“The New Calvinism Considered” by Jeremy Walker

Posted by deangonzales on May 27, 2010
13 Comments

Over the past decade or so, it seems that Christian leaders and church ministries which openly associate themselves with the solas of the Reformation and Calvinistic theology have multiplied. While most of these leaders and churches share a great deal in common with the older Reformed tradition, they are also different in some ways. Accordingly, they’ve been called (and many of them accept the label) “the new Calvinists.” For a summary of the personalities and ministries associated with this growing movement, see Collin Hansen’s Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists (Crossway, 2008). My friends and readers know that I’m fundamentally appreciative of what God is doing through this “movement” (see my review, “Young, Restless, Reformed: ‘Hip, Hip, Hurrah!’ or ‘Bah, Humbug!’?”)¹ and believe that we who are associated with more traditional forms of Reformed theology and practice can learn some helpful lessons from the new Calvinists. Indeed, I’m persuaded that in some ways the “old Calvinism” needs to be updated,² and in these respects we shouldn’t hesitate to imitate our “new Calvinist” brothers, where they imitate Paul and Christ. After all, don’t we “older Calvinists” also affirm the principle of semper reformanda (“always reforming”)?

The fact that I have deep appreciation for the new Calvinists and want to learn from them doesn’t mean I agree with them in all points of theology and practice. For instance, many of the new Calvinists have adopted a charismatic (or continuationist) view of the revelatory gifts in contrast with the older Calvinists, most of whom were generally cessationists. While I welcome the renewed emphasis on the importance of the Holy Spirit’s ministry and the vital place of the affections in true Christianity (which charismatic theology has often underscored), I remain unpersuaded that the revelatory gifts of tongues and prophecy are still extant today.³ There are a few other areas of theology and methodology where I might differ with some of the leaders and ministries associated with this movement. Consequently, I don’t think we should simply parrot everything the new Calvinists say or do.⁴ We should praise God for the good he’s accomplishing through these leaders and their ministries. We can and should seek to learn from them how to communicate more effectively the truths we hold dear to a 21st century generation (as opposed to a 16th and 17th century generation).⁵ But our chief allegiance must be neither to the new Calvinism nor to the old Calvinism but to sola Scriptura (“the Scriptures alone”). As a result, our assessments of the new Calvinism as well as the old Calvinism should strive for biblical balance, giving proper due both to commendation and also to caution or criticism where appropriate.

Such balanced assessments of the new Calvinism can be hard to find. On the one hand, those who identify more with the older Calvinism can tend toward a hyper-criticism, which minimizes the strengths and magnifies the weaknesses of the new Calvinism.⁶ The old Calvinists can also convey an unteachable attitude and bristle when self-criticism is offered by one of their own.⁷ On the other hand, those who identify more with the newer Calvinism can likewise manifest an undue resistance toward criticism (whether from without or from within).⁸. Moreover, in their occasional criticisms of the old Calvinists, some of the new Calvinists have, at times, unfairly stereotyped the older Calvinism and reflected an imbalanced criticism.⁹ A lack of charity and even-handedness, which can be found on both sides, is probably due, in part, to the remaining pride that still resides within us all and that shows we all need to work harder at cultivating a humbler orthodoxy.

Happily, there are those on both sides who are endeavoring to be discerning, fair, teachable and charitable in their assessments of the older and the newer versions of Calvinism. I recently became aware of a helpful post entitled “The New Calvinism Considered” by Pastor Jeremy Walker.¹⁰ Jeremy is one of the pastors of Maidenbower Baptist Church of Crawley, England. While Jeremy and his church probably identify more with the older Calvinism, he finds much to commend in the new Calvinism. Overall, I think his evaluation of the new Calvinism is mature, humble, and charitable. I generally agree with his perception and assessment of the movement though, in a few places, I might have been a little less critical,¹¹ made a few more efforts to find some good even among the “bad,”¹² and offered fuller qualifications to my remarks.¹³ In one place, I question the appropriateness of his characterization.¹⁴

Because I found Jeremy’s “The New Calvinism Considered” an overall helpful critique of the movement, I’ve listed below the 21 characteristics of the new Calvinism he highlights in his post. To read his fuller explanation of each of these points as well as the discussion generated by his post, let me encourage you to visit his blog “The Wanderer.” You’re also welcome to comment below and share whether you think Jeremy’s assessment was fair, accurate, and helpful.

So here’s a summary of the main points of Pastor Jeremy Walker’s “The New Calvinism Considered” (emphasis his):

1.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by a desire for the glory of God.

