Van-guard (văn’gärd), noun: “The foremost or leading position in a trend or movement.”

Home
Bob's BLOG
Friend of Kuyper
Blog Archives by topic
Books I'm Reading
Missional Ministry
College and Young Adult Ministry
Spiritual Formation
Social Action
FAQs About Faith
Created for Glory
Bob's Bible Expositions
What About Bob? (bio)
Prog Rock
Web Resources

Check out Bob's other web resource:

Neo-Calvinism 101

by Derek Melleby

What is in a Name?

Depending on where you live and move and have your being, the mention of "Calvinism" or John Calvin is either met with great applause and cheer or with hesitation and fear. I happen to live in the latter. In Lancaster, PA, I have found, especially among evangelicals, that Calvinism is synonymous with predestination. And many people have a difficult time accepting a God, or worshipping a God, that "chooses" some people and doesn't choose others. While one could spend all day arguing the finer points of Calvinism (well, actually, one could spend a lifetime, and many do), I would like to put forth a different way of thinking about Calvinism in regards to Neo-Calvinism.

Neo-Calvinism comes from the Dutch Reformed tradition (Dutch Calvinism). Calvinism here distinguishes itself from Catholicism. In order to get to the meat of Neo-Calvinism, here's my proposal (all my Neo-Cal friends, get ready to click the "comment" link!): let's substitute Calvinism with Protestantism. In this regard, Neo-Calvinism (Neo-Protestantism) would stay true to many of the tenants of the reformation, including Martin Luther’s response to the corruption of the Catholic Church in the 16th Century, and the Solas. (Notice I did not mention TULIP, or five-point Calvinism. If the Neo-Calvinists would still have me, I'd like to separate myself from some of the common understandings of Calvinism. If you don't understand this parenthetical statement, consider yourself blessed, don't worry about it, and keep reading!)

Now, moving on to the "neo" part of Neo-Calvinism. Once again, here's my proposal: let's substitute "Neo" with "Nuanced." There we have it. When talking about Neo-Calvinism, I think of it as Nuanced-Protestantism.

I will attempt to unpack what is meant by Nuanced-Protestantism; or better, what elements of the Christian faith this tradition (Neo-Calvinism) tends to emphasize. For now, at the risk of adding more confusing terminology, allow me to offer a summarizing statement: Neo-Calvinism is not just reformed, it is reformational. Whereas reformed theology tends to emphasize the reformation and purity of the Church, reformational theology, while based on solid doctrine, uses this doctrinal basis to be about the reformation of all areas of life.

The Dutchman Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) is one of the "fathers" of the Neo-Calvinist tradition. Kuyper believed that the Bible, Christian theology, and Christian spirituality should be the framework from which all Christians engage the world and culture in order to bring every area of life under the Reign and Lordship of Jesus Christ (this is what Jesus meant when he preached "the Kingdom of God"). To embody this belief, Kuyper was a pastor, professor, and philosopher. He founded a newspaper, a university, and a political party. At one time, he was simultaneously the editor and chief of a national newspaper, the president of a university, and the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

My friend Byron Borger provides this summary of what is meant by reformational, especially as it pertains to the academy:

A word coined to describe a new brand of Calvinists who take the ideas of the Protestant Reformation beyond theology and abstract debates about the nature of the atonement and church life and rather seek to bring about Christian cultural change and social transformation. Serious, lasting change, however, can only come about after serious and radical re-formation of the philosophical assumptions currently deforming each sphere of culture. Reformational folk realize that to be "light in the darkness," we need to re-think the inner structures of each academic discipline which shape each area of life.

To summarize: (1) I propose that Neo-Calvinism could better be understood as "Nuanced-Protestantism," and (2) I propose that Neo-Calvinism attempts to be reformational, not just reformed.

Introductory Reading

I have selected five books that I think are good introductions to Neo-Calvinism. Originally, my thought was to list these books at the end, but I think it would be more appropriate now. The following books where chosen because (1) they are basic and not difficult to read, (2) they are introductory and written on the macro level, and (3) they have helped me the most, especially when I was hearing and reading about Neo-Calvinism for the first time. They are listed in alphabetical order by author…no other reason!

