Can We Neo-Anabaptists and Neo-Reformed Just Get Along! An Interview by David Fitch

This is great interview, and expounds many of my conclusions, but I will save my comments to last:

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.

I find so many good things about this post. I am a baptist, with Anabaptist leanings. I have also mentioned in conversations that the new interest in Reformed theology is because of the cultural shift, as well as the economical shift in the USA. They need a doctrine, predestination, that gives them the sense that even when things are out of their hands, they know someone is in control, and ultimately, they can claim that they are still in control.

I agree that the Neo-Reformed are doing well in their push to purify the Gospel. For decades, the liberals have thought that if they do what the culture does, the Gospel would be more palatable to them. This has totally backfired, since it is their churches that continue in decline, while those who have held to the Gospel, have grown.

Although the criticism, that the Neo-Reformed are working like the the old power paradigms are still present, is spot on. They are still working under the pretence that Christianity is the dominating culture. Sometimes feels like they are just promoting the same type of American imperialism, but in a Neo-Reformed way.

But to me, the term "Neo-Anabaptist" is new. But it's refreshing to see that this new type of Anabaptism is different from the sectarian one of the past.

Great article, and I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

So there is no NeoReformed/New Calvinist movement

Scot McKnight


David Kinnaman, at Barna, has a new study on the so-called New Calvinists or NeoReformed movement, a term I may well have invented to describe what I perceive to be the rise of Calvinists. David says Nope, not happening. This is no movement. Not even among Southern Baptists? Nope. David told me the numbers are 30% now and they were 30% ten years ago.

What say you? Also this: Why have we seen major media cover New Calvinism if there is no such a thing? Many of us are thinking there is a movement: Is this just an increase in the presence of their voice? Are these folks getting more media attention with little change in numbers? I do know this: a high percentage of the top church web sites are connected to this New Calvinism (if there is such a thing).

Clergy Identity
For the past decade the Barna Group has been tracking the percentage of Protestant pastors who identify their church as “Calvinist or Reformed.” Currently, about three out of every 10 Protestant leaders say this phrase accurately describes their church (31%). This proportion is statistically unchanged from a decade ago (32%). In fact, an examination of a series of studies among active clergy during the past decade indicates that the proportion that embraces the Reformed label has remained flat over the last 10 years.

Pastors who embrace the term “Wesleyan or Arminian” currently account for 32% of the Protestant church landscape – the same as those who claim to be Reformed. The proportion of Wesleyan/Arminian pastors is down slightly from 37% in 2000. There has been less consistency related to this label during the past decade, with the tracking figures ranging from a low of 26% to a high of 37%.

The director of the study, David Kinnaman, clarified that respondents were not given definitions of these terms. As dictated by standard practice in survey research, identification with these terms was left up to each pastor’s interpretation.

Who is Reformed?
The Barna study explored some characteristics of the pastors aligned with the “Calvinist or Reformed” label as compared to the profile of pastors who identified themselves as “Wesleyan or Arminian.” In terms of the age of pastors, among the youngest generation of pastors (ages 27 to 45), 29% described themselves as Reformed, while 34% identified as Wesleyan. Pastors associated with the Boomer generation (ages 46 to 64) were evenly split between the two theological camps: 34% Reformed, 33% Arminian. Pastors who were 65 or older were the least likely to use either term: 26% and 27%, respectively.

Regionally, Reformed churches were most common in the Northeast, while least common in the Midwest. Wesleyan/Arminian congregations were equally likely to appear in each of the four regions.

Denominational background made a significant difference, but the dividing lines were not always straightforward: 47% of mainline churches were described by their pastor as Wesleyan/Arminian, while 29% of mainline congregations adopted the Reformed categorization. (Mainline churches include American Baptist Churches, Evangelical Lutheran Churches in America, the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, and United Church of Christ.) In contrast, non-mainline churches were more likely to self-describe as Reformed (35%), although 30% of the non-mainline pastors identified as Wesleyan/Arminian.

The study found that 31% of pastors who lead churches within traditionally charismatic or Pentecostal denominations were described as Reformed, while 27% identified as Wesleyan/Arminian. This is somewhat surprising given that these denominations – including Assembly of God, Vineyard, Foursquare, and Church of God-Cleveland – are generally viewed as stemming from Wesleyan or Holiness traditions.

Despite the common public view of Reformed churches being doctrinally conservative, a greater proportion of these leaders described themselves as “theologically liberal” than was true among Wesleyan/Arminian leaders (17% versus 13%).

