Young, Restless, Reformed: “Hip, Hip, Hurrah!” or “Bah Humbug!”?
Posted by deangonzales on December 28, 2008
Young, Restless, Reformed is “a journalist’s journey with the new Calvinists.” In this recently published book (March 2008), Collin Hansen, an editor for Christianity Today describes the contemporary resurgence of Reformed theology, particularly among young evangelicals. The book consists largely of interviews with young people who have been drawn to Calvinism and the leaders whom God has used to foster the resurgence. In particular, Hansen devotes the bulk of his attention on the ministries of John Piper, Albert Mohler, C. J. Mahaney, and Mark Driscoll. He also devotes one entire chapter to the renewed interest in a dead pastor-theologian, Jonathan Edwards. Moreover, Hansen highlights important events such as The Passion Conference, Together for the Gospel, and New Attitude, as well as college campus ministries like Reformed University Fellowship, Campus Outreach, and University Christian Fellowship. My purpose is not to provide an extended review of the book. Several such reviews can be googled online. Instead, I’d like to reflect briefly on some of the responses to the book, especially from those within the Reformed camp.
Most responses to the book have been overwhelmingly positive. The back cover features accolades from the well-known blogger Tim Challies, author Jerry Bridges, NT scholar Donald Carson, and church historian Douglas Sweeney.[1] When I posted this blog, there were 13 reviews in Amazon.com, all of which give the book 4 to 5 stars. After a thorough review, British Reformed Baptist Erroll Hulse queries, “Criticisms?” and tersely responds, “No!”[2] The only weak spot Tim Challies finds is that the book’s “focus is more on today than on yesterday and tomorrow.” He wishes Hansen would have given a bit more time on “how this movement grew” and on “where it might be going.” Challies concedes, however, that the author’s narrow scope probably precluded such an analysis.[3]
Martin Downes provides a generally positive appraisal though he’s careful to alert the reader, “This isn’t yet your grandfather’s Calvinism.” In other words, the resurgence Hansen describes is not quite the full-blown Calvinism encapsulated in the Heidelberg Catechism or Westminster Confession of Faith. Indeed, Downes thinks the book focuses too much on Baptists and not enough on Presbyterians.[4] A similar criticism is actually noted by Hansen in his book. Michael Horton, professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California, is only willing to offer a qualified “Hurrah!” The term “Reformed,” argues Horton, must be “defined by the whole confession [i.e., Westminster Confession of Faith], and that involves covenant theology and the whole kit and caboodle.” Of course, Horton’s version of covenant theology is distinctively Paedo-Baptist. Consequently, he believes the resurgence Hansen depicts tends to downplay the importance of baptism in its attempt to unify around the doctrines of grace.[5]
One of Horton’s colleagues, R. Scott Clark, offers a similar criticism in the epilogue of his recently published Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice (Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008). Because none of the evangelical leaders highlighted in Hansen’s book “is identified with a historic Reformed denomination or confession,” the nomenclature “Reformed” is, in Clark’s estimation, inappropriately applied to them. A commitment to Reformed soteriology is not enough, argues Clark. There must also be an accompanying affirmation of Reformed ecclesiology—classically defined, of course. So unless one is ready to embrace Paedo-Baptism, he is not Reformed. In fact, Clark suggests that if these “young, restless, and Reformed” leaders were transported back in time to the Synod of Dort or to the Westminster Assembly, they’d find a “chilly reception.”[6]
It shouldn’t surprise us if some Paedo-Baptists are less than enthusiastic about a resurgence that is largely (though not exclusively) taking place among those of a more Baptist ecclesiology. It is disappointing, however, when Reformed Baptists seem more critical of Hansen’s book than enthused. “It seems to me,” one Reformed Baptist pastor wrote to me, “that in Scripture youth is not something to boast in, restlessness is not a Christlike trait, and not any of the leaders cited in the book belong to historically Reformed churches.” He went on to suggest, “Someone needs to write another book called Mature, Settled and Confessionally Reformed!”[7] So if the Reformers and Puritans fail to give the leaders of the modern Calvinistic resurgence a “chilly reception,” some 1689ers are more than willing to oblige.
In this writer’s opinion, the more negative responses to Young, Restless, Reformed misunderstand the aim of the book, beg important questions, and define the term “Reformed” too narrowly. To begin with, nowhere in Hansen’s book does he argue (or represent the evangelical leaders he describes as arguing) that immaturity in itself is a virtue. He simply describes young people who are being drawn to and affirming the doctrines of grace. What is more, the restlessness described in Hansen’s book is in fact a positive trait. Young people are becoming restless with shallow preaching, shoddy theology, and showbiz worship. Like Augustine, their hearts are restless until they come to find rest in the sovereign, transcendent God of Calvinism. Is that something to complain about?! And as far as I can tell, all the major leaders portrayed in Hansen’s book belong to churches with confessional statements.[8] As a matter of fact, Albert Mohler used a Reformed confession (The Abstract of Principles) to purge Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of liberals.