2.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by deep-rooted spiritual joy.

3.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by missonal zeal.

4.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by an emphasis on the gospel of grace and the grace of the gospel.

5.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by complementarianism.

6.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by a return to a more Biblical masculinity.

7.  Again related to complementarianism, it seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by the promotion of the family as a basic unit of church and social life.

8.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by charismatic convictions with regard to spiritual gifts.

9.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by Calvinist soteriology, with some departures and aberrations.

10.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by a generally thoughtful ecumenism.

11.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by an often pragmatic ecclesiology.

12.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by a neo-Kuyperian view of culture.

13.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by doctrinal if not practical antinomianism.

14.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by contemporary worship.

15.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by the driving force of several key personalities.

16.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by the ready embrace and employment of new technologies and media and the platforms that they provide.

17.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by a concentration on a younger, more urban demographic.

18.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by the desire to be big and to have a seat at culture’s table.

19.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by an ambivalent relationship to church history.

20.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by sensitivity to the judicial and social aspects of the gospel at work in society.

21.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by Americocentrism.

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. See also Brian Borgman’s “Brothers, There Is No Need to Circle the Wagons!” [↩]
2. See my series “The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism” Part 1 and Part 2. [↩]
3. See my series, “The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues”. [↩]
4. I’m doubtful they would want us to follow them as if they were infallible guides. [↩]
5. As Richard Pratt puts it, “To represent Reformed theology, we must re-present it. Simply repeating Reformed theology doesn’t represent it at all.” “John Frame and the Future of the Church,” in Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John Frame, ed. John J. Hughes (Presbyterian & Reformed, 2009), 952. Pratt’s article seeks to address some of the challenges for Reformed theology in the 21st century, and he offers some helpful advice (following in the line of John Frame’s theological insights) on how Reformed Christians can and should more effectively communicate biblical truth in the shifting cultural contexts of the future. I found much helpful food for thought throughout Pratt’s entire article. [↩]
6. One example that comes to mind is Dan Borvan’s “Old, Grumpy, and (Actually) Reformed,” which I accessed some time ago but can not longer do so because it’s password protected. [↩]
7. As someone who’s associated with the older Calvinism and has offered self-criticism, I’ve learned this through personal experience. [↩]
8. Note, for instance, some of the backlash Bill Streger, an Acts 29 pastor, received when he offered what I considered to be a healthy exhortation in his “Uncool People Need Jesus Too” [↩]
9. See, for example, Mark Driscoll’s “New Calvinism versus Old Calvinism,” which oversimplifies some of the differences and tends to caricature the older Calvinism. Of course, the old Calvinists have also been guilty of caricaturing the new Calvinists. [↩]
10. Jeremy provided me with this brief biographical sketch: Pastor Jeremy Walker was born in 1975 to godly parents in Crawley, England.  Although he kicked hard against the goads, the Lord God was pleased to deal graciously and patiently with him during his teenage years, slowly drawing him to Jesus Christ. He studied English Language and Literature at the University of Leicester before working for five years for the Ministry of Defence in London, at which time he also returned to the church in Crawley. During these periods, God was again pleased to work in his heart, forming a desire for the ministry of his Word. After a time of study and service with this in view, in January 2004 he was recognised as a pastor of Maidenbower Baptist Church, Crawley, where he continues to serve. He is married to Alissa, and God has blessed them with two sons, Caleb and William. He is a co-author of A Portrait of Paul: Identifying a True Minister of Christ (due October 2010). [↩]
11. I’m not sure I agree with Walker’s characterization of the new Calvinists under the heading “an ambivalent relationship to church history” (#19), suggesting, it seems to me, the new Calvinists fail to appreciate that many of the great truths they’ve “discovered” have been around for a while. It appears to me, however, that most of the new Calvinists are well aware they stand on the shoulders of many who’ve gone before. See, for example, John Piper’s biographical series The Swans Are Not Silent in which he traces many of the doctrines and values of his “new Calvinism” to men like Athanasius, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Bunyan, John Owen, William Cooper, John Newton, Charles Simeon, etc. Piper has also labored to show that his “Christian Hedonism” is not something entirely new but finds its roots in Jonathan Edwards and the Puritans. Yes, he does give some credit to the Anglican philosopher C. S. Lewis, but I think he finds the greatest continuity with Edwards’ theology. [↩]
