo-anabaptists will mostly play out the way they have before except for the continued dwindling of the influence of Christendom and minus the persecution (hopefully). Anabaptism, historically, has a tendency to become too separatist to the point of irrelevancy and comfortable with a works righteousness piety. However, when it goes through renewals I think in many ways it out reforms the Reformed. The Reformed can be lauded for the seriousness they take scripture, its authority and the otherness of God, but for some reason that never translates into the otherness of the Church like it does for Anabaptists. The Reformed continue to hold onto a Christendom mentality in their engagement with society while Anabaptists become separatist from society. Anabaptists can use the Reformed to keep them in a renewal spirit by being challenged by the strengths of the Reformed tradition while letting that translate into healthy separatist engagement with the world rather than becoming closed off.
Thank you for this, David. I do believe these camps are two important dialogue partners at present.
One question that I believe is ripe for conversation between these two camps is around Newbigin’s articulation of the “Church as hermeneutic of the Gospel.” The question for me is “where” is this community of witness in our modern setting?
For neo-Reformed the Puritan notion of vocation and calling has remained strong and the “where” of witness is in our secular callings in the world.
For neo-Anabaptists the “where” is in the embodied local community church in “the neighborhood.”
George Vandervelde wrote an excellent article articulating the strengths and importance of Newbign’s articulation of the “congregation as the hermeneutic of the Gospel.” But, he has a critique as well. His critique is that Newbigin did not go far enough in articulating the “where” of the congregation’s witness… “especially in the modern urban setting.”
Here is the info. on the article.
“The Church as Missionary Community: The Church as Central Disclosure Point of the Kingdom,” Trinity Journal for Theology and Ministry 4 (Fall 2010).
I won’t disagree with your general assessment of what we could each learn from the other, but how come your side gets the additional monkier “Evangelical Missional”? Play fair…there are lots of evangelical-missional people whose roots are reformed and who continue to work within that context. Lots of them pay attention to culture and community and embodiment, and are not dogmatic about “pushing for a purification of the gospel” (however you might define gospel).
I know it’s a short interview, and there’s a lot more to say on this topic, but let’s keep the name-calling fair.
Colleen, would it make a difference if I considered calling someone an ”evangelical” an insult? i.e. it’s a burden I must bear.
Really appreciate you doing this, David. And I continue to learn a ton from you.
Some great, clarifying Q&A’s here!
Just saying I’m a 2nd gen Chinese Canadian Worship Pastor who went to Southern in Louisville and transferred to Tyndale Sem in Toronto With a joint degree from Bob Webber’s Institute for worship studies… and I LOVE these thoughts!
both neo
‘s I resonate with! thinking through the mission of God through the lenses of scripture, theology and culture are quite important to me.
I feel I am learning from both and hope it’s not an “either/or” situation like the old timely conservative/liberal debates.
Hope this blog conversation gets deep and challenging on both sides
David,
Great stuff. You have done a good job of being fair to the neo-Reformed group. What you propose here, Jim Belcher similarly proposes in his book “Deep Church” where he attempts to reconcile the disparity between the Reformed and the emerging church. At times he does this successfully while other times he doesn’t. Perhaps there is a call for yet another movement (as if we need another one) that consolidates the strict dogmatic teaching of the Reformed tradition with the community, missional-mindedness of the Anabaptist tradition. Reformed Anabaptist. Kinda has a nice ring to it. Although, for people like me, anything with the word “Reformed” attached to it sets off red flags and might in fact scare people off.
Peace,
greg
Greg,
although I like Belcher’s book, it seems to me to be a closet version of Reformed categories. It wants to mediate without changing the modern structures which (in my view) plague both the Neo-Reformed and Emergent ecclesiologies. This is where Neo-Anabaptism must speak and make its contribution.
it seems to me that the “neo-anabaptist,” of course, aren’t your father’s anabaptsist, as you’ve mentioned. I’ve always been fond of the enduring relationship between the Society of Friends/Quakers and the Aanabaptists, and maybe the neo-Anabaptists point to the cross-fertilization of the two beyond their bonds as “peace churches”. Your answer to #1, and description of what neo-Anabaptist is, seems to engage is calssically Quaker ways – cultural engagement, listening, posture for humility. What do you think…?
One thing that might help in dialogue is to refrain from calling someone a name that they reject themselves. In a previous post you (David) made some pretty broad generalizations about Reformed pastors and churches that doesn’t exactly strike an irenic tone (Like calling us Neo Funamentalists.) In the same vein, it would be unfair in my mind to call Scot MacKnight “liberal” just because I don’t agree with him on a number of issues.
