Growing discussion on being post-reformed. See The Craw and PostReformed. Some very good stuff here. These seven "Being PostReformed..." statements come from The Craw but compiled together at PR...
- Being PostReformed means laying aside a dogmatic application of a particular reading of the Reformed Confessions that keeps one from appreciating and fellowshipping with brethren from other traditions outside of Reformedom.
- Being PostReformed enables one to see the Bible as God’s grand story of the ages and not to view it as a repository of propositions and factoids. It’s not a Tommy-gun that we load up with pet proof texts…to blast other Christians with. It sometimes gets mysterious and messy but the PostReformed man is comfortable with that and doesn’t feel the necessity to correct God via better formulations and propositions.
- Being PostReformed allows one to ask, “who can I work with” rather than “who can I not work with” in ministry opportunities outside of one’s immediate church, denomination, or tradition. This puts things in positive rather than negative terms and frees one to find allies instead of drawing an ever more exclusive circle of “orthodoxy.”
- Being PostReformed means that when one arrives at a roadblock in one’s tradition, a roadblock created by traditions that attempt to interpret tradition, one is free jump into another road altogether. The PostReformed are not afraid to borrow from another tradition’s formulation of an issue, or to leave a particular point to ambiguity. He is able to clearly see he is bound by God’s Word and that tradition must serve it. He is a man in full.
- Being PostReformed means that you are sometimes not persuaded when the majority of current scholarship in your tradition agrees on something. They may be blind to the fact that they have arrived in a self-referential cul-de-sac. Jumping out of the cul-de-sac to see what another tradition says or to access earlier formulations from your own tradition isn’t something to be afraid of.
- Being PostReformed means you regard Arminians, Emerging Churchmen, and Roman Catholics as Christians…and treat them as such. You work vigorously to build unity, without compromising truth, to demonstrate the visible unity of the Body of Christ, wherever you can, to the watching world. The PostReformed man takes the Beatitudes seriously with great longing in his heart: “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God.”
- Being PostReformed means having enough confidence in your Reformed theological convictions that you can interact substantively with Christians in other traditions without fear. The fear that often masquerades as dogmatism is replaced by a love for the truth and your brethren.
As a Reformed pastor/theologian I like a lot of what they suggest, not all, and in the end I do not think it says enough.
On I. Fair enough.
On II. This is not postReformed, it is the best of the Reformed tradition. Certainly what they want to correct needs correcting, but this has always existed in the Reformed tradition.
On III. Right on. Good stuff.
On IV. Good stuff. I don't get the last sentence. Then again, I am still groggy.
On V. Good.
On VI. Two problems here.
1.) It is redundant in light of I.
2.) I only regard those as Christian who embrace the Gospel and belonging to any group, even the reformed, doesn't make us Christian. If their point is, and I think it is, to treat each of these as Christian traditions, it takes a bit more dialogue. For example, I am still convinced that official Roman Catholic dogma denies the Gospel, and I cannot therefore consider it "Christian."
I think Point I does a better job than VI here.
On VII. Fine.
Since I hate it when people miss the point of an author (Steve is becoming a magnet for the hermeneutically challenged) let me say I love the point here. It is one that I have been making for 6 years. But I am not convinced that this is postReformed as much as it is the best of the Reformed tradition.
I think the label and/or discussion can be helpful, but much more needs to be said. I think it can also be a hindrance. It would be like me saying I am postSBC for 10 specific reasons because I am distancing myself from many of the current problems within the Convention. It's probably better to just say what I am (SBC), and make the distinction without a new label. I could be wrong.
In the words of Steve's mentor and hero, "You know, that was just alright for me, dawg."
I plan on reading and watching and giving these guys time do their thing. I look foward to what they will write/do.
Posted by: Joe Thorn | 04/04/2006 at 07:52 AM
Tim Etherington also tried to use this designation a while back. After a thorough questioning from many of his Reformed brethren, he responded with the following post: "I am Post-Reformed, I am not Post-Reformed."
In essence, I agree with Tim and am glad that he abandoned this idea. To be honest, I am tired of everybody jumping on the post-whatever bandwagon.
Posted by: John Divito | 04/04/2006 at 08:40 AM
beautiful stuff...
