In Part 1 of my response to Dr. Steve Lemke’s “four streams” of Calvinism, I addressed the unhelpful nature of labels and his misrepresentation of Founders Ministries.  In Part 2, I want to briefly respond to the other three “streams” and show just how his definitions are superficial and stereotypical.  Let’s pick up with the second “stream.”

2.  “Together for the Gospel Calvinists”

“Together for the Gospel Calvinists tend to be well-trained theologically, and they give careful attention to Calvinism as a doctrinal system.  This branch has a number of persons in key positions of convention leadership, especially in seminaries.”

Lemke is right in saying that Together for the Gospel Calvinists are well-trained theologically, but to say they are the *only* stream that is well-trained is simply to create a false dichotomy between Baptist Calvinists.  There is a great overlap between T4G and Founders as seen both in their conferences and the Founders Journal.  Both enjoy fellowship with non-Baptists and agree in the soteriological framework of the Reformed tradition.  Furthermore, there are many “Reformed Relevants” that could also be included in this group.  For instance, Mark Dever, one of the founding four of T4G recently spoke at an Acts 29 Boot Camp in Chicago.  Daniel Montgomery, a leading “Reformed Relevant” and pastor of Sojourn Church in Louisville recently spoke in SBTS chapel (several professors and a large number of seminary students are members at Sojourn).  Numerous other examples could be given, such as Lig Duncan and John Piper who both have affiliated themselves with Founders Ministries and C.J. Mahaney (and his successor Josh Harris) who are closely related to Mark Driscoll and the conservative wing of the emerging church movement.  These examples but a small sampling to show how unhelpful Lemke’s classifications are to the discussion of Baptist Calvinists.

I should mention, also, that there are more missionaries being sent out through SBTS than any other seminary in the SBC.  By providence, I ending up sitting next to the International Mission Board (IMB) recruiter for SBTS on a connecting flight from Atlanta to Louisville earlier this year.  I asked him about Calvinism and missions, and here is what he told me.  He said that he could extend his visit by an additional two weeks and still not get in all the interviews and appointments with students seeking to go on mission overseas.  All of my roommates from college are “five-point Calvinists,” and all of them have attended seminary and currently on the mission field.  Oh, and they are all very well-trained theologically too.  It is possible to have a robust theology and also be missionally driven.  The fact that there is a dichotomy between the two has served much of the problem of pragmatism ruling our practice, not a faithful expression of biblical revelation.

3.  “Reformed Relevants”

“Reformed Relevants are less doctrinaire than Founder’s (sic) Movement Calvinists or Together for the Gospel Calvinists.  They tend to be less loyal to the SBC as a denomination, and tend to accommodate some Presbyterian practices such as open drinking alcoholic beverages.”

Lemke is right about Reformed Relevants being less loyal to the SBC as a denomination.  They know that we are living in a post-denominational world and connect through other, less-bureaucratic structures such as affinity-based networks.  Speaking of networks, the leading organization of Reformed Relevants in the SBC is the Acts 29 Network, where you will find several leading Southern Baptists, including Darrin Patrick (who is currently Vice-President), Daniel Montgomery, Ed Stetzer, and J.D. Greear.  To say that they are “less doctrinaire than Founders Ministries or Together for the Gospel” does injustice to their statement of faith.  Take a look at their doctrinal statement, and you tell me if they are weak on theology.

Also, it should be noted that the last National Founders Conference had Ed Stetzer as their keynote speaker in a conference focused on church planting and revitalization.  In addition, Founders board members and several leading “Reformed Relevants” have met together in the past and will continue to do so in the future (as seen in the upcoming A29 Lead Conference in St. Louis).

I do find it interesting, however, that Lemke brings beverage alcohol to the discussion as a means of trying to define “Reformed Relevant Calvinists.”  That conversation I will leave for another day. 

4. “Irenic Calvinists”

“Irenic Calvinists are Calvinistic in their doctrine, especially regarding some aspects of Calvinistic soteriology, but they do not share a Calvinistic missiology.  They do not make their Calvinism a major issue in their ministries, and they give conscious attention to the effectiveness of means in missions and evangelism.”

