2 of 3

But for many who commented on Stackhouse's blog, the rant was a little too personal. Certainly it was a little unusual for a well-respected theologian whose books and journal articles undergo rigorous peer scrutiny. After admitting he does not know Tomlin, Stackhouse wrote, "My suspicion, in fact, is that these songs 'come to him' and he then records them with little or no alteration. Surely he can't be crafting them with the diligence of a serious poet. For if these are the best he can do after working and reworking them, he simply needs to get someone else to write the words. They're just that bad." Unbowed by pushback in the comments section, Stackhouse closed it down three days later on February 12. On February 13, he extolled the virtue of silence.

Then there was North Park professor Scot McKnight's two-part salvo against a group he dubbed the "NeoReformed." Who is this nefarious-sounding group? McKnight explained, "When gospel is equated with double predestination, often said in harsh terms, we are seeing a good example of the spirit of a NeoReformed approach." He summed up his complaint of the NeoReformed by labeling them "America's newest religious zealots" who "are wounding, perhaps for a generation or two, evangelicalism." These comments recalled his blurb for Wright's book on justification. For that, McKnight wrote, "Wright reveals that the neo-Reformed are more committed to tradition than to the sacred text." Tradition over Scripture on the doctrine of justification? These are fighting words for evangelicals.

Between Two Worlds blogger Justin Taylor wondered in response what names McKnight would match with the "NeoReformed" label. Since Wright responded to Piper, does that mean Piper is a religious zealot who cares more about the Westminster Confession than he does about the Bible? Without naming names, McKnight responded that those who were riled up by his blurb are the "NeoReformed." "I thought that was obvious," McKnight wrote.

McKnight is the rare scholar whose ability to connect with laypeople is on display through his blog. With so many voices deriding theology, even in evangelical congregations, we need scholars like McKnight who can bring the academy's insights to popular audiences. That said, I can't help but wonder whether any academic editor would allow McKnight to label and critique a so-called movement without naming or citing sources. I suspect not, because such accusations only inflame sensitive debates. If McKnight is right about the "NeoReformed," then the last thing they need is someone daring them to pounce. If he is wrong, then he has encouraged others to behave toward the "NeoReformed" the way he says they marginalize fellow evangelicals.

Ever since the Internet made itself indispensable, experts have observed its unmatched potential for facilitating good and evil. When we desperately need teachers who relate biblical truth to current thoughts and trends, the Internet provides them with an effective and efficient forum. Yet the Internet also demolishes safeguards that formerly suppressed our sin nature.

"I think first of the extraordinary anger that seems to be more present in the blogosphere than in everyday life," Jacobs wrote. "Debate after debate—on almost every site I visit, including the ones devoted to Christianity—either escalates from rational discourse into sneering and name-calling or just bypasses reason altogether and starts with the abuse."

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

March (Web-only) 2009, Vol. 53