Since starting this blog, a number of my posts have concerned the definition of Reformed theology. A number of friends have asked me why I am so concerned about it. Today, I listened to a radio show that is a perfect example of why this matters.
One of my professors of Systematic Theology, Michael Horton, was interviewed on the Doug Pagitt show about Rob Bell's controversial new book. Tony Jones, the interviewer, continually referred to "Reformed theologians, such as John Piper" and lumped all the critics of Bell's book into "the Reformed camp". It was entirely unclear to him that Horton and Piper were from different theological traditions. Think I'm overreacting? Well, Piper would not even be admitted to membership in Horton's denomination much less could he be a minister there. Jones's confusion is further exemplified in his follow-up blog post, wherein he referred to Dr. Horton as "Neo-Reformed". Horton is about as Paleo-Reformed as a person can get.
I don't blame Jones for the confusion. The present theological landscape is a mess, and when people fail to use proper nouns (like "Calvinist") and adjectives (like "Reformed") correctly, no one is benefited. If distinct theological traditions lose their identity, Christian churches will be drastically impoverished and the world will inevitably hear a watered-down gospel, if they hear one at all. The distinct riches of historic Reformed theology will be forgotten, because people will simply assume that they understand it. The same could be said for Baptists (like Piper), Lutherans, etc. They have a distinct tradition to offer, and they will be a much better conversation partner if they know their tradition and use their own titles.
Links to previous blog entries on this topic:
Who is "Reformed"?
What it means to be Reformed?
The Romanist Resurgence and Sally Ortlund Jr.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
My apologies on being ham-fisted as to the differences between Horton and Piper, but c'mon, Zac, you've got to be realistic. Who's being careful about delineating between me and McLaren?
Hi Tony
Your point regarding you and McLaren is well-taken.
As I said in the post, I was not blaming you at all. Sadly, the term "Reformed" is being hijacked in some popular circles (e.g., Piper, Driscoll, Mahaney), so it's inevitable that there will be confusion as to its ecclesiastical and confessional meaning. My concern is that people describe *themselves* faithfully so others do not become confused. I linked to your interview and blog to demonstrate that other people (like you) may become confused.
I enjoyed your interview with Dr. Horton, by the way.
Post a Comment