Lectures on Calvinism, Abraham Kuyper. A compilation of Kuyper's "Stone Lectures" delivered at Princeton in 1898. From the back of the Eerdmans addition: "The word 'Calvinism' has many different meanings. In its broadest sense, as reflected in these six lectures, it refers to a life system of comprehensive and far-reaching effect. Like paganism, Islam, Roman Catholicism, and modernism, it offers humanity a set of options regarding life's three fundamental questions: How does a person relate to God, to other people, and to the world around? This is the classic expression of a vigorous and visionary stream of the Reformed faith."

Heaven is Not My Home: Living in the Now of God’s Creation, Paul Marshall. This very simple introduction is well summarized by the title. Marshall writes in the preface, "You should know up front that this book is one-sided. The Bible portrays our world as good, destined for reunion with God in Jesus Christ. It is the goodness that I'll focus on here, and I make no apology for it. But the Bible also emphasizes the effects of sin on the world, and hence, creation's transitory character. Scripture teaches that God loves the world and cares for it (and always will), but also that we are sojourners in the present age. Here I have given much less attention to the second than the first."

Engaging God’s World: A Christian Vision of Faith, Learning, and Living, Cornelius Plantinga Jr. This book was written with college undergraduates in mind. Plantinga attempted to put college learning into perspective for young students. He explains, "The point of all of this learning is to prepare to add one's own contribution to the supreme reformation project, which is God's restoration of all things that have been corrupted by evil… According to Scripture, God plans to accomplish this project through Jesus Christ, who started to make "all things new," and who will come again to finish what started. In the meantime, God's Spirit inspires a worldwide body of people to join this mission of God."

The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian Worldview, Brian Walsh and J. Richard Middleton. The strength of this book is its section on dualism: the way many Christians have unfaithfully separated the world into false dichotomies, i.e. sacred vs. secular, nature vs. grace, soul vs. body, eternal vs. temporal. The authors argue for a radical discipleship that would cut through this dualism and offer an uncompromising Christian response to all areas of life.

Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, Al Wolters. "The sum of our discussion of a reformational worldview is simply this: (1) creation is much broader and more comprehensive than we tend to think, (2) the fall affects that creation in its full extent, and (3) redemption in Jesus Christ reaches just as far as the fall" (71).

The Holy Bible

I can still remember where I was sitting at the moment of my epiphany. I could barely get through the last chapter of Lesslie Newbigin's A Walk Through the Bible. Overwhelmed by emotion, I put the small paperback on my lap and began to cry. As I think about it now, it seems a bit strange. Why would I cry over such a small book? What was the source of this emotion?

For one thing, I was in the midst of rethinking (and re-living) much of my faith. For the first time, I had been exposed to some Neo-Calvinist thought. With a degree in political science, and as a young evangelical Christian, I was captivated by the political implications of Neo-Calvinism. What's more, I was excited about the implications of a faith that made everything matter. All things belong to God. But here was the problem: as an evangelical, I wasn't sure how the bible spoke into all areas of life. And quite frankly, while I was excited about Neo-Calvinist philosophy, I didn't understand how it supposedly emerged from Scripture.

Enter Newbigin. Now, I know that Newbigin is not a Neo-Calvinist, but it was his book, A Walk Through the Bible, that has forever changed the way I understand scripture. And to my delightful surprise, I discovered that Newbigin's depiction of scripture as a narrative, from Genesis to Revelation, a cosmic drama about the creation of the world, about the fall of humanity, and about God's bringing of redemption, was the same way in which Neo-Calvinists understand the Bible.

Shortly after reading Newbigin, I was introduced to Calvin Seerveld's essay, “Reading the Bible Like a Grown Up Child.” Seerveld argues:

…we often read the Bible for what it's not and seldom read it for what it is. Here's what it is not: It is not a book you use to prove a point. Neither is it a book written to solve your personal problems. Here's what it is: It is the true story of what God has really done in history. It is a true account of how God works and what God wants done on earth.

Understanding scripture as a narrative may not be unique to Neo-Calvinists, but it is something that Neo-Calvinists emphasize. Whereas many reformed Christians value systematic theology, reformational Calvinists value narrative theology. (Although this is a loaded term popularized by Stanley Hauerwas and others, I still think it is the best way to describe it.)

