This past Sunday, I had the privilege of preaching for a special five-part series at our church. Each week a sermon has been devoted to one of the Five Solas of the Reformation. In English, the Five Solas are: Christ Alone, Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, and to the Glory of God Alone. This is also the order we are using for the sermon series. Our pastor has opened the series and will finish it, and two other men and I are privileged to contribute one of the messages for the set.
My sermon from this Sunday was on Sola Gratia, or Grace Alone. I was especially burdened by this topic which is so all-encompassing. My sermon highlighted the role of Grace in salvation — we are saved not on account of our works (praise God!). And I also emphasized how grace opposes legalism, in both its doctrinal and practical forms. Finally I was able to touch on Sovereign Grace just a bit as well.
My text was Titus 3, and I was pleased to discover that Martin Luther preached a pair of sermons on Titus 2:11-4 and Titus 3:4-7 for Christmas of 1522. Those sermons were epsecially pertinent to my theme and I included some quotations. (You can find Luther’s sermons on Titus here and here).
I’m sharing my sermon notes and audio in this post and welcome any feedback. You can also find all my recent sermons from The Heights Church, St. Paul, here.
If you don’t have time to listen to the entire sermon (52 minutes), please do look over my notes.
Getting Jesus Wrong may be one of the best titles I’ve seen in a while, and the book comes close to living up to its provocative name. The author is not well known, but his message deserves to be heard by one and all.
Matt Johnson is an interesting story in himself, a self-professed punk rocker who found Jesus and meandered his way through a small Pentecostal church and into a Calvary Chapel. He winds up in an evangelical mega church in Seattle with a reformed bent. A church, mind you, that has lately disbanded due to problems with its leadership. (While Johnson doesn’t say it plainly, it is hard not to see this as Mars Hill Church and Mark Driscoll.)
Out of this ruin, Johnson emerges — but not untouched by the problems. At times he is painfully honest about his own condition. Jobless, with marital problems, burned out and disillusioned — he doesn’t seem at first glance to be the kind of person who could and should author such a book as this. But his brokenness is appealing, and his message is freeing — both for himself and the reader. He has been wowed by a rediscovery of the free Gospel, unhindered by law. He has left behind a legalistic view of Christianity and found solid ground on which to stand.
The book uses his checkered history as a case study for how false impressions of Jesus can warp our Christianity. To many, Jesus is a Life Coach who may even offer a checklist for how to find a better life now. Or maybe Jesus is a movement leader or visionary who excites people to follow, only to use them as cogs to build his ministry. In all of this, acceptance with God and hope for the future depends on how well you follow the coach, keep the checklist, or contribute to the movement and the vision. And in the end, this approach leads to either pride or despair. You just can’t do it. But if you could, then it’s all you and not Jesus anyway.
The antidote to this problem is understanding the proper role of God’s Law (and the little “l” laws that we often substitute). The Law is meant to kill us and leave us bereft of any hope apart from Christ. It is meant to make the Gospel that much sweeter, and grace so much greater. God loves his Son, and we are united to Jesus by faith. God is pleased with us, we don’t have to earn his favor or maintain our standing through effort. This understanding should lead to humility and real hope.
This is a great message, and yet it can be misconstrued. I don’t get the sense that Matt is saying holy living doesn’t matter — although some could go there if they wanted. And neither does he say that God’s grace does not produce righteousness in us either. But the law/Gospel distinction presented is refreshing, especially for those who have become enamored with the latest movement or visionary leader, and have lost sight of the soul-sustaining power of the Gospel. Johnson is careful to point back to himself as the source of the legalism. There were good people in his previous churches, and even a good church can’t keep a legalist out.
Some will appreciate his authentic and open style. Others may be alarmed at his levity. I winced when I read about he and his Christian friend’s penchant for “sloopersizing” their beer! Johnson’s background leaves him more open-minded on some theological points than some will like: he is rethinking his views on traditional gender roles (complementarianism) for example. He also speaks of Christ’s presence in the weekly communion and how the juice dribbling down his hand reminds him of his need for Christ. This sounds more Lutheran than a typical evangelical is accustomed to. But Johnson’s clarity and openness redeems the book: his insights into contemporary Christianity’s infatuation with morality (“law-lite”) and his prescription for struggling legalists is invaluable.
As a sample of his style, and to end on a positive note, let me share a brief excerpt. Then get this book, especially if you have ever been burnt out, or struggled with legalism. In fact, you can get a copy to give to someone you think may be in that condition — but read it yourself first. I’m sure you’ll benefit as well.
