Sometimes I get too focused on what I’m thinking about right now.

I get what you are saying but I would add that for lots of women all over, the rise in popularity of teaching that dictates to them the very nature of how they can serve their neighbor and their God is much more than ideological chatter.

I think you are right that there are a few loud voices with loud followers and of course these guys get the attention. Having just moved back to Seattle, the one I obviously hear the most about is Mark Driscoll.

In my experience it’s on the lips and minds of all kinds of poor and middle class people around the world :^).

I know ideas have consequences, and particularly religious ideas, but maybe it’s time for religious conservatives of all persuasions to give it a rest for a while and focus their energy on how to serve people better.

I’m pretty bored and disillusioned by the whole ideological/theological thing at this point.

Whether Anabaptist or Calvinist or a ‘third way.’ the whole thing normally just seems like words heaped up on more words.

I’ve been following these kinds of arguments closely for decades, but things don’t seem to change too much on the ground one way or the other no matter who temporarily gets the inside ideological/theological track.

Maybe the brightest Christian people should be passionately arguing about how best to serve others in practical ways. Particularly those most in need.

Faithful in little, faithful in much. Maybe the theological abstractions would come easier if we got our priorities straighter.

Erika, I am also a long-time lurker, though I might have commented once. I always appreciate your gentle insights.

I wanted to add here some of what I wrote on Scot’s post. I was surprised by his post because while I find myself in neo-reformed circles, I haven’t experienced the angry dogmatism that Scot and many of his other commenters are concerned about.

I agree that there is a rise in young Baptist turned Calvinists. Many of the comments pointed out several of the reasons for this trend (which, ironically, are many of the same reasons that drove the beginning of the emerging church). Many of these young people are coming out of somewhat shallow theological teaching in youth groups and are then taught systematic theology in Bible Colleges and other programs. The passion of youth and a drive to find depth is combined with the leftover modernist drive to find logical consistency (in systematic theology). Strict, 5-point Calvinism has the benefit of being a complete system, and it makes sense to many.

And then, of course, it is sort of the cool thing right now in some circles.

Perhaps I am looking at a softer side of the neo-Reformed movement, because my circles include a deep search into church history, including Jonathan Edwards, Calvin, etc. This has strengthened their commitment to the Reformed tradition, but it has also given people like my husband an increased appreciation for the unity and diversity of the historical and universal church. Although my husband and those like him are perhaps eager to debate the theological points of their reformed theology, they also are very willing to consider all of evangelicalism and even (at times) Catholic and Eastern-Orthodox as being part of the “big tent”.

In fact, the neo-reformed world that I see intersects with the missional church in many ways.

I suspect that the rigid dogmatism that you’re seeing in the neo-reformed movement is similar to the dogmatism that can be seen at times in the emerging/missional church on the part of some of their more divisive leaders? I do not say that as a critique - I consider myself a part of the missional movement. However, there are voices in the movement that are loud, controversial, dogmatic, and a bit judgmental towards people they view as judgmental. In both the missional and neo-orthodox movement I think that these voices are sometimes taken to represent a movement that on the whole is actually much more gentle and willing to dialogue theologically then these leaders would seem to show.

I remember Dr. Mouw talking about this at Fuller: he made the point that while we are all trinitarian, most of us will gravitate toward one of the Persons as our primary “God”. He said this is often most apparent in our language when praying in whom we choose to address most often in our prayers. I know that among my InterVarsity friends, for example, I can almost always expect to pray to “Jesus”. I am much more likely to pray to “God”. It is interesting to pay attention to this among different groups of people.

Thanks for such a great response! I really appreciate your insight and your tone in sharing it. It’s always great to “meet” the readers here and I appreciate you taking the time to comment.