Posted by: bob hyatt | 04/04/2006 at 08:42 AM
ALL YOU REFORMERS ARE GOING TO BURN!
Just kiding. I like the points you made. It seesm that the principles have a lot less to do with reformed theology and a lot more to do wit hthe arogance that a lot of reformers have toward those who are not reformed. I think you could easily rewrite these contentions for someone of the Arminian persuasion or anything in between. Good stuff though.
Posted by: the fundamentalist | 04/04/2006 at 08:52 AM
Thanks for the plug John. I now get jittery whenever I see the term post-Reformed.
Steve, I agree with Joe's comments, there is nothing uniquely post-Reformed in those 7 statements and he is right about Roman Catholics. There may be individual Roman Catholics who are Christians, there may be many who are, but to bless the entire Roman Catholic dogma as "Christian" is to ignore the anathamas pronounced on sola fide at Trent. They stand today in opposition to the gospel.
Perhaps the term we're reaching for here is not "post-Reformed" but "post-More-Reformed-Than-Thou"?
Posted by: Tim Etherington | 04/04/2006 at 09:05 AM
Hi Steve-
I'm sorry to post this here, but I tried to email you and it wouldn't except my username/password. I lurk your site at least once a week and always enjoy what you have to say.
That said, I'm currently writing an article for Beginner's Guide magazine on vacationing in Minneapolis and I wanted to ask your opinion on something. Which of the 3 art museums do you think is the best? Wiseman, Walker or the Institute of Arts? Also-- if you one had 1-3 days to see Minneapolis, what things would you recommend?
Michelle Ray
Posted by: Michelle-This One's For the Girls | 04/04/2006 at 09:42 AM
HAHAHAHAHA.
Posted by: Joe Thorn | 04/04/2006 at 09:46 AM
Sorry. Two reasons I think that was funny Michelle. 1. Finally one of Steve's posts was staying on topic... until! and 2. People often think Steve lives in places where he does not.
But Steve may know a lot about those museums, and I am sure your comment will not wrongly impact the discussion. Please excuse my goofiness.
Posted by: Joe Thorn | 04/04/2006 at 09:54 AM
[With tongue firmly planted in cheek...]
So Steve, are you saying that we should completely disengage from the Reformed tradition?
Posted by: Stuart | 04/04/2006 at 10:23 AM
*blushing* Sorry to break the momentum. He doesn't live in Minneapolis? How did I go so wrong?
Steve, please disregard the interruption of superfluous questions about Minnesota. I just figured out that you live in Chicago. I must be thinking of some other reformed, missional preacher...
Posted by: Michelle-This One's For the Girls | 04/04/2006 at 10:31 AM
Joe, I liked your thoughts on the points. I had much the same reaction, but as I posted at 2am I decided not to really respond specifically to the points. What struck me most about the list is that as two baptist reformed guys this is much what we started saying a year and a half ago without any labels.
John, I almost wrote in my post that I doubt I will ever call myself "post-reformed" simply because there are labels everywhere. But for the sake of conversing on a position, it's nice for the position to have a name or it's almost impossible to discuss. Much like Stetzer, Driscoll and others are labeling different groups in the emerging church. I don't care if people hold to the labels, but they help in knowing good subgroups vs ones we don't agree with.
Michelle, I'm not going to be much help as Joe has made clear. Sorry.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 04/04/2006 at 10:45 AM
Hi All,
I realise you may find some of my credos co-extentensive (I agree) but they were a thought experiment in "thinking out loud." I will probably work with others to shorten the list to 5 credos.
As to whether this is just "reformed" or something else I have to say it is an effort to do both. Just as the Reformers were doing something new (Reforming) and something old (extending the Patristic and the best of the Scholastic tradition) so I was trying to be Reformed but desperately wanting to get out of the dead end "angels dancing on the head of a pin" debates that are currently rife in Reformedom.
I think "post-reformed" is partially rhetorical but it seems it has been partially successful in jump-starting dialogue in the Reformed community in a fresh more positive direction as this thread itself demonstrates. I take no credit for the concept (as an earlier comment demonstrated an earlier pedigree) but am excited to see people talking about something than arguing about who is MORE Reformed.