Completion of seminary was statistically equivalent whether Arminian/Wesleyan (65%) or Reformed/Calvinist (62%).

Research Observations
Kinnaman, who serves as Barna Group president, concluded, “there is no discernible evidence from this research that there is a Reformed shift among U.S. congregation leaders over the last decade. Whatever momentum surrounds Reformed churches and the related leaders, events and associations has not gone much outside traditional boundaries or affected the allegiances of most today’s church leaders. It is important to note that the influence of Reformed churches might also be measured through other metrics that are currently unavailable, such as the theological certainty of self-described adherents, their level of acceptance toward those who are not Calvinist, and the new methods Reformed leaders are using to market their views to their peers and to the public.

“Nevertheless, the research shows that many pastors do not necessarily conform to traditional doctrinal perspectives when it comes to how they think about or operate in their ministries. In other words, most of the nation’s 300,000 Protestant churches are in a state of theological flux, apparently open to identities and trends that do not necessarily fall within expected denominational or doctrinal boundaries. Given this profile, we expect that new theological, relational, as well as methodological networks that emerge will redefine the Protestant landscape over the next decade.”

Who are the NeoReformed? 2

By Scot McKnight.


We are looking at the rise of the NeoReformed; we began Monday and this is part two.

The NeoReformed movement of which I speak is an attempt to capture evangelicalism, redefine it by some clearly-defined doctrines that are Reformed, and kick the rest of us — and there are lots more “of us” than the NeoReformed – off the village green. When we are in need of profound degrees of cooperation (as we see in someone like J.I. Packer), we are finding a
division of the evangelical village green. No, in fact, they are not dividing the village green; they are constructing a Reformed fence around it. (Well, maybe not. The impact of what I see going on with the NeoReformed will result in a division of evangelicalism.)

Are you sensing a division? one coming? Do you think there’s room in the tent for us all? What are the themes in theology that seem most divisive?

Furthermore, the NeoReformed have come to equate the meaning of “gospel” with Calvin’s “Reformed theology.” And those who aren’t Reformed are somehow or in some ways denying the gospel itself. When gospel is equated with double predestination, often said in harsh terms, we are seeing a good example of the spirit of a NeoReformed approach. This leads, inevitably, to seeing what they call the “doctrines of grace” as defining both “gospel” and “evangelical.”

The groups they’ve chosen to exclude witness to the new kind of Reformed. The sweeping impacts of the Finney revivals and Wesleyan gospel preaching and the charismatics are simply not, in the view of the NeoReformed, evangelicals. Anabaptists aren’t even on the map. A number of historians have clearly demonstrated that evangelicalism in the USA cannot be properly understood without reference to the powerful revivals of the Wesleyans; one thinks of David Hempton or Donald Dayton. Their careful studies on the rise of American evangelicalism are often ignored. The approach of Mark Noll and David Bebbington, which is broader based than just a list of Reformed theological ideas, is also rejected as inaccurate.

Oddly enough, a group not formerly connected with evangelicalism, the Southern Baptists, have (from the Reagan years on) become increasingly associated with evangelicalism. And many of them are now advocating very strong forms of Calvinism — something previously not at all characteristic of the SBC. I could be wrong here, but my own reading of Southern Baptist stuff over the years shows a dramatic rise of Calvinism and a desire to be called evangelicals. I’m open to hear how the SBC see this trend.

And here’s another issue: the NeoReformed are deeply concerned with complementarianism and see it as a test case of fidelity. Fine, argue your points, but complementarianism is hardly the center of orthodoxy. You wouldn’t know that by the way they write or talk. Some see it as the litmus test of evangelical orthodoxy these days. This grieves me. Don’t we have more significant battles to wage?

And they also have chosen to make one of their targets today the New Perspective on Paul, and for some odd reason they’ve landed squarely on the door step of Tom Wright. They see him as the problem. The Problem. When Tom Wright is our problem, it is we who have the problem. I blurbed Tom Wright’s book recently with some strong words, and one blogger posted my blurb — a blogger who had not read Tom Wright’s book — and it drew within one day about 75 comments, and I’m pretty sure only one commenter on the entire thread had read both Piper’s book and Wright’s book. The rest were pretty sure I was wrong. Those who were all riled up about the blurb are the NeoReformed — ironically, they were wondering who I had
in mind when I used “NeoReformed” in the blurb. I thought that was obvious.