Would our Puritan Baptist forefathers reject the evangelical leaders depicted in Hansen’s book? Personally, I don’t think that’s a fair question. Can we be sure that the Puritans would have given these evangelicals a cold shoulder without a fair hearing? Moreover, what if some of the Reformers and Puritans traveled forward in time? Can we be certain that Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Owen, and Benjamin Keach would remain static in all of their doctrinal and practical perspectives despite the many good post-seventeenth century exegetical and theological developments?
This raises the question, “Who gets to define the term ‘Reformed’?” I think the answer to that question is a tad more complex than some “truly Reformed” people make it out to be. Some of Richard Baxter’s views were out of step with the Westminster Confession, yet he’s generally treated as Reformed and Puritan with some qualifications. Our Baptist forefathers expressed a great deal of concord with their Paedo-Baptist brothers. The primary area of disagreement was the doctrine of the church and the sacrament of baptism. Hence, those of us who adhere to the 1689 London Baptist Confession call ourselves Reformed Baptists. (Note the qualification!) Can’t we allow the same for the leaders of the Reformed resurgence today? They may not adhere to all the distinctives we hold dear, but they’ve got the gospel right (and many other things too)! Moreover, God is using them to reach young people that some of us are failing to reach. Therefore, let’s rejoice that Christ is being preached and souls are being drawn to a Big God. Instead of a stooge-like “Bah humbug,” let’s offer up a “Hip, hip, hurrah” that John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Spurgeon are becoming the “homeboys” of a younger generation.[9]
[1] These back cover blurbs can be found on the publishers website here.
[2] Hulse does suggest that Hansen seek another interview with John MacArthur (which Hansen was unable to secure before publishing the book), as well as interviews with R. C. Sproul and Tim Keller. Reformation Today 226 (2008), 35-39. Hulse’s review is also available on the Banner of Truth website here.
[3] For the review on Challies.com, click here.
[4] For the review on Reformation21, click here. On the same website, Carl Trueman provides a helpful review of the book and its relevance today entitled, “A Little Bit of Comfort for Machen’s Worrier Children.”
[5] Hansen, 109-112.
[6] Clark, 343-44.
[7] The citations are taken from correspondence between myself and another Reformed Baptist pastor.
[8] The reader is encouraged to visit the websites associated with the ministries of John Piper, Albert Mohler, C. J. Mahaney, and Mark Driscoll where he’ll find confessional statements.
[9] Donald Carson’s words are fitting: ”A number of strategic ministries have been quietly upholding the doctrines of grace, planting churches, seeing people converted, teaching the whole counsel of God. It is time for quiet gratitude to God and earnest intercessory prayer that what has begun well will flourish beyond all human expectation.”
20 Responses to “Young, Restless, Reformed: “Hip, Hip, Hurrah!” or “Bah Humbug!”?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 28th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Perhaps the title should read, “Young, Restless, and Calvinist”. Indeed, perhaps RB’s who have become more self conscious about their rejection of classical covenant theology should be content to lay aside the title “Reformed”.
Perhaps we shouldn’t care whether our beliefs are called “Reformed” or not. Sure, the title distinguishes us from dispensationists and unites us to a rich theological heritage; but alone with it comes the unwanted baggage of paedo baptism and strict covenant theology.
December 28th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Hi,
A couple of qualifications to your summary of my critique of YR&R. I didn’t and don’t require that one be Presbyterian in polity. I recognize that at Dort and Westminster and Savoy there were obviously non-Presbyterians present who were nevertheless Reformed. I did write of “the doctrines of the church and the sacraments” and of “the hermeneutics of covenant theology.” By “church” (344) in that context, I meant to invoke what I had said earlier in the book about the church as the divinely established institution for the administration of the means of grace (Gospel, sacraments, and prayer). Like my colleague Mike Horton, I’m concerned that we not allow the word “Reformed” to be defined minimally, by a single doctrine. As important as the doctrine of predestination is to our theology, being Reformed involves “the whole confession” as Mike says. We confess a great deal more than predestination and yet, as encouraging as the YR&R movement might be, there’s little evidence that the movement has much interest in Reformed theology, piety, and practice beyond the five points of Dort. As I noted in the book, one can find the five points in several medieval theologians, so that, as necessary as they are, even the 5 points aren’t sufficient to define Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
December 28th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Dear Scott Weber,
Your suggestion that those of us who affirm the theology of the 1689 London Baptist Confession (which is arguably the grandchild of the Westminster Confession of Faith) “should be content to lay aside the title ‘Reformed’” has been proposed by others. I suspect, though am not certain, Dr. Clark would agree with your suggestion. But why allow flexibility when using the term “Calvinist”? Did Calvin only teach soteriology? Was that his only concern? If not, shouldn’t we insist that those who wish to brandish the name “Calvinist” agree with all that Calvin taught?
