Reformed theology has been big enough to learn from those they disagree with. We need to engage with those we do not 100% agree.

Tom Schreiner is a good example and his participation with NT Wright later this year.

Reformed theology must not be allowed to fall into sectarianism.

Alan

I think you may have misunderstood Kloosterman. I don’t think he would be comfortable with the dichotomy of existing for itself v. existing for the world. In fact, I would argue, the emphasis in the Bible is on the covenant community’s obligations to itself first. And so, in fulfilling its obligations to itself first, it bears witness to the world. To reverse that order or emphasis is the mistake of the church growth movement and its postmodern counterpart, the emergent church.

Great point.

Looking forward to future episodes!

Thanks for this helpful discussion / debate! I agree that the discussion is not easy because terms and concepts are somewhat elastic. However, I thought the panelists did a good job getting things started. I am excited to hear each of them and am not rooting for anyone in particular. In the end, I am hoping that I have a better sense of what I believe about culture and my involvement in it. Several names get thrown around a lot in these introductions, so it might be a bit daunting for those not initiated into this debate.

His views on Christ and culture are representative of a subset of reformed thinking. While I don’t agree with them, he’s representing a part of the reformed tradition – especially in the late 20th c.

My disappointment is that someone with Wilson’s views on justification would be classified as “reformed’.

Jason,

I appreciate your comment, but I have to point out that having one questionable man lecture at your church center for faith and works, and having a four views panel by a non-profit Reformed network is very different.

I was amused at the differing definitions too. It just goes to show how slippery the term can be.

Tim,

That’s a good question. Let me simply say that Redeemer is a church. I think different standards and responsibilities are in place.

But out of curiosity, do you think it’s out of line for Wright to lecture (not on justification) at a Redeemer affiliated ministry if Redeemer makes clear they don’t agree with him on justification?

Can we move on to the content now that we’ve discussed its origin?

Thank you, thank you for putting all the work into this! I’m enjoyed this one and eagerly look forward to the followups. Various and sundry comments:

1) I really appreciated the musical interludes! They give the mind a little break to process what has been heard. That’s fantastic.

2) I thought everyone’s introductory comments were interesting. However, I’m fairly familiar with this discussion and it’s categories. I fear that someone who hasn’t thought about it much might be lost. My guess is that the introductions will be good to return to after hearing the participants discussion.

3) It’s already clear that one of the things that makes this discussion so difficult is that the definitions are so hard to nail down and the positions intertwine so easily. Dr. Hart and Dr. Dennison both attack transformationalism but offer different solutions. Dr. Hart says “salt and light” is vocation, Dr. Wilson says “salt and light” is worship! And nobody can quite articulate what culture is!

4) I think Dr. Kloosterman already won from the outset. He abstained from putting himself into a category then promptly went to talking about Jesus! All those other guys just talked about human wisdom. Dr. Kloosterman went to the source! (I jest.)

Thanks again.

Maranatha!

SDG

Ross M.

Let’s say we wanted to do a show on the various views of cessationism. Would it be wrong to have someone like Wayne Grudem on our show? What about on millennial views? Would it be wrong to have John MacArthur on? The issue of having extra biblical revelation for the church today is almost – if not more so – dangerous than Wilson’s aberrant views of justification.

I don’t think you’re out in left field. I had the same thought regarding the discussion of Redeemer and Wright. There is a slight difference, however. This is a debate, not a lecture. Furthermore, we’re speaking to Wilson on the subject of Christ and culture and not, for instance, justification. When you listen, I hope you find Wilson’s contribution as worthwhile as I did.

I found each of the responses throughout these recordings fascinating. Through three rounds of this now (for me at least) I’ve found myself agreeing with different aspects from each man.

Great job on this show!

I do find it sad, however, that this comment list has become about having Wilson on the show and no substantial discussion on the issues themselves has taken place.

That said, who do you guys think had the best definition of culture? I thought Kloosterman nailed it. The problem with Wilson’s definition is that it doesn’t allow for a common square. You have believing and unbelieving cultures. Well, what about the public square . . . what is that? Is that not a culture of common grace?

I think that Hart’s definition allows the most for a common grace public square. I don’t need, on his view, to start a Christian counter culture where I make Reformed boots or silverware or whatever. I can work in a boot making factory with a bunch of unbelievers and be salt and light there by working ethically and diligently. Ironically, Hart’s position may provide for the best way of doing gospel outreach. All the others seem to separate Christians out from the common grace public square.

That isn’t true for everything he says, however. Wilson makes many great points throughout this entire project.

Just to be clear, none of the guys on the Forum agree with Doug Wilson’s view here, and certainly not on the FV view of Covenant Theology.

I trimmed about 3.5 minutes. It should flow a bit better now. Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

Joe, why would you even ask why Camden et al would have Douglas Wilson on the show? It’s disappointing that Camden has to defend their decision to invite distinguisted guests with whom they disagree on some issues.

By way of constructive criticism, I like the music between each speaker however some of them were WAY too long (particularly the musical break between the 21-22 minute mark and the 31-32 minute mark [over a minute!]) just saying… all the other short musical interludes were very nice though.

soli Deo gloria!

During the late 20th c. the Reformed tradition had a strong influence of theonomic and reconstructionist thought. While that camp’s numbers may be waning, their arguments on the subject of Christ and culture persist. In order to provide a faithful and responsible representation of Reformed views for this discussion, we looked for someone with sympathies in this direction. As you will hear, Pastor Wilson fits this description. Moreover, he has written extensively on this subject and many people are familiar with his name in this space. We felt it would be a disservice to the listener if we did not expand the project to include this position.

That being said, please understand that this project is not a wholesale endorsement of any of the participants.