Not only do I find a narrative approach helpful, I have also realized some of the dangers in reading the Bible in a fragmented way. In their recent book, The Drama of Scripture, Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen articulate this point well:

Many of us have read the Bible as if it were merely a mosaic of little bits — theological bits, moral bits, historical-critical bits, sermon bits, devotional bits. But when we read the Bible in such a fragmented way, we ignore its divine author's intention to shape our lives through its story. All human communities live out of some story that provides a context for understanding the meaning of history and gives shape and direction to their lives. If we allow the Bible to become fragmented, it is in danger of being absorbed into whatever other story is shaping our culture, and it will thus cease to shape our lives as it should. Idolatry has twisted the dominant cultural story of the secular Western world. If as believers we allow this story (rather than the Bible) to become the foundation of our thought and action, then our lives will manifest not the truths of Scripture, but the lies of an idolatrous culture. Hence, the unity of Scripture is no minor matter: a fragmented Bible may actually produce theologically orthodox, morally upright, warmly pious idol worshippers!

I've suggested that Neo-Calvinism was perhaps the best way forward for the church given the current cultural landscape. The narrative approach to scripture (with its emphasis on story and how stories shape lives) combined with a postmodern culture (which has us talking about stories) gives weight to my conclusion.

May others come to experience similar epiphanies!

Creation, Fall, Redemption

(Kristin Vander Giessen-Reitsma of Catapult is also asking the question "What is Neo-Calvinism?" in her recent editorial, “The Naming.” She has gathered some very good resources for her quest.)

So far, I've discussed the significance of the Neo-Calvinist understanding of scripture as an unfolding narrative. Often, because of this narrative tendency and in order to discuss scripture thematically, Neo-Calvinists will refer to the "Creation, Fall, and Redemption" (CFR) structure of the Bible. CFR is central to understanding how the rest of Neo-Calvinist theology emerges.

Creation

It wasn't until I began to read and hang around Neo-Calvinists that I began to wrestle with the far-reaching implications of the doctrine of creation. I remember sitting in a class where, after reading Genesis 1 and 2, the teacher (Neo-Calvinist) asked, "What would the world be like if we would have developed it the way God intended?" I had never thought of this before. Without ever giving it much thought, my assumption was that most of our cultural activity was a result of the fall. But this teacher was talking about the goodness of the creation and the importance of the human task. The teacher's simple question altered my understanding of both biblical theology and human responsibility.

What would the world be like if we had developed it the way God intended? Would it look anything like the world we have today? How you answer these questions has major implications for how you understand the world.

Neo-Calvinists tend to emphasize two key parts of the creation story: (1) God's wisdom and ordering of creation (Genesis 1-2 & Proverbs 8), and (2) the cultural mandate (Genesis 1:26 & 2:15 ).

God's Wisdom
There is a basic order to creation. There is reason and purpose behind the way in which God created and the creation itself. In The Transforming Vision , Walsh and Middleton suggest:

So wisdom is not merely God's plan for creation in the abstract; it is the wise way he actually designed and ordered the world. The picture is of the Creator crafting and structuring the creation with skill, measuring out the ocean, setting bounds, marking the horizon, fixing the heavens and clouds in their places. In all this, wisdom is God's 'craftsman.' To the ancient Hebrew mind, terms like wisdom, understanding and knowledge are almost synonymous. They refer to the same basic reality, the wise way God has designed and structured creation (p. 47).

The Cultural Mandate
After creating the world, God placed human beings in the Garden of Eden to "work it and take care of it." We were to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it, to rule over the creation as God's stewards. Another way to render the phrase "work it and take care of it" (and a more literal translation) is "to cultivate." We were/are to create culture. That is our God-given task. What would our cultural activity look like? Al Wolters, in Creation Regained , explains:

The given reality of the created order is such that it is possible to have schools and industry, printing and rocketry, needlepoint and chess. The creational law is crying out to be positivized in new and amazing ways. The whole vast range of human civilization is neither the spectacle of the arbitrary aberrations of an evolutionary freak nor the inspiring panorama of the creative achievements of the autonomous Self; it is rather a display of the marvelous wisdom of God in creation and the profound meaningfulness of our task in the world. We are called to participate in the ongoing creational work of God, to be God's helper in executing to the end the blueprint for his masterpiece (p. 38).

Back to the question from my teacher: "What would the world be like if we had developed it the way God intended?" If Wolters is correct, then the "given reality of the created order is such that it is possible" to have pretty much anything. This means that cultural activity is a "good" part of God's world. It is our task. It is how we image God. But obviously, the world does not reflect the image of a good, loving Creator. So, what's wrong?