I think most pastors and theologians are mature enough to understand that the nomenclature need not denote complete agreement with everything the Reformer taught. Instead, it is used to capture the heart of Calvin’s theology, his view of the gospel.
Must “Reformed” retain a usage that is tied to Paedo-Baptist creeds of the sixteenth and seventeenth century? I remain unconvinced. The fact that the doctrine in my confession of faith (and not just its soteriology!) is for the most part taken verbatim from the Westminster and Savoy provides warrant, in my opinion, for the appellation “Reformed Baptist.” The second of those two terms sufficiently qualifies the first in order to satisfy the canons of truth in labeling.
But what about men like Piper, Mohler, Mahaney, and Driscoll? To my knowledge, neither they nor their churches publicly subscribe to the 1689 Baptist Confession. But I am not aware that they officially label themselves as “Reformed Baptists.” From my exposure to their writings and sermons, they do express an affinity for Reformed soteriology, as well as other aspects of Reformed teaching. Yet, they’re also honest to admit that there are some areas where they’d differ. So they might refer to themselves as “Reformed” with a number of qualifications. I fail to see the problem.
On the other hand, I’m probably not willing to die over a label. If theologians like Drs. Horton and Clark wish to reserve the term “Reformed” for Paedo-Baptists alone, I won’t go to the stake over it. Though I cherish the rich heritage (believing it to be the system that best captures and portrays the whole counsel of God), I kind of sympathize with George Whitefield’s sentiments, which he allegedly expressed in the midst of one of a sermon preached in Philadelphia. Lifting his eyes heavenward, Whitefield cried out,
“Father Abraham, whom do you have in heaven? Any Episcopalians?”
“No!”
“Any Presbyterians?”
“No!”
“Have you any Independents or Baptists?”
“No!”
“Have you any Methodists there?”
“No! No! No!”
“Then whom have you there?”
“We don’t know those names here. All who are here are Christians—believers in Christ—those who have overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony.”
“O, if this is the case,” said Whitefield, “then God help me, God help us all, to forget party names and to be Christians in deed and truth!”
December 28th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Personally, I was edified by YR&R. It is easy to think that the churches in America are all going downhill. And while this might be mostly true, it is encouraging to know that people, especially young people, are becoming interested in reformed doctrine.
To R. Scott Clark:
I agree that we should not define “reformed” by a single doctrine. But I do not think that we should define “reformed” so narrowly as to exclude someone like John Piper, who, despite small differences, is reformed in his preaching and writing.
December 29th, 2008 at 2:24 am
However we define the word reformed is not near as big of an issue to me as that we should rejoice that there is a great work being done among these people and that there are a lot of young people who are stepping up to the plate to hold Scripture high.
“Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers.” When youth step up to the plate in a generation where youth are more often than not wasting their lives, that is a loud testimony to the world of the awesome, life changing, power of Jesus Christ.
December 29th, 2008 at 4:54 am
Dear Dr. Clark,
Thank you for clarifying your position. Am I correct to conclude from your qualifications that Baptist polity would not necessarily disqualify one from license to identify himself as “Reformed,” but a Credo-Baptist view of the sacrament of Baptism would? If so, I hope I edited my comments sufficiently to reflect more accurately your position.
It seems to me that this debate is governed to some degree by one’s philosophy of lexicography, i.e., whether it’s primarily a descriptive or prescriptive science. As you’ll gather if you read my response to Scott Weber, I follow a more descriptive approach though I acknowledge the place of prescription at a secondary level.
I don’t want to oversimplify your position, but it seems you want to take a particular usage of the term “Reformed” (17th century) and prescribe that usage for today. The fact remains, however, the nomenclature “Reformed” has taken on a broader meaning in modern times whether we like it or not. This makes you feel uncomfortable. But in my opinion, you overstate the matter in your book when you write,
Certainly, this hyperbole, isn’t it? I’ve met scores of professing Christians who don’t follow this line of reasoning and consciously refuse to identify themselves as “Reformed.” Those who do identify themselves as “Reformed” but who don’t agree with classic Paedo-Baptist theology as reflected in the Belgic or Westminster confessions usually append the necessary qualifications.