This last stream, I believe, is more of a commentary of non-Calvinists than an actual description of Baptist Calvinists.  In fact, I would argue that it is a nondescript category better entitled as the “politically correct” Calvinists–the kind who are not supposed to discuss what they believe or really believe that they believe.  It is perplexing to find a label for “Irenic Calvinists” as though those in the other categories do not fit into this category, especially in regards to focusing both on doctrine (theology) and practice (mission).  A truly balanced Calvinist will have both a healthy credenda and agenda and understand how the former fuels the latter.

According to Lemke, these Calvinists “do not share a Calvinistic missiology.”  Now as to what he means by this, it is anyone’s guess.  But if he is talking about the Calvinistic missiology of John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Jesse Mercer, or Andrew Fuller, then such a Calvinistic missiology should be embraced by all streams of Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.  Has Lemke considered the church planting and evangelistic enterprises of John Calvin himself?

Having looked at these four “streams” by Lemke, it is hard to find how they are helpful in any regard.  They are superficial and stereotypical at best. There come a time where labeling is seen nothing less than backyard name-calling.  If you want to know who the Baptist Calvinsts are, talk to them.  If you want to know what they believe and how they live out their faith and practice, get to know them.  Don’t buy into the arbitrary labels that don’t correspond to reality.  Any one at any time can use a label as a power play in words to influence a reader to agree to their bias.  I would only ask that there be an honest, objective assessment that attempts to give clarity, not confusion to the topic a hand.

Related Articles:

* Steve Lemke on “Four Streams” of Calvinism, Part 1
* Steve Lemke on Collin Hansen and Provocation
* Steve Lemke and Christian Scholarship
* Tom Ascol’s Response to Dr. Steve Lemke, Part 1
* Tom Ascol’s Response to Dr. Steve Lemke, Part 2
* Tom Ascol’s Response to Dr. Steve Lemke, Part 3

The following is an insightful article written by my friend Jeffrey Cavanaugh.

I have recently been bugged by a trend I’ve noticed in hymnody. It’s not a new trend; in fact it’s been going on for at least a century and a half. It still bugs me.

The trend is to take great hymns from the 17th and 18th centuries and to “update” them by setting them to new music, sometimes changing the original lyrics, and, most irritatingly, adding a chorus or refrain.

Take a modern example by songwriter Chris Tomlin: “The Wonderful Cross”. Tomlin has taken stanzas from Isaac Watts’s hymn “When I Survey The Wondrous Cross” and added his own chorus:

Stanza by Watts

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of Glory died
My richest gain I count but loss
And pour contempt on all my pride

Chorus by Tomlin

O the wonderful cross, O the wonderful cross
Bids me come and die and find that I may truly live
O the wonderful cross, O the wonderful cross
All who gather here by grace draw near and bless Your name

I believe that hymns (and I include modern “worship choruses” in that category) are fundamentally poetry set to music. Thus, when we’re evaluating a hymn, we should judge the lyrics by poetic criteria. Theological evaluation is important, but poetic evaluation is also crucial. And frankly, Chris Tomlin’s refrain here is poetically impoverished. I don’t claim to be a poet or even a good poetry critic, but as a layman who loves beautiful language even I can see that Tomlin doesn’t hold a candle to Watts.

Or, take another modern example by Bob Kauflin. Kauflin has taken Watts’s little-known but hymn “Join All The Glorious Names,” set it to new music, and added a chorus.

Stanza by Watts

Join all the glorious names
Of wisdom, love, and power,
That ever mortals knew,
That angels ever bore:
All are too mean to speak His worth,
To poor to set my Savior forth.

Chorus by Kauflin

Jesus, Your name is glorious
Our Prophet, Priest, and King
Jesus, You’re reigning over us
And forevermore Your praises we will sing.

I deeply appreciate Bob Kauflin for his gifts with music and songwriting. He and his fellows at Sovereign Grace have done wonderful work for the church in producing new hymns that are reverent, worshipful, and have good substance. And, if you take this refrain of Kauflin’s on its own, it’s fine. But set it in the context of a masterful poem by Watts, and it’s a jarring note.

One final example we’ll consider, and this one is an older hymn. In 1885, Ralph E. Hudson took Watts’s hymn, “Alas, And Did My Savior Bleed,” added a refrain, and retitled it “At The Cross.”

Stanza by Watts

Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?

Chorus by Hudson

At the cross, at the cross where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away,
It was there by faith I received my sight,
And now I am happy all the day!