The Fall

Adam and Eve's sin was two-fold: First, they did not obey God's word and wisdom. They were told not to eat of a certain tree, and they ate. We can assume that the command to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in the best interest of humanity. Second, Adam and Eve desired to be "like God." Instead of relying on God's wisdom, the first humans decided that they would rather trust themselves, and as a result, sin enters the world. In his book, Heaven is Not My Home, Paul Marshall provides a helpful summary:

What was true then remains true now: God still cares for the creation and for human life, and humanity still disobeys him.

Sin is not the story; it is the blight on the story. Sin distorts everything, perverts everything, corrupts everything. It is not sin that makes us bear children, but it is sin that makes childbearing painful. It is not sin that attracts men and women, but it is sin that fills our relations with control and suspicion. It is not sin that makes music, but it is sin that fills our songs with vanity and lust. It is not sin that makes us construct cities and towers, but it is sin that makes those towers symbols of pride and power. It is not sin that calls human beings to live and love, to make music and art, to work and create, to plant and harvest, to play and dance. But it is sin that undercuts and perverts them all.

Sin does not create things. It has no originality, no creativity, no being in itself. Sin lives off that which is good. It is a parasite, feeding greedily on the goodness of what God has made. No relation is of itself sinful, but sin corrupts every relation. No area of life is in itself out of the will of God, but we defy God's will in every area of life.

It is not sin that gives us freedom of choice. But it is sin that makes us take the wrong path. Hence, what we need is not to be rescued from the world, not to cease being human, not to stop caring for the world, not to stop shaping human culture. What we need is the power to do these things according to the will of God. We, as well as the rest of creation, need to be redeemed.

The redemption of creation comes through the Messiah, who is making all things new. The "power to do these things according to the will of God" comes from the Holy Spirit. This morning I came across the following prayer from the Book of Common Prayer. This prayer functions as an appropriate segue to discuss redemption:

O God, you prepared your disciples for the coming of the Spirit through the teaching of your Son Jesus Christ: Make the hearts and minds of your servants ready to receive the blessing of the Holy Spirit, that they may be filled with the strength of his presence; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Redemption

"I don't listen to Christian radio. I'm not sure there is such a thing as 'Christian music,'" was my response to the question, "What is your favorite Christian band?"

You would have thought that I denied the virgin birth! This did not sit well with my audience of about 30 teenagers and a few parents. Not sure what to do next, I pointed to an empty chair. I asked, "Is this a Christian chair? What would make it a Christian chair?" The students were perplexed, the parents were confused, and I glanced at the clock. Time was up. Sunday school was over. We'll pretend this never happened!

I'm not sure if my example of the chair was a good one. I'm not the best at thinking on my feet. But one thing is clear: when you begin to talk about redemption from a Neo-Calvinist perspective, the line between "sacred" and "secular" is blurred. No, better, the supposed line is removed. Cornelius Plantinga Jr. explains in his book Engaging God's World :

[T]here is something characteristic about the pattern of emphases within a Reformed outlook on life and learning — including, for example, an emphasis on the immensity of creation, fall, and redemption. All has been created good, including the full range of human cultures that emerge when humans act according to God's design. But all has been corrupted by evil, including not only culture but also the natural world. So all — the whole cosmos — must be redeemed by Jesus Christ the Lord. What follows is that all of life is sacred: the whole of it stands under the blessing, judgment, and redeeming purposes of God.

In Creation Regained, Al Wolters expands on this:

No invisible dividing line within creation limits the applicability of such basic biblical concepts as reconciliation, redemption, salvation, sanctification, renewal, the kingdom of God, and so on. In the name of Christ, distortion must be opposed everywhere — in the kitchen and the bedroom, in city councils and corporate boardrooms, on the stage and on the air, in the classroom and in the workshop. Everywhere creation calls for the honoring of God's standards. Everywhere humanity's sinfulness disrupts and deforms. Everywhere Christ's victory is pregnant with the defeat of sin and recovery of creation.

Christmas is two days away. Many of us will be attending church services, hearing Christmas music, and, perhaps, reading the Christmas story. We may run the risk of thinking that believing in the Christmas story is only a private matter, not a public truth. For some, Jesus has become a personal savior, concerned only with one's "spiritual life." But who is this "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world "?

