Steve,
I'm sorry, but even though I am "Reformed" in my
theology, I feel your attacks on Brian McLaren are
too mean-spirited. Please refrain from calling
people names, and please seek to season your
criticism with more grace.
When fellow-Christians cannot debate in loving
dialogue, but can only mud-sling, then we go
backward, not forward. When fellow-Christians do not
seek to listen to new ideas about the Christian
faith, we risk shutting ourselves off from what the
Spirit of God is seeking to do in our day.
One of the mandates of Reformation Christianity is
the call, "semper reformata!" ("always
reforming"), yet I hear many Reformed Christians
saying we want a Christianity that is exactly as it
was in the days of Luther and Calvin and Zwingli.
No, we need to constantly reform--constantly
re-assess our theology. We are far too confident
that "we have it right." That was the stand of the
Diet of Worms, and it seems now to be the stand of
those who are fighting for Calvinism today.
We need to learn from history, and not repeat it. A
dialogue with Luther would have been much more
beneficial for the church. But instead, he was
caricatured, misunderstood, and called an
aberration.
Much like what you are doing to McLaren.
___
Steve Camp Mon, 03 Jan 2005 12:47:09
Dear Bob:
Thank you for your email and for taking time out of
your day to share your thoughts with me.
A couple of follow up thoughts for you.
Firstly, You say you are reformed in your theology.
So I am not assuming anything, could you please
define what that means? Are you reformed according
to the Westminster Confession or the Heidelberg
Confession; or are you reformed according to the
1689 London Baptist Confession? A part from a
creedal definition, can you biblically define your
reformed views for me on the essentials of the
faith? Do you hold to the historical view of the
Doctrines of Grace? Do you adhere to the five Solas?
Do you hold to the regulative principle in worship?
In ecclesiology? Are you more in the Luther camp
on that or in Calvin’s camp? Your comments here
would be helpful to me. Thank you in advance for
taking the time to respond.
Secondly, my motive or attitude towards what Brian
McLaren has written was not mean-spirited nor
mudslinging. I always desire to remain teachable
and examining my theological convictions and
beliefs. I certainly haven’t arrived in having a
corner on the truth in all things pertaining to life
and godliness. I value the input and criticisms of
others in helping sharpen my life and theology for
the glory of Christ. That was my intent through my
review of a portion of his writings.
Lastly, what you suggest in regards to Luther would
have produced a nice retreat or seminar—but not
Reformation. (If you are reformed in your
theology—then that statement is a surprise to me).
I know that “conversation and dialogue” are
emergent buzz words--that’s fine. But, taking a
stand on sound doctrine is not an unloving thing.
On the contrary—it is with great love that I am
concerned for your movement. Remember dear brother,
truth will always stand the test of scrutiny; error
never wants to be challenged.
Thank you again for your email. I look forward to
further dialogue with you.
Until then, I remain...
Yours for the Master’s use,
Steve Camp
2 Cor. 4:5-7
PS – I noticed your email was vanguardchurch@...
Are you part of the Vanguard Church in Col.? If
so, are you on staff there?
___
Dear Steve,
Thanks for replying. I am sorry if I did not show
the kind of grace that I implored you to show! J
(1) I received my M.Div. from Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School, training under such biblical
scholars as D. A. Carson, Wayne Grudem, Willem
VanGemeren, and Walt Kaiser. This is a Free Church
school, so we were not trained according to the
Confessions, though we did study them. I hold pretty
closely to “The Doctrines of Grace” as you call them
(though “TULIP” was not written by Calvin, as you
mistakenly claimed, but by his later followers in
response to Arminian teaching—see John Piper’s
helpful history lesson at
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html
). If you are familiar with the Evangelical Free
Church and Trinity and the above mentioned scholars,
then you know what I believe. “Vanguard Church
<http://www.vanguardchurch.com/> ” is affiliated
with the Evangelical Free Church as a church plant.
On the website, I wrote a definition of my theology
for the layman. It may seem less confined than the
confessions you cite, but here it is:
http://www.vanguardchurch.com/reformed.htm
In my personal interaction with Brian McLaren (I’ve
been with him twice—once over a weekend when he was
in my area and I was given opportunity to spend a
couple hours with him one-on-one, and once for a
week as a member of a small “cohort” group at this
year’s Emergent Convention), I’ve challenged him
myself about God’s sovereignty and the doctrine of
Justification as Penal Substitution. From these
conversations, I felt assured that he was indeed
orthodox and thoroughly basing his analysis on the
Bible. He articulates things in new ways (which
makes people like us uncomfortable), but so did
Calvin (which made people in his day uncomfortable).
I trained under D. A. Carson, and have listened to
Carson’s lecture series critiquing Emergent. Of
course, Don is correct in some of his analysis of
the movement, but as much as I respect Don, I find a
lot of his criticisms lacking.
(2) I know that you wish not to be mean-spirited,
but to call McLaren “McSharin” is defamatory. You
will not get far in your criticisms if you do not
respect the one you are critiquing better than that
(at least that’s what I think…). Granted, McLaren’s
style is more anecdotal, more story-based. This is
the postmodernist in him showing through. But I know
who he claims to be with theologically, so if you
want more “meat to put on the bones”, you should
read Walter Bruggeman, Stanley Grenz, and N. T.
Wright. These guys are shaping his theology, so for
more in-depth analysis of Emergent, go there.
(3) What I suggest of Luther is exactly what Luther
wished to have happened. He did not want “radical
reformation” as much as “resetting the course” (my
words). He did not see his ideas as causing a
splinter in the church but to adjust the church back
to the Bible. In our day, we see the Roman Catholic
Church admitting as much—that Luther was not all
that bad, and that they should have listened more to
his insights. It was not until the Roman Church
forced the issue that Luther said “Here I stand!”