For instance, I subscribe to a confession (1689 LBCF) that for the most part parrots the Savoy and Westminster confessions. Nevertheless, the framers of my confession disagreed with their Reformed Presbyterian and Congregational brothers on the question of the proper recipients of baptism. Accordingly, we, their “descendants,” qualify our use of the appellative “Reformed” by adding “Baptist.” I suspect that the leaders Hansen highlights in his book would add a few more qualifications. Is that wrong? Don’t we distinguish between classical Arminianism or classical Dispensationalism and later variations of these systems?
Personally, I think the biblical truth behind the nomenclature is what really counts. Consequently, if we want to win restless young people to more classical forms of Reformed theology, we’ll need to do more than assert exclusive domain rights over certain theological/ ecclesiastical terminology. Arguing that the 16th & 17th century creeds are always right (major premise); you young and restless folk don’t believe everything in those creeds (minor premise); ergo, you’re wrong and can’t be Reformed (conclusion) isn’t the best hook for the conscience. We’ll need to convince them that our position(s) is founded on Scripture. In the meantime, let’s thank God that some evangelical leaders and those influenced by their ministry at least, by the grace of God, have their soteriology right.
December 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Dr. Clark,
As a postscript, I did want to say that I have derived benefit from reading Recovering the Reformed Confession and found much affinity with the essays you edited in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry. I have enthusiastically recommended it others.
Bob Gonzales
December 29th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Couldn’t anyone who identifies with the Christian religious movement found mostly in Western and parts of Eastern Europe (Germany?) primarily during the 16th and 17th centuries, and which sought to reform or come out from under the tyranny and corruption of the RCC altogether, be considered a part of the “Reformed” tradition?
Obviously, this would exclude the Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, and many various sects and Anabaptists who never saw themselves as affilated with the RCC. But those who did flee the RCC and found the liberty to interpret and apply Scripture for themselves and who eventually codifed their beliefs in one of the many “Confessions of Faith” born from this movement would seem logically be included in, at least a boarder sense, the ‘Reformed’ Faith.
Blessings,
David McCrory
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 am
[...] and Charles Spurgeon are becoming the ‘homeboys’ of a younger generation.” Young, Restless, and Reformed by Bob [...]
January 5th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Thanks again Dr. Gonzales,
You have proven to me again that their is hope for the future of the RBC. I always enjoy your insights into these things and find myself a kindred spirit in your appreciation for men like Carson, Piper, Mahaney, et al. whose names I can often not say aloud in our church without receiving scowls…forget ever mentioning the name Driscoll
Praise God for the resurgence of Reformed theology among young people!!
January 7th, 2009 at 3:49 am
Thanks for the thoughtful review. It seems that we need to be careful not to make ourselves the standard of having arrived. We are all continually on the way toward constant reformation and we can rejoice, that like us many are taking more and more steps toward the faith we love and confess. I am happy for the resurgence in this interest. I am much more aware of my own failings and the failures of the RB movement so that I find myself too occupied removing the log from my own eye to spend too much time worrying about these folks. Most of us are the exception in the stream of orthodoxy and I rejoice in the reformed doctrine that justification is by faith, not confessional orthodoxy.
January 7th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
@ Josh: exactly my thoughts!
January 14th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Loving as I do my Confession of Faith LCF 1689, and rejoicing in the benefits it has brought be over the years in clarifying my understanding of many issues it is still a subordinate standard and in some areas could do with revising.
The old issues of strict and substantial subscriptionism never go away and so often can cause us to be so narrow in our spirits that it is unhealthy for our souls and our ministries.
I rejoice as a pastor to have many of these young,restless and reformed types coming to our church. They are hungry, they are teachable and they are showing evidences of grace that thrill my heart. I am determined to encourage them and see them grow in greater maturity not by presenting strict subscriptionism to our Confession but by strict commitment to the word of God and a spirit of submission to our Lord. I want them to think for themselves and wrestle with the word as I have done over the years so that they come to clear and settled convictions, understanding we are committed to sola scriptura and keep our confession in its rightful place, as subordinate.
I really do not care to worry about whether they are ‘Reformed’ according to the definitions of men, whether they are ‘Calvinists’ according to the definitions of men, or whether they are Reformed Baptists or Calvinistic Baptists according to the defintions of men, they will soon find out for themselves that these arguments will never be settled and are often a waste of time.
Yes it is good to know about them and understand them but to argue about them and have people demands you submit to their opinion should cause grief and sorrow.
I know enough Paedo-Baptist brothers who do not even agree about what baptism is under their covenantal system.I also know enough RB’s to know they are so narrow that anything outside their little circle is suspicious.