12. Although I don’t agree with a charismatic view of the revelatory gifts, as do many of the new Calvinists, I’m sympathetic with a stress on the importance of the Holy Spirit’s ongoing ministry and the vital place of the emotions in the Christian life and worship. Sometimes, the old Calvinism sometimes tends to emphasize outward form over the inward disposition and the intellect over the emotions. In its polemic against a charismatic view of the gifts, the older Calvinism can fail to underscore the Christian’s and church’s need for the Spirit’s guidance and empowerment. [↩]
13. First, when Walker characterizes their ecclesiology as “pragmatic” (#11), I’d be quick to point out that the Bible itself commends what might be termed “principled pragmatism,” that is, the  pursuit of those methodologies that are most efficient within the parameters of biblical principles (e.g., Prov 22:29). And since the Bible and even the Puritan confessions call for principled pragmatism in the realm of church ministry, worship, and outreach with respect to what is circumstantial in nature (see, for instance, 2LBCF 1.6), we should strive to be more precise in our caveats and criticisms of others’ ecclesiastical methodologies. The question is not whether the new Calvinists are “pragmatic” in some aspects of their ecclesiology. They should be and so should we. The question, rather, is whether their pragmatism stays within the bounds of the light of nature, Christian prudence, and the general principles of God’s word. Actually, Walker would agree with my point here. If you read his explanation, you’ll learn that he’s really questioning some not all of their pragmatism and even suggests that we older Calvinists may need to be a little more pragmatic in the proper sense. I simply want to highlight the need to recognize the different nuances (bad and good) of the concept of “pragmatism.” It’s not always a bad word. Second, Walker’s characterization of the new Calvinists’ worship as contemporary (#14) should be qualified by the fact that a number of the men he mentions in his review actually advocate a blended worship in which both traditional and contemporary forms and genres are used. Third, the fact that the new Calvinism as a movement is driven largely by key personalities (#15) is nothing new. Does not the “old Calvinism” also have its heroes (Turretin, Owen, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Spurgeon, etc.) who are all often portrayed as revolving in orbit around the man himself, Jean Cauvin? Finally, while I agree with Walker that some of the new Calvinists do express a concern for their churches to grow large (#16), I think we (especially those of us who pastor small churches) should be careful in our critique of this desire. The apostle Paul wanted to see as many sinners saved as possible (1 Cor 9:19ff.), and he endeavored to accommodate his ministry in order to procure (with God’s blessing) that end. If, as Walker suggests in point #1, the new Calvinists are truly characterized by a desire for the glory of God, it would seem unlikely that they’re pursuing numbers merely for numbers sake. As a case in point, Mark Driscoll and the elders of Mars Hill Church recently decided to dissolve the membership of their church, have Mark teach a series on doctrine, and then reconstitute the membership on a more solid foundation. As a result, they lost about 1,000 members (see an interview with Driscoll here). While we might question the propriety of such a move (did the congregation approve it first?), we can at least applaud the fact that the elders of Mars Hill appear to value something more than mere numerical size. [↩]
14. Walker describes the 13th characteristic of neo-Calvinism as a tendency toward a “doctrinal if not practical antinomianism.” He seems to base this conclusion largely on the fact that many of the new Calvinists fail to affirm and practice a Puritan view of the Lord’s Day as the “Christian Sabbath.” While I don’t contest that many of the new Calvinists’ view of the Lord’s Day may not fully conform to Puritan or even biblical standards, I find the epithet “antinomianism” too strong. Literally, the term means “opposed to law,” and has been historically applied to sects that reject, minimize, or marginalize the abiding relevance of the Bible’s moral standards for Christian living under grace. But most new Calvinists I’m familiar with not only affirm the relevance of all the moral standards (i.e., commands or laws) in the NT but also those of the OT, which they perceive to be of a moral and abiding character. True, many of the new Calvinists question the abiding validity of the fourth commandment or at least its “sabbath” aspect. But even among the older Calvinists one may find some disagreement as to the precise way in which and extent to which the fourth commandment applies today. Accordingly, I wouldn’t characterize the new Calvinists as antinomians, which can give the impression that they fail to view the Scriptures not only as a revelation of the gospel but also as a revelation of God’s abiding moral expectations for humanity and the church. This label may also give the impression that the new Calvinists advocate moral laxity or a licentious lifestyle, which anyone familiar with their teaching would see is untrue. [↩]

Young, Restless, Reformed: “Hip, Hip, Hurrah!” or “Bah Humbug!”?

Posted by deangonzales on December 28, 2008
20 Comments

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.”