I agree with you that taking a stand on sound
doctrine is not an unloving thing to do, that it our
love that drives us toward pure doctrine.
But I remind you yourself that “truth will always
stand the test of scrutiny; error never wants to be
challenged.” If we are in error that the only proper
way to articulate the faith is what the Calvinists
came up with in the 1600’s, then would we want to
know it? And if it is indeed truth, then what are we
afraid of? Let the dialogue commence—and let truth
rise to the top. And if we have to adjust what the
Calvinists wrote 400 years ago, then we had better
do so. It is the Reformation Christian in me that
will not let me be rest on the laurels of those
theologians that came before me.
Semper Reformata! Always
Reforming!!
I do not seek to get into an argument with anybody.
I offer my reply out of Christian love. Emergent may
be the “flavor of the month” (only time will tell),
but it certainly has offered me new valuable
insights into how to do ministry in the 21st Century
that have helped my ministry tremendously.
Bob Robinson
www.vanguardchurch.com
___
Steve Camp 1/3/2005 5:53 PM
Dear Bob:
Thank you dear brother for your kindness and detail
in your latest email to me. It is most helpful in
helping me understand more your thoughts and
McLaren’s form of faith. I know that N.T. Wright
and others are forming his theology—that is what
concerns me. The New Perspectivism and Open Theism
that oozes through his writings is obvious and
considered by many today to be in severe doctrinal
error. We should not take it lightly.
As to calling him “McSharin’” I guess I listen to
too much Limbaugh and Hannity; Matthews and Russert.
I like a tongue and cheek sarcasm from time to
time. I do apologize if it communicated to you
something other than humorous quip in the dialogue.
Please forgive me.
I know and respect Don Carson tremendously and
consider him the finest theologian in our lifetime.
When he speaks we all should listen.. But I agree
with a discerning ear and a Berean heart.
I appreciate you Bob and I hope that through all of
this I have found a new friend in serving the Lord.
You have my prayers and would covet yours for my
life and ministry. I will commit to you that I will
reread my article and revisit some of your
criticisms in possibly changing any needless well
humored sarcastic wording. Thank you for being an
agent of grace in my life...
Grace and peace to you,
Steve
___
Bob Robinson 1/3/2005 11:57 PM
Thanks for recognizing the “Limbaugh & Hannity”ness of your sarcasm. Limbaugh and Hannity are not evangelical Christians, so we might expect this kind of stuff from them, especially because they are mere entertainers. But you are dealing with issues that are so much more important than trying to be whimsical against Democrats. I have actually heard the pain in McLaren’s voice when he talks about his critics. He just doesn’t understand why people do not want to talk with him and seek to understand his views better rather than attack him from a distance and call him names.
Yes, some do have qualms about N. T. Wright, but the solution is not to dismiss him but to dialogue with him, to always seek FIRST to understand before passing judgment. This is exactly why at the Evangelical Theological Society invited N. T. Wright and Douglas Moo to dialogue about their views last November at the ETS Annual Conference. (I wished I could have been there—Doug Moo was the Head of the NT department at Trinity when I was there, and we became friends through the church we both attended.)
N. T. Wright has a LOT to say, and Doug Moo recognizes this. He may not agree with him on everything (The “New Perspective” on Paul, for instance), but he respects his scholarship as an evangelical. In fact, in many circles it is Wright who is renowned as “the finest theologian in our lifetime,” not D. A. Carson. I remember at Trinity, another NT professor of mine, Scott McKnight, was convinced that E.P. Sanders was right about Paul. In fact he wrote the NIV Application Commentary on Galatians with this view, which obviously would change quite a bit of the interpretation of this book that was so important in the Reformation! This, however, was accepted at Trinity by D.A. Carson, Doug Moo and the rest of the department. It was an opportunity to dialogue among peers on the same faculty of a leading evangelical seminary. I also remember when Old Testament scholar Willem VanGemeren came to Trinity from Reformed Theological Seminary the same time as OT scholar Richard Averbeck came from Dallas Theological Seminary. Their offices were purposely placed across the hall from each other so that they could become friends and have dialogues about Reformed OT Theology and Dispensational OT Theology. This is a GOOD thing! They found they had a whole lot more common ground than they thought from a distance. Conversation and Dialogue are not simply “buzz words” of Emergent, they are the keys to Christian unity, to deeper understanding of the Gospel, and to further glorifying God as his People.
I graduated cum laude from Trinity, I think I’m pretty astute in understanding theological discussions (glory be to God!). I have learned a lot from Reformed theologians (some of my favorites!). But I must tell you, I have also learned an incredible amount from Brian McLaren, both through his writings and through personal interaction. I have learned a whole lot from Stanley Grenz (I attended a two-day seminar led by Grenz that outlined the different ways the Christian church has defined the Atonement throughout history, and I have found his books to be very engaging theologically). I have learned a whole lot from Tom Wright (the best lecture I have EVER heard is his “Creation and New Creation in the New Testament”).
It frustrates me that my fellow Calvinists cannot open themselves up to discussion about what these guys are saying. I used to subscribe to Modern Reformation magazine. I loved it at first, but then began to get turned off by an undercurrent that ran through many of the articles—a tone of “anything new is bad, we must remain true to the Reformers.”
I think that loses the spirit of the Reformation. Why are we entering the 21st Century with 17th Century articulations of the Gospel? This cannot be what the Reformers would have wanted.
Semper Reformata! Always
Reforming!!
Shalom to you,