When your life is in the crapper, when your church is torn apart by wolves, God is present even if you can’t see it or feel his presence. I have hope in the trials of life that he still makes beauty out of ashes (Isaiah 61:3). (p. 129)
Book Blurbs:
“This is a fun book to read. More than that, it’s spot-on, filled with the Bible’s central message. Tired of chicken-soup-for-the-soul spirituality? Then read this book!” ~ Michael Horton, Professor of Theology, Westminster Seminary California; cohost, “White Horse Inn” broadcast/podcast
“Because we’ve yawned at the gospel, Jesus has been refashioned into a person who offers more practical help: he’s given to you so that you can love yourself more, be a really great you, and be part of our really great movement. Matt Johnson struggled under the tyrant of that sort of Jesus until he discovered the wonder of the real Jesus—the One who dispenses both Law and Gospel. This book is a strong antidote to all the ‘wrong’ Jesuses out there. I encourage you to read it and share it with friends. You’ll be glad you did.” ~ Elyse M. Fitzpatrick, author of Because He Loves Me
Book Details:
• Author: Jeremy Walker
• Category: Church & Ministry
• Book Publisher: Evangelical Press (2013)
• Format: softcover
• Page Count: 128
• ISBN#: 9780852349687
• List Price: $11.18
• Rating: Highly Recommended
Review:
The resurgence of Calvinism in the English speaking world in the last few decades has recently attracted a lot of attention. Christianity Today devoted an issue to the “Young, Restless, [and] Reformed” movement, and Time magazine dubbed the “new Calvinism” as one of the top ten ideas changing the world in 2009. And like any movement it has its detractors. Liberals inside and out of evangelicalism, are alarmed by its bold stand for complementarian (as in, non-egalitarian and anti-feminist) family values. Theological progressives deplore its “barbaric” insistence on penal, substitutionary (and by nature, blood-y) atonement. Mainstream evangelicals — charismatics, Baptists and non-denominationalists alike — are suspicious of the movement’s unabashed celebration of Calvinism. Groups who are more similar to the new Calvinism often decry the movement the loudest. The Reformed (with a capital “R”) are tempted to begrudge or belittle this movement: they were real Calvinists all along (and don’t see any need for a resurgence) and by nature, they are suspicious of anything not grounded in a several-hundred year-old Church confession or creed. Fundamentalists and those of their ilk, see a real threat in this movement: it can’t be easily pinned down and there is too much variety and not enough healthy separation from error.
New Calvinism is not exactly new anymore. And like any movement, it isn’t perfect. There are blind-spots, foibles and let-downs. Yet no one can deny the infusion of spiritual life that has accompanied this wide-ranging return to the Reformation. New and revitalized churches, a no-holds-barred approach to evangelism and mission, and a passionate advocacy of theology (and truth) are hallmarks of the movement. Even if you have quibbles with where some land on any number of doctrinal or practical issues, you should appreciate that by and large, the heart of this movement is one that yearns for God’s glory, that prizes a gospel of Grace, revels in the freedoms won by the cross of Christ, and both reveres Scripture and listens to the moving of the Spirit.
While the “new Calvinism” as it is often called, is mostly an American phenomenon, its influence is spreading to the United Kingdom and beyond. And it is from England that a new critique and thoughtful evaluation of new Calvinism has come. Jeremy Walker, a young pastor who contributes to the influential Reformation21 blog, has written a short examination of the movement: The New Calvinism Considered: A Personal and Pastoral Assessment (Evangelical Press, 2013).
This work is the first book-length critique of new Calvinism I have read, although throughout its pages Walker refers to countless internet discussions where critiques first surfaced. Having lived online through my blog, and interacting with some and reading others of the discussions first-hand, I can appreciate much that Walker is saying that some readers may miss. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
The book attempts first to characterize and classify the movement of new Calvinism. This in itself is a chore, I’m sure. And after he helps readers have a better sense of what he is talking about, he begins by pointing out several good qualities and positive effects of the movement. He then rounds out the book with cautions, concerns and his concluding counsel.
At the onset, Walker lays out his motives and the nature of his critique – a personal and pastoral assessment. He understands that he won’t be able to avoid generalizations, but does a good job underlining the fact that there is a broad spectrum in this movement and that not every critique will be valid for all. That being said, we must still evaluate how successful he is in his attempts to fairly characterize the movement. In describing new Calvinism, I felt that Walker’s Britishness hampered his ability to clearly assess and comprehend the movement. He acknowledges as much when he claims “I have something of an outside perspective on those [American] aspects of it” (pg. 11). This is evident as he points out the movement’s tendency to lift up individuals as standard-bearers to rally around – a very American trait which is as common among most of new Calvinism’s American critics as it is in new Calvinism itself. For every critic who singles out someone like John Piper as being a personality around which people “fawn” and hang on his every word, there is an equal part of adulation for someone like John MacArthur and his ability both as a teacher and as one who points out the flaws in parts of the new Calvinism movement. Another example where Walker misjudges the movement is in his criticism’s of the movement’s pragmatism and commercialism. It could be argued that a significant portion of the movement has made great strides in pulling themselves and their churches away from the pragmatism-driven American Church circus of the 80’s and 90’s. Bill Hybels and Rick Warren aren’t new Calvinists, and it is their influence among others, that has propelled a market-driven approach filled with business practices that John Piper has so eloquently decried in his book Brothers, We are Not Professionals. The Together for the Gospel conference can look big, staged and pragmatic from afar, but in comparison to some of the over-the-top, marketing-focused, gimmicky Church growth conferences that abound in America, it is really quite tame.