Garrett (The Craw)
Posted by: Anikisan | 04/04/2006 at 11:22 AM
Roman Catholic dogma does not deny the Gospel, at least not the Gospel presented in the Scriptures. It may be wise to offer some explanation when making such statements and I would be willing to have a conversation on the issue. I would suggest that there is more than some misunderstanding about what the Catholic Church believes about justification. I would further suggest that perhaps we need to define what is meant by the Gospel - for the Gospel is certainly more than justification.
These PostReformation ideas are good and it is encouraging to see them. I was received into the Roman Catholic Church this past weekend after much study on my part and being raised in a strong Protestant tradition, which has included time within the SBC. I would not have made the choices I have recently made if I doubted the Church's orthodoxy.
Posted by: Scott Lyons | 04/04/2006 at 11:58 AM
This is good stuff! I'm ready to sign it! (wait, I don't have to do that do I?)
I echo Joe and Steve's concerns about what might be too much openness to Roman Catholic dogma, but outside of that, I'm definitely down with what has been written.
Let's see: I'm with all but one point, does that make me an Amyraldian post-Reformed? Pre-post-Reformed? Semi-Augustinian, post-reformed? . . . wait, there I go trying to label everything again. Maybe I'm not as far along as I thought. :)
Posted by: Joel | 04/04/2006 at 12:10 PM
The label may or may not mean something. I call myself post-evangelical and I mean it, but I brought some of my evangelicalism with me on the trip.
Overall...I think these guys rock.
Joe...you gotta write about your experiences in the tattoo parlor. I need it for a discussion starter here at OBI :-)
Posted by: iMonk | 04/04/2006 at 12:21 PM
*looking around* Where did that come from Michael? lol. I have tattoos. I like tattoos. I am trying to build a relationship with the guys who run the local studio near my house. Anything more than that - you'd have to email me. :)
Scott, I am thinking of the idea of "sola fide," that a man is justified by faith alone, apart from works/sacraments. The Council of Trent explicitly rejects the concept.
Posted by: Joe Thorn | 04/04/2006 at 12:52 PM
Oh, that this could be said of every believer who has called on the name of the Lord - that each of us is growing in the likeness of the character of Christ, daily living the truths of the Beatitudes in our lives and relations with our brothers and sisters. Thanks for posting this for us, Steve.
Tom
Doctrine Matters
Posted by: Tom | 04/04/2006 at 01:09 PM
Scott, I share your take on the statements about Roman Catholicism. I tend to think those who say that Catholic dogma falls completely outside the bounds of Christianity don't fully understand it. It has some problems, but I'd have a hard time classifying it as non-Christian.
My own method is to think of other believers as just as Christian as me until I can prove otherwise. And like I wouldn't want someone to judge my faith solely on the fact that I'm "Baptist," I'm sure a lot of Catholics wouldn't want to be judged as if they can be completely identified with all of Catholic doctrine or history.
On point II., Stephen Edmondson has argued that many of the changes in the Institutes between the first and last editions--especially those in the organization of the material--are due to the intervening years when Calvin was writing his commentaries. All that work on the Bible made Calvin more attuned to the narrative of God's story than he originally was. Too bad his followers in the immediate generations after him didn't follow suit.
Posted by: Keith | 04/04/2006 at 01:25 PM
I think most Protestants would qualify sola fide to some degree, don't you? I know that I did as a Protestant. I did not believe that a man can simply believe and then live life as he pleased. No, I would say the man was never saved, that works are the fruit (and essential fruit if he lives for any length of time after his conversion) of his salvation. I don't believe the Catholic understanding is much different here. Catholics would simply say "faith working through love" (Gal 5.6).
Even the demons believe of course. Therefore, faith means something more than mere belief. Trent guards against the antinomianism that can arise out of a belief in only belief - a belief that belief brings grace that frees one from moral obligation. That is how the Church reads itself concerning Trent. Most of the Protestants whom I know, would also heartily deny antinomianism.
Therefore, if by faith you mean a faith that works, as James might put it - then I believe the Church would agree with sola fide. And not that those works merit our salvation, but that they too are works of Christ's grace in our lives (Eph 2.8-10).
As you know, the only place in scripture that uses the phrase "faith alone" is Jm 2.24. And yet James and Paul do not disagree about the gospel.
