Hence, hierarchical male leadership is biblical; and while it CAN be improperly implemented so as to inhibit outward reach, that is not necessarily the case, but can be just what the church needs in furthering the work of revival and reformation in a post-Christendom world

David Fitch at Reclaiming the Mission in a post entitled “The Mark Driscoll Fiasco: What the Latest Flap Teaches Us About the Neo-Reformed Movement” sets forth three theological positions (witnessed in what he calls three “missional bugallos” by Mark Driscoll) he believes mark the distinction between Missionals and the Neo-Reformed.

In this post, without intending to defend all that Driscoll says or does, I will respond to Fitch’s assertions showing the current reformed revival must not necessarily be divided the way it is, and that it can, if led and ushered in properly under the direction and guidance of Scripture and the Holy Spirit, result in an outward reaching church where the strengths represented by both the missionals and the Neo-Reformed are brought together and work in harmony.

The three theological positions Fitch takes issue with include: (a) Driscoll’s singular obsession with penal substitutionary atonement, (b) his commitment to hierarchical male authority in the church, and (c) his blind belief in the importance of preaching/successful preacher to the church’s identity.

Singular Obsession with Penal Substittionary Atonement

Fitch asserts that Neo-Reformed theology not only “narrows the context for mission” but is “limited to mission in Christendom culture” because of its “singular focus on the penal substitutionary atonement.”

While Fitch is correct in drawing attention to the fact that Christ’s atonement involves more than just the penal substitution for man’s guilt and that limiting one’s application of the atonement to simply the matter of guilt can narrow the church’s context for mission, Fitch and the missionals he advocates for can open themselves to weakness or error when suggesting that “one size does not fit all”, for while that statement can rightly address the issue that not all men the church seeks to reach may initially be struggling with issues of guilt related to their sin and thus other aspects of the atonement may be more productive initially reaching others, it’s also true that at some point one size DOES fit all in that at some point all sinners must come to deal with the guilt of their sin (and sinful condition) in being restored to God through personal conversion.

Hence, issues can lie on both sides, including that of limiting the external reach of the church by limiting one’s application of the atonement through a “singular” focus on matters pertaining to just guilt, and on the other side by failing to give proper recognition and application to the importance of at some point bringing this “singular” aspect of the gospel to bear on all men.

Applying these two truths will help two sides not talk around each other and enable the church to proceed with one voice in a more powerful and effective mission.

Commitment to Hierarchical Male Authority in the Church

Fitch also asserts that the position of hierarchical male authority in the church “inhibits dispersed missional engagement” for the following reasons: (1) hierarchical male authority is a “Neo-Reformed habit learned and sustained in Christendom” and thus will struggle in the context of a post Christendom world, (2) authority is flattened in the church in the post-Christendom world and positional authority of anyone over someone else is “not the way things work” in the Kingdom, (3) hierarchy pushes church ministry inward and upward instead of outward amidst the organic work of ministry in context.

In particular, Fitch refers to passages such as Mark 10:42, Eph 4, and Rom 12:3-8 to make his case, but his exegesis is lacking.

In the Mark passage, Jesus is not denouncing all ecclesiastical authority but unrighteous ambition among leadership.

In the Ephesians passage, Fitch errs by assuming that recognition and appreciation of one another’s gifts necessarily denies a context wherein positional authority exists. This error results in Fitch positing authority in “one’s recognized gift” rather than recognizing authority in all or some of those applying their gifts in the equipping of others in this passage.

Similarly, in the Romans passage, Fitch confuses a passage addressing the use of gifts to deny biblical authority . Interestingly, the passage closes among other things by addressing leadership.

It should be noted that (1) just because biblical positions are not readily embraced by culture doesn’t mean those positions should be denied, denounced , discarded; (2) the “flattening” of authority in much of the post Christendom church does not mean it’s biblical or best; and (3) hierarchy when executed properly doesn’t necessarily push ministry inward and upward but can actually prove to do the opposite while providing greater support and empowering outward ministries.

Hence, hierarchical male leadership is biblical; and while it CAN be improperly implemented so as to inhibit outward reach, that is not necessarily the case, but can be just what the church needs in furthering the work of revival and reformation in a post-Christendom world.

Success Measured by Attendance to Heal Male Preachers

Fitch is correct in saying that the size and growth of a church is not the ultimate measure of success success.

While Fitch rightly probes in questioning whether the Neo-Reformed fail when it comes to outreach by naively assuming people in a post-Christendom world will still come to church to hear a good sermon, Fitch’s own view that looks to “preaching as formational for a missional people”, while true on one level does not capture a wholistic view of preaching which comprises additional facets rather than just transformation with a view toward outward mission.

In Conclusion

My purpose is not to slam Fitch. Since discovering his blog, I’ve found his writing educational and provocative, and his blog about Driscoll is not an exception.
As I’ve witnessed conversations and writings between missionals and the so called Neo-Reformed, I tend to see those with particular gifts and viewpoints useful to the church talking around one another.

As I’ve pointed out in this post, there are truths and weaknesses on both sides of the issues. That will serve the church best include conversations between both sides wherein truths and the particular passions and gifts of both sides are recognized, errors are discarded, and the church comes together with one voice to proclaim the timeless truths of the gospel both within the body and in the world!

Tim Muse is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as Senior Pastor at Brandon Presbyterian Church (PCA) in the Jackson, MS suburbs. He blogs at

All Things Reformed where this article first appeared; it is used with his permission. [Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]