Of necessity, Walker points out concrete example after example to illustrate his concerns. And while they do help gain a sense of where he is coming from, they can also blunt his critique when the example doesn’t quite fit, or the context of an incident is missed in his use of it. Several times he singles out Mark Driscoll as an someone who embodies his particular critique. I don’t know many new Calvinists who are total Driscoll fan-boys. Many of us have concerns with some of his ministerial choices and don’t hold him as a true bell-ringer for this movement. Another problem with his examples is that at times it feels like he is rehashing blog-wars in a book to expand their influence. Often the blog-wars are dirty and statements and events are blown out of proportion to make a point, and this book suffers from the same problem at times. John Piper is taken to task for inviting Douglas Wilson and Rick Warren at different times to his Desiring God National Conference. Yet the nature of such conferences and the way they are handled at Desiring God, is a forum for discussion more than a blanket endorsement of the speakers. And while, Walker admits that the new Calvinism is not a denomination or a Church, he laments that no official action is taken for errors or misjudgments like this. The Gospel Coalition’s lack of [enough] action in the case of the Elephant Room incident where James McDonald and Mark Driscoll invited T.D. Jakes and treated him like a brother in Christ (not directly challenging him on his anti-trinitarianism and prosperity gospel teachings) is a case in point. The Coalition can’t really act, and respects the privacy of its inner workings. Not long after the incident both Driscoll and McDonald stepped down from official positions with TGC. And TGC’s leaders, Tim Keller and Don Carson drafted a statement about the matter explaining their actions taken. This isn’t enough for Walker, and it wasn’t enough for many bloggers either. But it is some action, and it is short of an official churchly action precisely because TGC is not a church.
As an appreciative member of the “Young, Restless, Reformed” movement (although the middle descriptor doesn’t exactly fit, I think), I cannot but speak in defense as I have above. But let me stress, there is much in this book that is worthy of your time. He does point out some important issues, and we do ignore thoughtful critique of our movement at our own peril. He points out the openness to the charismatic gifts and a looser, more open view of culture as areas of concern. Both areas are places where one can easily drift along in the movement unthinkingly following the ethos of others. Each item warrants thoughtful and personal study of the Scriptures and we ignore this to our peril. His other most poignant critique hits hard on the area of sanctification and holiness. In new Calvinism’s zeal for the gospel of grace, he fears we run hard to the opposite error: antinomianism. Having been freed from legalism, we tend to view laws of any kind as the problem, rather than our hard hearts. He makes the intriguing parallel that while many profess to be recovering Pharisees, almost no one admits to being the “recovering tax collector” (pg. 79). He is worthy of quoting on this point:
Again, let me point out that legalism is the pursuit of obedience with the intention of earning acceptance or merit and not the pursuit of obedience in accordance with God’s law as one redeemed by grace….
My fear is that this view will become very attractive to people who want the privileges and benefits and eased conscience of a Christian profession without the demand for holiness being pressed into their hearts resulting in the vigorous pursuit of godliness. Clearly this is not the intention of the new Calvinists by and large… But my concern is that this teaching may create an atmosphere in which liberty is made a cloak for license. (pg. 82-83)
Walker challenges his readers to just “be Calvinists” (pg. 107). He wants them to stay true to God’s Word no matter what movements swirl around them. His call is right even if some of his criticisms are ill-founded or off-base. We do need to be careful to pursue godliness. We should be wary of the deceitful pull of ecumenism and the dangers of an arrogant triumphalism that some are seeing as a byproduct of new Calvinism. We serve Christ not the latest fad. I do have confidence that much that has been gained through the rise of new Calvinism is not mere chaff to be blown around with the winds of change. I have seen lives transformed as they discover the gospel of Grace and the doctrines of Grace through the writings and ministry of many of the new Calvinist leaders. I trust that while I became a Calvinist through this new movement, that I will remain true to the Word of God and “be a Calvinist” no matter what happens as seasons come and go.