I think dealing with individual issues is fair game. You are an egalitarian, and if that is your conviction express and defend it, but that doesn’t mean that all complementarians are Neanderthals.
I suppose if you really want dialogue and not slogans and drive by insults, it is best to focus primarily on appologetics, and perhaps less on polemics. All of us should do the same.
Buck,
). For miore info read this … http://churchandpomo.typepad.com/conversation/2007/08/postmodern-word.html
Just to be clear.
I am not an “egalitarian.” The complementarian/egalitariam logic plays on the same categories (too “liberal” for me
But this does illustrate why many Neo-reformed peeps just keep seeing us Neo-Anabaptists via their own lens.
As Zach Hoag attests to in his comment.
Peace bro!!
@ David: Fair enough…I don’t like the term “Neo Reformed.”
David,
What are the most common misconceptions you feel that New Reformed folks have about your tribe?
“apologetics”
Honestly, I think the future of the dialogue will depend on whether or not the neoReformed can keep their defensiveness and dismissiveness in check. In my experience, it has been a habit of the NR’s (not all, obviously) to quickly denounce any “neo” thing outside their stream as “emergent”, “liberal”, etc. Take Driscoll’s recent treatment of the UK radio host that interviewed him, along with A29′s virtual canonization of Calvinistic-Complementarianism, etc. TGC is another great example, as even leaving a disagreeable comment on a blog post is often unacceptable to Collin Hansen and co. My own NR friends habitually call our church “emergent” (in a derogatory fashion) while paying no attention to the substance of our theological point of view, etc.
Also, the future of the dialogue depends on making space for neoAnabaptist missionals to express and hone their theological and missional views, giving a platform for the dialogue itself. Viva la Missio Alliance.
I confess that I grow weary of the labels and the need thereof. Especially as the labels become more important (or so it seems) than the one label we all claim; that of being simply a Christian.
Thanks for this post, David. I hope this is a step in the right direction and that these camps may sharpen one another.
One question. Do you think that some churches/networks in the so-called Neo-Reformed world may be properly labeled “missional”? I see that you classify your Neo-Anabaptist theology as both evangelical and missional, but you don’t give the missional label to Neo-Reformed. Yet, neither the Neo-Anabaptist or the Neo-Reformed are monolithic in ecclesiology and evangelistic strategy. Thus, it seems possible that a particular Neo-Reformed church looks more similar to a particular Neo-Anabaptist church than they do to their fellow Neo-Reformed churches.
Dave,
Could you please expand on point three.
I don’t have a theological response to this, but want to say that this tension plays out strongly in every Mennonite denomination in Canada, and I imagine in the USA also. The reason it plays so strongly here is because for many years Canada has looked to the USA for theological leadership. As a result, a society which is further along its post-secular, and post-Christendom journey is actually hindered from doing the kind of theological reflection that could generate a richer missional-incarnational engagement. Too many leaders here continue to neglect the necessary de-construction work needed, and continue to assume that bigger is better.
OTOH, I suspect that our distance from the USA may enable us to work through some of these tensions more quickly. But maybe that is wishful thinking – the impact of media and social networks now making “local” really global.
Good stuff Dave, while I’m neo-Anabaptist and have my disagreements with the neo-Reformed, I think its important to recognize them as committed fellow Christians with a passion for mission and be open to learning from the best of what they have to offer. And reciprocally, to keep our own critiques of neo-Reformed teaching and practice as targeted as possible, not distorting or overgeneralizing (or ever emphasizing the importance of secondary matters). After all, if we truly value reconciliation as Anabaptists, we’ll be committed to salting our conversations with truth and love and seeking win:win solutions where possible.
So what’s the major difference? Predestination or its understanding thereof?
Here’s one Reformed perspective on the difference (if you don’t have time to read the whole series, the last three posts are obviously most relevant):
http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/two-kingdoms-and-political-theology/
I would say this: the foundation of neoReformed theology is the Sovereignty of God while the foundation of neoAnabaptist theology is the Lordship of Christ. Subtle but critical difference with many implications. Think of how your understanding of power and ethics may differ if you understand a through the lens of b rather than the other way round.
[...] Read the rest of the post. /* [...]
[...] Can the Neo-Anabaptists and Neo-Reformed Get Along? (Article) David Fitch (Reclaiming the Mission) [...]