May the Lord have mercy on us if we cannot rejoice and encourage the young people of our generation to love the truth and grow in the truth and embody the truth in God-honoring lives…..
God’s Spirit is at work in far wider circles than we move in…. Hallelujah !!
Sincerely
Robert Briggs
Pastor, Immanuel Baptist Church,
Sacramento, CA
January 18th, 2009 at 3:38 am
I found this book to be personally thrilling, because in many ways it is my story. I came to the doctrines of grace at age nineteen, and within a few years was a self identifying, 1689 subscribing Reformed Baptist. As I have developed my Calvinistic convictions, I have taken a more historical route, and am now a member of a 1689 confessing Church.
Many of my peers came to the same Calvinistic conclusions as I did, but have steered clear of the traditional Reformed (even with qualifications) Churches. I have found that the usual reason for this has less to do with doctrine and more to do with worship style, evangelistic attitudes, etc.
I continue to have good relationships with these brothers, and in some ways see things that they are getting right that the more traditionally Reformed Churches are getting wrong. My attitude toward them is similar to my attitude toward my Presbyterian brothers: we aren’t going to be joining the same Churches anytime soon, but wherever God is lifted high, man is brought low, and the historic gospel of Jesus Christ is preached all Christians should offer an unqualified hip hip hooray.
Reformed Baptist of all people, whose libraries are full of books by men with views on Baptism and Church polity that are at odds with their own, should be willing to show grace over secondary issues.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
So this is our only two options? If I am a bit more cautious about what some of these men teach, I am a scrooge? It seems to me that the issues are a “tad more complex than” this BLOG makes them out to be.
BTW I have a number of young Reformed Baptist men in my church. They are all real men with real Reformed Baptist convictions. And I know that they desire to become “Mature, Settled and Confessionally Reformed”
January 26th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
As noted by a few others, I’m also a product of the YR&R movement and am deeply indebted to God because of those men who are reaching out to younger people with the Gospel of God’s sovereign and unconditional grace. While in Bible College, the Lord used the on-campus ministries of Piper, Carson, and Mohler to direct my heart to assent to and celebrate many “reformed” doctrines and to really appreciate the writings of our Puritan forefathers. As a result, I attended Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis (Piper) and continued to become more reformed in all areas of doctrine. Eventually, this led to my discovery and embracing of the 1689 LBC. I later became a member of a full-fledged RBC in Minneapolis and the Lord has continued to kindly assist me in growing in His grace and knowledge ever since (2 Pet. 3:18. I mention all of this because I hope that my fellow reformed brethren will not be hyper-critical of YR&R. God is doing an amazing thing among many who are younger and less-mature in the faith than we are. Their zeal is real, and their newfound and restless love of truth is something we should all rejoice in! If it wasn’t for ministries outside our strictly reformed circles, I might never have come to the place and position that I am now. So brothers, let us show our reformed convictions by trusting more in a sovereign and supreme God who’s ways are much higher than ours and who uses many means to save sinners, to reform minds, and to bring glory to His Name.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Thanks Chad. I trust all is well there at PRBC. The only point that I am anxious to make is that one can be careful without being a scrooge. Moreover, to be critical is not the same as being “hyper” critical.
dc
January 27th, 2009 at 8:39 am
David,
I agree that one may have genuine concerns about some of the potentially unhealthy or even harmful elements of a ministry like Driscoll’s and even caution his people without qualifying as a “Mr. Scrooge” or as “hyper-critical.” I think the balance is trying to give our people a complete picture of a brother we criticize. For instance, I am very critical of J. I. Packer’s ecumenical stance towards Roman Catholics. But I also appreciate his writings, especially on the Puritans. So in criticizing his imbalanced catholicity, I would also assure my people that most of his writings are sound. Driscoll is young and probably has a lot more maturing to do (as we did at that age). I’m thankful for the positive things God is going in his life and ministry. I hope he continues to grow and mature. Thankfully, he’s opened himself up to the mentorship of men like D. A. Carson and John Piper. Choosing such men as his primary mentors is itself a sign of wisdom on his part. In the end, though, we shouldn’t set him or any many on a pedestal. Instead, we should speak, like Paul, of what Christ is doing through earthen vessels–some of them with significant weaknesses and remaining flaws.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
[...] Site has moved. Click here. [...]
May 27th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
[...] fundamentally appreciative of what God is doing through this “movement” (see my review, “Young, Restless, Reformed: ‘Hip, Hip, Hurrah!’ or ‘Bah, Humbug!’?R…)1 and believe that we who are associated with more traditional forms of Reformed theology and [...]