Lots is being said about the Time magazine article, Driscoll's blog and all the spillover (I've already posted twice on it, here and here). Thabiti Anyabwile adds an excellent cautionary note while R.Scott Clark over at The Heidelblog says Driscoll isn't really a Calvinist. The idea of Driscoll applying for membership at Calvin's church in Geneva and being turned down is quite an appealing one.
(I've updated this section for clarity following an email from a friend)
Anyway a few thoughts on the question of 'Who are the reformed?' It seems to me that the 'badge' reformed is now solely owned by Calvinists. When someone asks 'are you reformed?', they're actually asking 'are you a Calvinist?' Reformed is now distinct from Protestant. I guess that's probably helpful. Sort of.
However I wish that those who were reformers (in their various branches) could also be called Reformed. OK so a lot of the churches of the reformation no longer seem to hold to the theology and doctrines of their founders but what of those that do?
Luther was reformed or at least you'd think the man who started the Reformation would be. So was Jacob Arminius in that broad sense. So were many of the Anabaptists - they were seeking to reform the church. And the Quakers. No idea about the Church of England and 500 years after the reformation they still haven't made up their mind either.
A significant moment for me was when doing some training with Newfrontiers was asking Greg Haslam (then pastor in Winchester) whether someone like David Pawson (because of his Arminian Theology) be a leader in Newfrontiers? His emphatic 'Yes' was encouragement to me that this bunch of Calvinists was generous enough to work with other Gospel men on the inside of their movement if opportunity arose. Hopefully that will remain so.