Yesterday, the Seattle Times ran a front-page article about the “expanding empire” of Mars Hill Church (I guess Driscoll will now be piped into Orange County, CA and Everett, WA). There is definitely a discussion to be had about this methodology of church planting, but I will leave that for another time.
Yet seeing Driscoll on the front page of our major city paper in a suit and tie, surrounded by a choir in robes (it seemed way out-of-character, this was for their Easter service), prompted me to reflect a little about what some call the “young, restless, and reformed” movement. As a result, I thought I would post some thoughts on a recent talk given by Mark Driscoll on this movement of which Mars Hill church is a part, and of which Mark Driscoll is a leader.
Although studies done by the
likes of Barna suggest that the jury is still out on the scope and size of this movement, suffice it to say that more people, groups, books, and magazine articles are talking about the rise of Calvinism in evangelical circles. At the end of the day, it seems like there is something to talk about.
Driscoll then, in his lecture, laid out the following four points as distinguishing aspects of the “new Calvinism”:
1) Reformed Theology
2) Complimentarian Relationships
3) Spirit-filled living (read: young, restless, and charismatic, see below)
4) Missional churches
Then, in the second part of his talk Driscoll attempted to give a taxonomy of the new movement by suggesting “teams” (his term) that different prominent leaders side on. For instance, if you have reformed theology and complimentarian relationships but lack spirit-filled living and missional churches, then you are on the Mike Horton, White Horse Inn team. If you have reformed theology and missional churches without Spirit-filled living or complimentarian relationships than you are on the Tim Keller, Redeemer church team, etc. And, of course, the Acts 29 network was the only team that could check off all four distinctives, imagine that.
Now, Driscoll did admit that these distinctives are ones of emphasis and not necessarily ones of principle. However, painting in broad brushstrokes is only tolerable if the categories and delineations are more helpful than confusing. After stewing a few days about this theological and sociological survey of New Calvinism, I am still debating whether the talk was helpful, confusing, inaccurate, or a mixture of none or all of the above.
All I want to put forth here then are the questions that the talk raised in my mind. Driscoll suggested that before criticizing different camps in the movement, that one should choose to put in a phone call first, rather than blog. Well, after unsuccessful attempts at getting Marky Mark on the line, I felt that it would be understandable if I blogged first;) Plus, I don’t consider this post criticizing as much as asking clarifying questions. After all, Driscoll himself admitted that his ideas were “beta ideas” and worthy of discussion (he mentioned that he is still debating whether or not to put these ideas into book form). And what can blogs be good for? Discussion.
So, onto the questions that were raised. One is, I still have trouble quantifying or defining Networks in general, and Acts 29 in particular. Definition seems elusive. Maybe this is by design. Can we just call them plain ol’ evangelical para-church organizations? My confusion especially comes when Driscoll, for instance, divides up the teams that are underneath the umbrella of the same movement, many of whom are part of Acts 29, yet these groups cannot check off all four points the way Acts 29 can. I know I am probably missing something obvious here so please help me out if you have gnosis. But say a PCA church is part of the Acts 29 network (like
this one) and falls under the Reformed, Complimentarian team, but can’t check off the rest. How is it helpful to include them under Acts 29 which can mark off all four? Who then is truly Acts 29 and who is not?
Which brings up a related second question: If there are teams within the new Calvinist movement that can’t check off the first distinctive of “reformed theology,” how helpful is it to lump that team under the umbrella-term of new Calvinism? I thought to be a new Calvinist one had to at least affirm the five points, but maybe I am unclear on that definition as well, maybe that’s why this group is called “new” Calvinists, because they don’t hold to tulip? I dunno. What I do know is that Reformed theology is far more than the five points of Calvinism, and that I have never found it necessarily helpful or accurate to call churches that hold to the five points as capital R-Reformed, perhaps reformational is better. You can find Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, et al. that hold to the five-points, but they do not consider themselves Reformed, they are Catholics, Baptists, and Lutherans because of their other distinctives. Anyway, that’s another discussion.
A third question relates to his definition of Spirit-filled living: How exactly is this different from being charismatic? Driscoll mentioned that the term “charismatic” has a lot of baggage to it, and thus he wanted to use another term. So is Driscoll simply a charismatic-continuationist for us fogies (hey, I thought I just turned 30) who use the older terms, or I am missing something?
And if he is a charismatic-continuationist, how helpful is the category “spirit-filled living”? Driscoll himself admitted that no one would want to claim that they are not living by the Spirit, so then he said he knows his claim is controversial in saying that he believes cessationists are worldly, and that it belies a deistic worldview, or worse, an atheistic worldview. Huh? Can someone explain? Is this a helpful taxonomy or a confusing and unhelpful taxonomy? And does that mean that Acts 29 churches that don’t hold to the continuation of the revelatory gifts are atheistic? Maybe too, one might suggest this is just outright name-calling. Also, Driscoll mentioned he has research proving that the early church believed in the continuation of these miraculous gifts. Really? A non-specialist in the field of patristic studies is going to trump the field with new research? Many wait with baited breath.
Ok, a little banter aside, the last question I have coming away from this talk deals with doctrinal distinctives. What are the doctrinal distinctives of Acts 29 and the new Calvinism? I know you can go on the Acts 29 website and find a doctrinal statement. But how is this different from other groups? Granted, this relates to my second question, but I came away curious as to what Acts 29 folk, and new Calvinist folk would say their doctrine actually is? Driscoll asserted that the Reformation was a reactionary movement. I would agree that it was reactionary, it was reacting to theological and doctrinal issues of the day. However, isn’t it also true that Acts 29 and new Calvinism is a reactionary movement? So the question is what is it reacting against? Is it doctrine, culture, uncool churches, or something else? I just can’t seem to find any distinctive doctrinal position that Acts 29 would have different with many of their evangelical forebears. For instance, what are the doctrinal differences between Mars Hill Church and Capital Hill Baptist? What is the difference between Acts 29 and the Southern Baptist Convention or the Christian & Missionary Alliance? And would it be appropriate for those groups to consider merging?
At any rate, as I said at the outset, I just wanted to pose some questions that this talk raised for me. I am not trying to diss Driscoll here, he is someone who knows the gospel and preaches it, and thus how thankful we can be that the gospel has gone forth from his lips. Yet he is also a very public teacher that says things about other issues that I think call for some questioning and examination. If you want analysis rather than questions, I have found some analysis of the themes Driscoll discussed around the web. Below are a few:
4) Famed pajama-hadijnist Frank Turk
weighs-in.
I guess one other small question I had was, does Driscoll know that chain-wallets went out of style in the late 90’s? Just sayin’….