I hope that's helpful. And I hope it's clear. I believe it represents the Catholic Church's teaching on this issue.
Peace be with you.
Posted by: Scott Lyons | 04/04/2006 at 01:39 PM
Scott, you're right about what Rome teaches on this point according to paragraphs 1987 to 1995 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Incidentally, for those who want to know what the Catholic Church teaches for any reason the CCC is a very helpful little book.
Jon
Posted by: Jon | 04/04/2006 at 02:08 PM
Scott this isn't the place to discuss it but the RCC stands by Trent which pronounces anathama on sola fide, salvation by faith alone. That is the heart of the gospel and until Rome retracts those portions of Trent, the official position of the church remains opposed to the gospel.
Posted by: Tim Etherington | 04/04/2006 at 02:21 PM
This is precisely why I avoid message boards. I love giving hours to conversation on these topics to people I see face to face, people at church, in the coffe house, at the pub, etc. But re-hashing Trent, Vatican II, and the CCC on a thread where it is hardly relevant - I just don't have the time. Good and writhy issues though.
My last offering is this (though I will continue to read when I get breaks in the day): Read my second point under Article VI above. I am not saying all cathlics are going to hell, or that all baptists are ging to heaven. And when it comes to Catholic dogma, I have taken the time to read many of the primary source materials and speak with Catholic clergy. There is unresolvable tension between Trent, vatican II and the CCC. But when push comes to shove, Trent always seems to be the Trump card by the leadership.
I am sorry Steve, I have contributed to the derailment of yet another post. :)
Posted by: Joe Thorn | 04/04/2006 at 02:36 PM
I would be happy to continue the conversation via e-mail, Tim (or anyone else): sweptover [at] gmail [dot] com.
And I don't think Steve is upset about my posts on Catholicism (though he may disagree with me) since the discussion was brought up by Joe and not myself. I believe that viewing the Catholic Church as an enemy to the gospel is ridiculous and does dishonor to the work of Christ within the Church. We must be careful not to allow our judgment to outrun our knowledge/understanding.
Posted by: Scott Lyons | 04/04/2006 at 02:47 PM
It seems like some aren't willing to let Catholics themselves say how they understand their faith, but instead insist on pinning them into a council from four hundred odd years ago and say, "No, this is what you really believe, whether you like it or not."
Preventing stuff like that was was point VI's point, I think.
Posted by: Keith | 04/04/2006 at 02:50 PM
Joe, I wish I could sit down and talk with you about this issue face to face, but alas, I live in the Fair Sunny Country, far south of you. Perhaps some day. For now, we'll agree to disagree, amiably.
The SBC has many wonderful and mature believers within her, just as the Catholic Church does. And both, obviously, have their share of pew-sitters.
Again, peace.
Posted by: Scott Lyons | 04/04/2006 at 02:52 PM
I am on my way out the door, but let me say...
Keith, I am more than willing to let you define your own faith. I have known godly, Catholics who know Jesus, walk with him and I call them my brother. But that has not been the issue. The issue is official teaching of The Roman Catholic Church. Again, please see my words above.
Posted by: Joe Thorn | 04/04/2006 at 03:06 PM
Post-Reformed??? As said by others, I think many of those points are simply "Reformed," with the exception of VI ("by grace through faith").
Is anyone else getting a bit weary of all the "post" titles? I guess you can just call me "Post-Post."
Posted by: Jim | 04/04/2006 at 03:12 PM
But that has not been the issue. The issue is official teaching of The Roman Catholic Church. Again, please see my words above.
Joe, I'm not sure how I've strayed off topic. In Scott's post, he interpreted the anti-sola fide portion of Trent as a guard against anti-nomianism--and then said "I believe the Church would agree with sola fide," at least under certain understandings of it (i.e., understandings that don't fall into anti-nomianism). He then said: "That is how the Church reads itself concerning Trent" and said that he belives his description represents the official position of the Church.
That's a self-definition of Trent and the RCC's official belief by a Catholic. Tim ignored it and still said: "the official position of the church remains opposed to the gospel." You said, "But when push comes to shove, Trent always seems to be the Trump card by the leadership"--apparently meaning Trent as anti-sola fide, not as Scott described it.
