Pages

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Taylor & McKnight Brouhaha

Generally, because of my personality and because that is not my purpose here, I have purposely avoided controversies on this blog. But there has been a bit of a theological brouhaha (I love using that word) in the blogosphere the past few days that touches the BBC community. So, with fear and trepidation I call your attention to it.

The root of the disagreement is the ongoing battle of the “New Perspectives on Paul” (mainly of NT Wright), versus those whom have spoken adamantly against it (mainly John Piper in an upcoming book). Without getting into all that, the issue of the “attitude” of those involved was put on the table in two posts this week by author, theology Professor, and blogger (Jesus Creed), Scot McKnight.

McKnight’s posts generated an avalanche of responses, including one from Justin Taylor, also an author and prolific blogger (Between Two Worlds): Taylor is an editor for the ESY, and is closely linked with almost anything related to the new reform movement. And because of those connections, Taylor was compelled to write his own post today on BTW—it too, generated a list of passionate and interesting responses.

For those of us that minister to young theologians in training (and, if you are one those), it is well worth your time to read these posts and the subsequent follow up “comments” on all three.
I am hesitant to comment on either; presently I am going to exercise a little wisdom and follow Mary’s example and “ponder these things in my heart” (Luke 2:19). But my preliminary thoughts are that both have some things we need to hear. I do believe that McKnight is accurate when he talks about the all too common posture (or perception?) of arrogance and seemingly blind allegiance to traditions and men, of the young NeoReformers. And Taylor is right to call McKnight to use real examples and quit building a straw man.

Well, for now I suggest you read all three blog posts and the subsequent follow-up comments on each (I have linked all of them below). Also, I’m curious to hear what you have to say about all this: do you think either, or both, have a point? Are these real concerns for the church? Are they things we should be discussing on our campus? Should we not be wasting our bandwidth? Etc. (And if you’re not a BBC’er, I certainly invite your perspective as well.)

Here are the links . . .

The first post by McKnight on Monday, 2/16: Who are the NeoReformed?
His second post on Wednesday, 2/18: Who are the NeoReformed? 2
And the response by Taylor on Wednesday, 2/18: Scot McKnight's Caricature of the NeoReformed

And don’t skip the Comments, they are the most interesting, and if new posts appear, I’ll add them.

Here are a few reactions from others:
Riffs: 02:18:09: Scot Mcknight on the “Neo-Reformed”
Scot McKnight and the “Neo-Reformed” « Heidelblog

Blessings
3 John 8
Bill H

1 comment:

blogorrhea said...

The more I read Wright interacting with Piper, the less I want to say "new perspective" and "old perspective," and the more I want to say macro perspective and micro perspective. This is an unnecessary quarrel between the astronomer and the microbiologist. But, though it may be an unnecessary quarrel, it remains a necessary debate. When it comes to the "perspective" of the astronomer, Wright is gloriously edifying. When it comes to his denial of the glories under the microscope, he is simply wrong.


-Douglas Wilson on N.T.Wright and 'The New Perspective'