This shows that the phenomenon isn’t a new one, and that it has been going on for nearly a century and a half (For another example, see Robert Lowry’s adaptation of Watts’s “Marching to Zion” from 1867). Hudson’s added refrain is perhaps the most offensive of the three we’ve looked at thus far. Where Watts’s hymn is a deep and moving meditation on the condescension of Christ in suffering for our sins, Hudson’s chorus is trite and shallow, with an unbiblically sunny view of the Christian life.

I should make it clear that I don’t have a problem with setting old hymns to new tunes. I understand that musical tastes change over the centuries, and I think that a new setting can help Christians today to connect with the lyrics. I do think that a hymn tune should be appropriate to the content of the words, and many modern settings fail on this point. But there are actually some recent tunes that I like better than the traditional settings.

I do, however, object to modifying older hymn lyrics, especially when they are from such outstanding hymn writers as Isaac Watts-in my opinion the greatest English hymnodist ever and one of the great English poets in history. If hymn writers or -adapters aren’t poets on the level of Watts, they ought to leave well enough alone. And if they are of Watts’s caliber, they’ll have better things to do with their gift than modifying somebody else’s work.

If you are a pastor or worship leader, or someone else who has a hand in selecting hymns for congregational singing, take care when you consider using these songs. You don’t necessarily have to use the same tunes for old lyrics that have been around for centuries (although many of those tunes would be edifying for your conversation). There are other folks doing great work today in updating older hymns who keep the original texts intact. The best examples I can think of are by the Reformed University Fellowship, compiled in the Indelible Grace albums. They retain the original lyrics of great writers like Watts, Copwer, Newton, and others, pairing them with modern tunes that are usually good and sometimes outstanding.

If you are simply a church member, learn to cultivate a taste for the rich, meaty lyrics that are the legacy hymn writers of the past. Learn to meditate on the stanzas as you’re singing them, and don’t wait for the chorus to really get into the song. Poetry is an acquired taste, but when you learn these hymns and let their truth and beauty sink into your soul, your faith will be deepened and you will find greater delight in the beauty of God.

______________

Jeff Cavanaugh is pursuing a Master of Divinity at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Originally from central Ohio, he graduated from Patrick Henry College with a degree in Government. Before moving to Louisville, he spent some time in Washington, D.C. where he interned at Capitol Hill Baptist Church and worked for the White House handling presidential correspondence. He is a member at Third Avenue Baptist Church and hopes to pursue pastoral ministry after finishing seminary. He is married to a wonderful wife, Andrea.

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
- Jesus from the cross (Mark 15:34)

Mark’s account of the crucifixion is the most chilling of all the Gospels. In order to convey the horror of Jesus’ death, Mark holds back information about Jesus’ other sayings on the cross and focuses only on the Jesus’ most vulnerable moment.

The ancient practice of crucifixion necessitated the word ”excruciating” as a new adjective to describe the horrific pain. Historians point out how criminals had to struggle to lift themselves up for every breath, again and again ripping the skin where the nails had pierced the wrists and feet. Isaiah 53 indicates that the Suffering Servant was barely recognizable as human by the time they nailed Jesus to the cross. Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ showed us in gory detail just how terrible crucifixion was.

Yet, strangely, the greatest torture for Jesus was not from the lacerations on his back or the nails and thorns, but from the agonizing loss of fellowship with his heavenly Father. As Jesus took the sins of the world on His shoulders, becoming sin for us, he experienced the true torment of hell - alienation from God the Father.

In that moment of anguish, Jesus cried out, “My God, my God - why have You forsaken Me?” It was the only time in all the Gospels that Jesus didn’t say “Father” when praying. Not only did his words express the sorrow of the soul’s feeling of separation from God, but they also pointed to Psalm 22, a psalm that pointed ahead to Jesus’ crucifixion. On the cross that day, Christ cried out, not about the abandonment of His disciples, but about the sense of abandonment from his Father.

Scripture teaches that those who do not put their trust in Christ as the payment for their sins will experience the horror of eternal separation from God. For the unsaved, it won’t be the abandonment of friends and family that will cause the heartache, but the abandonment of God the Father for all eternity.

The God-forsaken state is what we deserve, but that is why Jesus became God’s curse for us. His pain and suffering that dreadful day opened the door for us to experience beautiful fellowship with God for all eternity.

May we never forget: The Son of God became sin, so that sinners could become sons of God.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

I could say so much about this clip…, but I’m not sure where to start:

(HT: Gen)