It seemed to me that Scott's self-description of his Church's official position and Trent were overlooked and the same old interpretations of the RCC's official position (which Scott thinks aren't accurate) were again rejected. That's why I left my comment. It seems like we should deal with people as they understand themselves rather than as we think we understand them.
I'm not Catholic, by the way. I just thought the idea that the Church's dogma was not Christian was inaccurate, and even when corrected by a knowledgable Catholic, those inaccuracies were still maintained.
Posted by: Keith | 04/04/2006 at 03:55 PM
In case anyone actually cares, the point of this post and all of the "post-reformed" talk is not the label, but the points. Can we actually keep it there?
Jim, the point of the points is that the Reformed (or TR's: Truly Reformed) don't live these out. It's an inner dialogue about how to best be Reformed, I think.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 04/04/2006 at 04:07 PM
does one even need to believe in Christ? it would be to dogmatic to say that too!!!
Posted by: jim | 04/04/2006 at 04:08 PM
Steve, instead of calling ourselves "post-reformed" how about if we name the Truly Reformed "hyper-Reformed" or "over Reformed" or "butthead Reformed"?
:)
Look! I'm trying to move it back on topic!!
Wouldn't it be cool if a TR came and tried to defend being TR?
Posted by: Tim | 04/04/2006 at 06:25 PM
Tim, please be careful what you wish for. Dangit!
I'm labelling myself "Jesusy"
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 04/04/2006 at 06:28 PM
Tim: Don't be more snarky than me. That's my turf :-)
Posted by: iMonk | 04/04/2006 at 06:31 PM
i don't understand why everyone is so up in arms... is someone trying to reform their posts?
is steve not happy with the way people post-comments?
Posted by: david | 04/04/2006 at 09:29 PM
LOok, when the reformers said "semper reformanda" then intended it to end when we got it prefect and that happedned with the Westminster standards. The call to continue reforming is issued to anyone who disagrees with the WFC. Anythign other than that form of Christianity is a step awa from perfection.
There is reason for serious doubt about teh salvaation of anyone who is Armeaniam, Bab-diss, Congregational, Evangelcal, revivalistic, fundamentalist, premillennial, dispensational, theonomist, Anglican (shudder), or anyone who disagrees with Van Til in any way, shape or form.
(Okay, I fulfilled my own wish, donned the cloak of a TR and posted. It wasn't as much fun as I thought. I need to go wash my hands and brush my teeth. I don't feel clean. - Tim)
Posted by: More Reformed Than Thou | 04/04/2006 at 10:51 PM
I appreciate the points and yet think Jim's concern about the label is legitimate. Since we live in a day and age where the label "post" usually suggests some form of protest (and sometimes becomes a slightly arrogant way of saying that we have learned the lessons and are moving beyond this group), I think embracing the label and embedding it into each one of the points may be a hindrance in seeking further reformation and redemptive living within Reformed circles.
Posted by: AWHall | 04/05/2006 at 12:31 PM
Good. I especially like VII. Would that we could really listen to each other and really talk on a level of understanding the other, and their viewpoint, even if we believe our own understanding of that matter is better.
Posted by: Ted Gossard | 04/09/2006 at 05:48 PM
Having grown up in the world of PCA, your list sporting "Post-Reformed" is interesting and welcome.
Although it's immediately curious to me who the Post-Reformed men will find to marry. While they are busy becoming "men in full," I fear the wording of your particular points may hold your women back at 'just-plain-reformed.'
Of course, this ironically leaves even the post-reformed man not quite as 'post' as he might like.
What if the post-reformed Christian could be one who could continue to hold the accent on the sovereignty of God, but perhaps not think that hard patriarchy is an essential component?
Posted by: Chris Ridgeway | 04/15/2006 at 11:43 AM
Hello, my name is Daniel. My blog is called Apologia Christi. I was just wondering through blogs and came across yours. The purpose of my blog is to "Discover & Promote Truth, Denounce Relativism, Tear-down Political Correctness, Protect and Defend Unborn Humans and commit to living according to classic, biblical Christianity as we, by the grace of God, are able."
Come by and check out the site. Feel free to leave comments and link if you would like.
Thanks,
Daniel
Writer and Editor of Apologia Christi
www.apologiachristi.blogspot.com
Posted by: Daniel F. | 06/09/2006 at 09:55 PM