From the days when I was hired as an adjunct and then a professor to teach NT at TEDS, I learned that both D.A. Carson and John Woodbridge, and in some ways Kenneth Kantzer (Dean then former Dean), wanted both to define evangelicalism and delineate who was “in” and who was not. Their participation in the book
I just finished Vermurlen’s book. I found it curious (given the 2020 publication date) that he didn’t mention either the 2016 Evangelical Theological Society debate over semi-Arianism being taught by complementarians, or the #ChurchToo movement.
Both are external factors that could, over time, possibly weaken the connection between complementarianism and the Gospel that the New Calvinists are determined to bundle together. The Trinity debate weakened complementarians’ theological foundations, and many see the #ChurchToo movement as the rotten fruit of complementarianism (along with celebrity culture and/or authoritarian churches).
The Gospel Coalition, for instance, has a bad reputation for shrugging at misogyny and abuse—platforming and then not publicly calling out the likes of C.J. Mahaney, Douglas Wilson, Tullian Tchividjian, Mark Driscoll, etc.
I wish Vermurlen had explored these new developments affecting evangelicals’ views on complementarianism—or at least mentioned it.
I’m sure Vermurlen doesn’t get into this, but I’ve been very curious lately about the “agonistic” nature of this movement being a predictable pattern among (at least some of) the reformed types (I say “some” because I myself am presbyterian but not agonistic). I just see too much similarity and continuity between dynamics like Calvin’s approach to polemics (agree with me or get the boot) and “Machen’s warrior children” etc. When the fruit keeps popping up in history, one wonders if there must be something similar in the root...
I just finished Vermurlen’s book. I found it curious (given the 2020 publication date) that he didn’t mention either the 2016 Evangelical Theological Society debate over semi-Arianism being taught by complementarians, or the #ChurchToo movement.
Both are external factors that could, over time, possibly weaken the connection between complementarianism and the Gospel that the New Calvinists are determined to bundle together. The Trinity debate weakened complementarians’ theological foundations, and many see the #ChurchToo movement as the rotten fruit of complementarianism (along with celebrity culture and/or authoritarian churches).
The Gospel Coalition, for instance, has a bad reputation for shrugging at misogyny and abuse—platforming and then not publicly calling out the likes of C.J. Mahaney, Douglas Wilson, Tullian Tchividjian, Mark Driscoll, etc.
I wish Vermurlen had explored these new developments affecting evangelicals’ views on complementarianism—or at least mentioned it.
I have not read it all yet, Elizabeth, but I expect to take issues with him in places.
I look forward to your explanation of Bourdieu’s field theory! 😉
I’ve always found evangelicalism to operate in a “not those guys” motif as a means of group identification (which is why I liked Fitch’s book).
I’m sure Vermurlen doesn’t get into this, but I’ve been very curious lately about the “agonistic” nature of this movement being a predictable pattern among (at least some of) the reformed types (I say “some” because I myself am presbyterian but not agonistic). I just see too much similarity and continuity between dynamics like Calvin’s approach to polemics (agree with me or get the boot) and “Machen’s warrior children” etc. When the fruit keeps popping up in history, one wonders if there must be something similar in the root...
Yes, much of Calvinism, and it is not alone, is agonistic. And thus it attracts the polemical, but not all are polemical.
Vermurlen's twitter profile made me suspect the book was not worth the high price. But it sounds interesting.