The scope of redemption is as great as that of the fall; it embraces creation as a whole. The root cause of all evil on earth — namely, the sin of the human race — is atoned for and overcome in Christ's death and resurrection, and therefore in principle his redemption also removes all of sin's effects. Wherever there is disruption of the good creation — and that disruption…is unrestricted in its scope — there Christ provides the possibility of restoration (Wolters, Creation Regained, 59).

And what does it mean that Jesus is the savior of the world?

Theologians have sometimes spoken of salvation as "re-creation" — not to imply that God scraps his earlier creation and in Jesus makes a new one, but rather to suggest that he hangs on to his fallen original creation and salvages it. He refuses to abandon the work of his hands — in fact he sacrifices his own Son to save his original project. Humankind, which has botched its original mandate and the whole creation along with it, is given another chance in Christ; we are reinstated as God's managers on earth. The original good creation is to be restored (Wolters, Creation Regained, 58).

And all of this comes through the one baby in Bethlehem?

Here it is in a nutshell: Just as one person did it wrong and got us in all this trouble with sin and death, another person did it right and got us out of it. But more than just getting us out of trouble, he got us into life! One man said no to God and put many people in the wrong; one man said yes to God and put many in the right. (The Apostle Paul, Romans 5:18-19, The Message )

And what about Santa, the reindeer, and the elves?

Sphere Sovereignty

"Let's face it," the young woman remarked, "higher education is a business." As you can imagine, this started a lengthy conversation during one of my graduate courses entitled, "Current Trends in Contemporary Higher Education." The class was split. Half of the class agreed with the young woman's comments. The other half didn't agree but was unable to articulate why. According to the young woman, if we were to submit to the reality that higher education is a business, not only would it function better organizationally, but we would have a clearer understanding of contemporary issues facing higher learning as well.

Not so fast. I asked, "What is the product that higher education is selling? And, how do you measure profits? Aren't most institutions of higher education filed as nonprofit organizations?" Certainly you need to think through the financial aspects of any nonprofit organization, but there seems to be danger in applying a for-profit business model to higher education. Is education something that can be commodified? What happens when institutions of higher learning utilize "market demands" for organizational practice? Could running a college or university as a business take away from the vocation of higher education? And where does this kind of thinking stop? Should we run the government like a business? Should families adopt business principles when making decisions? Is CEO a good leadership model for a pastor?

Wrestling with these questions and others like them is the beginning of understanding what Neo-Calvinists mean by "sphere sovereignty." Are there certain rules, or creational laws, that govern business institutions? How are they different from creational norms that should govern institutions of education? While sphere sovereignty is difficult to explain without a dry-erase board, the following is a helpful summary by Ray Pennings and James Brink. This is taken from their very helpful article, Sphere Sovereignty 101 in the March 2004 issue of Comment:

In the late nineteenth century, Althusius's idea that the institutions of society have distinct realms of influence and authority was picked up by Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch prime minister at the time. Kuyper was adamant that every social institution is "sovereign in its own sphere." To a large extent, his idea of sphere sovereignty was rooted in his theology. As a strong Calvinist, Kuyper could not attribute to any human institution an absolute authority — not even an absolute temporal authority. To do so would be idolatrous. Thus, placing limitations on the power of government was a simple acknowledgement that only God has the right to absolute sovereign rule.

The timeless truth of God's rule was balanced by the organic, unfolding nature of human society. Kuyper thought that human social structures are latent in creation. As a culture develops, its people discover organizational principles and structures to meet developing needs. These structures are not artificial creations. They reflect something about what it means to be human and in society. Each also has a unique purpose, a mission distinct from that of every other social structure.

In a series of guest lectures he gave at Princeton in 1898, Kuyper argued what we are to understand by this idea of sphere sovereignty: "that the family, the business, science, art and so forth are all social spheres, which do not owe their existence to the State, and which do not derive the law of their life from the superiority of the State, but obey a high authority within their own bosom; an authority which rules, by the grace of God, just as the sovereignty of the State does."

And, of course, Colossians 1:15-20 is an important part of scripture for Neo-Calvinists: "in Christ all things hold together."

Final Remarks and Seerveld’s Summary

This will be my last installment of the Neo-Calvinism 101 series. Many thanks to Gideon Strauss for his encouragement and "advertisements." Because of him my readership increased substantially!