If I had to sum it up I’d put it this way: the NeoReformed are those who are obsessed with God’s holiness and grace and have not learned that grace makes people gracious. These folks are America’s newest religious zealots and they are wounding, perhaps for a generation or two, evangelicalism.

My brothers and sisters, because God in his mercy has made room for all of us at the cross, there’s room enough for all of us on the village green. Grace would make it so. We might not be able to agree on theology or in some of the finer points of our confessions, but the village green — evangelicalism — is covered by a big tent, and there’s room for all of us who call ourselves evangelicals.

What are options? I keep asking myself. Welcome one another in a common mission or send those we don’t agree with to another location?

Make your decision. Our decision, friends, will shape the future of American evangelicalism. I pray to God we will find a way to focus on the mission of God.

Who are the NeoReformed? 1

By Scot McKnight

I have been using the term “NeoReformed” now for a year or two and a few of my friends have asked me what I mean and why I don’t just calls such folks “Reformed”. This post will sketch who they are and why I call them “Neo” Reformed. I begin with a confession: I’m not a Calvinist; I’m an anabaptist. But, I have never had any problems with the variety of theologies at work in the big tent of evangelicalism. Calvinists are not only among us, they have important elements to bring to the table. I’ve sat on the essence of this post for months, but I think it is time for us to make it public. I do so with a certain degree of sadness, but feel compelled to call us to a unity that is presently threatened.

The evangelical tent is big enough to welcome to the table Calvinists and Arminians, anabaptists and charismatics, and I love it when Catholics and the Orthodox join us. This is not a personal battle for me with Calvinists; it’s a particular kind of divisive Calvinist that I have in view.

Formerly the disagreements with Calvinists or the ones they had with others didn’t stop us from gathering inside the big tent. But in the last decade something happened, and I call it the rise of the NeoReformed. Here we go but first a question or two:

Are you seeing a rise of reformed folks? Do you see some militancy — whatever their strengths? What are your thoughts? Why do you think some youth are attracted to this new form of Reformed theology?

One of my favorite Reformed theologians is Michael Horton. We don’t agree on theology but I like this guy and I like to read his stuff. Michael recently wrote a piece that uses a different image than the big tent image above. He says evangelicalism is like the village green of early American communities. It was where folks, all folks, gathered to chat and share commonalities. He says evangelicalism is the village green but evangelicalism is not the church. Churches have confessions, and his confession is Reformed. He says we need to worship in our churches and that the village green is not enough; it is where we join with Christians most like us. The key point I make here is the distinction between being evangelical and being Reformed. Michael Horton, I am assuming, thinks the best form of evangelicalism is Reformed; and he probably thinks Arminians and Anabaptists are wrong at some important points. Fine. (I think the same of Reformed, and I think they are sometimes wrong at central points.) But Michael Horton knows that a local church (or denomination) is not the village green. I agree with him 100%.

But … and here’s our problem…

The NeoReformed, for a variety of reasons, some of them good, don’t recognize that evangelicalism as a village green. Instead, they want to build a gate at the gate-less village green and require Reformed confessions and credentials to enter onto the village green. Put differently, they think the only legitimate and the only faithful evangelicals are Reformed. Really Reformed. In other words, they are “confessing” evangelicals. The only true evangelical is a Reformed evangelical. They are more than happy to call into question the legitimacy and fidelity of any evangelical who doesn’t believe in classic Reformed doctrines, like double predestination. The palpable observation here is that many of us think the NeoReformed are as attached to Tradition (read Westminster etc) as they are to sola scriptura.

In effect, the NeoReformed are a new form of Fundamentalism, so one might describe them accurately as the NeoFundamentalists. Which means they seem to need a trend or an opponent upon whom they can vent their frustrations (see Rene Girard). This results in two clear traits: the exaltation of some peripheral doctrine to central status and the demonization of a person. The goal in such cases seems to be to win at all costs.

I close with this:

I recently wrote to a friend of mine, a Reformed theologian, and described what is the essence of this post and this is what he wrote back:

The problem, as I see it is these, whom you are calling neoreformed, are to me simply the old fundamentalists in nicer clothes with better vocabularies. They are just as mean-spirited, just as graceless, and just as exclusive. I believe that the fundamentalism of my youth was harmful to the gospel. I believe that anyone who refuses to come out of his “room” (confessional church) and into the hall of “mere Christianity”, to use Lewis’s term, is doomed to a narrow and problematic exegesis of the text. Who is going to tell us that we are wrong if we only stay in our room and speak to people who agree with us all the time?