I'm sure I forgot many important aspects of Neo-Calvinism that should be included in a basic introduction, but I tried to hit the essentials. Or, at least, the parts I did discuss are the parts that opened my eyes to a much bigger God and faith when I learned more advanced theology from Neo-Calvinists (professors, mentors, friends and books!) about five years ago. Feel free to add additional comments about what I missed, what I didn't explain completely enough, and/or your own thoughts about the strengths and weaknesses of the Neo-Calvinist tradition.

Perhaps the most important thing I learned about Neo-Calvinism I learned in September when I attended the After Worldview conference at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Some of the Neo-Calvinist heavyweights were there, including James Olthuis, Calvin Seerveld, and Al Wolters, to name a few. What stuck out most about these presenters was the humility in which they presented. While they were "standing" in the Neo-Calvinist tradition, they didn't come across as if they had everything figured out. In fact, they warned the audience about the danger in thinking that reformational theology (and worldview) is something that we can "hang on a wall" and say, "there it is, we've got it!"

Biblical study and theological reflection combined with Christian living (praxis) is an ongoing process. When we think we have "arrived" we are in a dangerous place. At the After Worldview conference, Olthuis was quick to point out that "we will never 'get it.' We can't canonize it." When Christians associate "the Christian worldview" (or Neo-Calvinist theology) with "the Gospel" it can easily lead to an ideology. This ideology then becomes a "controlling mechanism," hindering fresh visions of the Gospel for the sake of the world.

Seerveld communicated the need for "humble confidence" when approaching world-and-life analysis. He explained that having a reformational worldview can cause damage, especially if it becomes an idol. Christians should feel blessed to have a glimpse of what is going on in the world, but we should not act as if we have it all figured out. After reading 1 John 3:16-18, Seerveld suggested, "spirituality is a cop-out unless you are willing to suffer along with other brothers and sisters."

Seerveld's suggestion of always proceeding with "humble confidence" was a valuable insight for me and a helpful reminder of the attitude required for theological reflection: it should be the same as that of Christ Jesus (Philippians 2:5-11). The following summary statement (of my series and of Neo-Calvinism in general) comes from Seerveld. There is a glossary at the beginning of his book Take Hold of God and Pull in which he explains what he means by "Calvinian faith-tradition" and "Reformational Christianity." His words offer a fitting conclusion to my series:

I would not particularly like to be called a "Calvinist," any more than people deeply indebted to Karl Marx for their pattern of concerns about injustice in society want to be labeled (vulgar) "Marxists." An -ism usually is meant to typify a perspective which has become a one-sided, blanket theology. Then the "Calvinists" and "Marxists" can themselves be unself-critical, and their opponents can dismiss them as blinkered fanatics. Nobody is well served.

But I am gratefully embedded in the faith tradition of the French-Swiss leader John Calvin (1509-64) of the historical Reformation, which takes God's sovereign Rule over world history seriously (following somewhat on Augustinian lines), and which asks disciples of Christ to be busy communally as a community of sinful saints in bringing one's intelligence and cultural endeavors subject to the compassionate lordship of Jesus Christ.

So by "Calvinian faith-tradition" and "Reformational Christianity" — which is my pedigree for thinking, for developing a philosophy, for reading Scripture and praying, for living daily life — I mean (1) a life that would be deeply committed to the scriptural injunction not to be conformed to patterns of this age, but to be re-formed by the renewal of our consciousness so that we will be able to discern what God wills for action on earth (cf. Romans 12:1-2); and (2) an approach in history which honors the genius of the Reformation spearheaded by Martin Luther and John Calvin in the sixteenth century, developed by Groen van Prinsterer and Abraham Kuyper in the nineteenth century, as a particular Christian cultural tradition out of which one can richly serve the Lord; and (3) a concern that we be communally busy re-forming as an ongoing way rather than standing pat in the past tense (ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est).

Derek Melleby is the Director of the College Transition Initiative, a ministry of CPYU (Center for Parent/Youth Understanding) through a partnership with the Coalition for Christian Outreach. The Initiative helps college-bound high school juniors and seniors, and their parents, successfully make the transition from high school to college. He is the co-author of The Outrageous Idea of Academic Faithfulness: A Guide for Students (Brazos Press) and lives in Mount Joy, Pennsylvania with his wife Heidi and son Jacob.

Ministry Transformation- The Emerging Church  Personal Transformation- Spiritual Formation  World Transformation- Social Action

Interact with Bob Robinson about missional ministry, spiritual formation, or social action by e-mailing him at vanguardchurch (at) gmail (dot) com, or by going to the blog and commenting there.