Walker’s admonition to his audience of people not quite sure what to do with new Calvinism can be equally applied to those of us who are tempted to bristle at any criticism of our movement:
We are not called, first and foremost, to spend all our time worrying about other shepherds, but more to give ourselves to following the Great Shepherd in our convictions and actions. We must look first to ourselves in this regard and ensure that our doctrine and our practice marry, that we manifest degrees of heat and of light that are coordinate with and complementary to one another. We neither know all we should, nor do all that we know, and it is in the equal march of faith and life, knowing and doing, telling and showing, that we gain the platform that will enable us to serve our friends who differ from us in other respects. (pg. 107-108)
This kind of thoughtful reflection and eloquence of speech characterize this work. Walker is bold and forthright but he aims to be fair and charitable. His message deserves to be read widely, and his conclusion heeded by all on every side of this. May we all be found faithful, and my the Lord’s work continue, come what may.
About the author
Jeremy Walker was born to godly parents and was converted to Christ during his teenage years. he serves as a pastor of Maidenbower Baptist Church, Crawley, and is married to Alissa, with whom he enjoys the blessing of three children. He has authored several books and blogs at Reformation21 and The Wanderer.
My most recent post on music has a provocative title: “Superior Affections Yet a Christ-less Conception of Worship.” And someone over at Sharper Iron sought clarification (in the comment thread here) as to whether I was really implying that a traditional stance on music is inherently legalistic.
I wanted to share my clarification here for my readers’ benefit.
Clarification
I quoted Bixby for the “Christ-less” remark in my post. I do think discussing the music issue and having ordinate affections and all, would be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole. The criticism is valid that often there is not much thought given to where we are with music and worship.
That being said, there is a danger to have such an emphasis on form that it obscures the gospel. I do think that is a danger as well.
Berating people and badgering people into having a certain music style is not healthy. Bixby was saying as much. Is RAM doing that, or some RAM type people? I am not sure. But that is not healthy if/when it occurs.
Additionally, having pride in our worship or thinking we are superior because of it would be a gospel problem. Legalism is in the heart so this is a danger that can exist. Maligning others and impugning them with ill motives, which is how the public statements often sound from RAM / traditional music emphasizing fundamentalists when they speak of those who use the other music. It goes back to Chuck Phelps’ letter and the anonymous hit piece on NIU that RAM posted. Those are examples of judging motives and assuming the worst of those who utilize contemporary styled music in worship.
To quote from my post which was referring to Bixby’s:
If you have preferred traditional music, his post will help you examine your own heart. It will also show how this stance toward the worship wars can so easily turn into a pharisaicalism that looks down on others and in turn, becomes an empty shell of externally focused religion.
The point is that one can have what is considered “superior affections” and yet have a Christ-less conception of worship – a legalistic attitude. I am not claiming that RAM has this. I think Bixby brings out some good points and may overstate his case some, but in my experience it is usually the followers who take what someone says and run with it to an extreme. So I bet there are real examples behind the excesses Bixby chronicles and denounces in his post.
Hopefully that explains things. Discussing the role of affections and the role of music can be a healthy thing for the evangelical church. Often people just assume and do, rather than carefully consider. The careful considering I have done on the issue has made me a better worshiper and I think a greater influence in evangelicalism by fundamentalists in general – on lots of things, would be a good thing.
Then some follow up questions were asked and I thought I’d share my response to those here as well. I don’t want to be misunderstood and this is an important conversation – even if it is difficult not to talk past one another and be misunderstood in our zeal for our particular musical position.
Are you saying that if you have a “standard” for worship action (never mind whose for a minute), you are maintaining a “legalistic” and “Christ-less” concept of worship? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seems like that’s where you are going.
I am not saying a “standard” makes one legalistic. A standard can be so exalted and gloried in that we rejoice that we aren’t like the publican who doesn’t adopt our standard. That is when it becomes legalistic. How one lifts up and rallies around and promotes the said standard can go a long way to promoting or encouraging the legalistic response to it. But just having a standard or drawing a line at some point, doesn’t mean that legalism will be the inevitable result.
However, wouldn’t you have to say, whether you have thought through it or not, that you have some “standard” of worship, even among those who are trying to have Christian worship; where in your conscience you say “this can be used to bring honor to God”, or “this doesn’t honor the Lord”, or “it doesn’t do anything for me” or however you want to say it.
Yes there is a standard, I would think, at our church. The line isn’t extremely clear but pastoral direction would be given and has been given in shaping the musical philosophy at our church and others I’ve been to in the past.
How do you think a less conservative standard of worship affects the unsaved? Those who have been saved out of a background of extreme love of the world and sin?
Our worship isn’t about the unsaved. I hope they would encounter a reverence and exultation in Jesus when they see our worship however. As for those saved out of a background of “extreme” love of the world and sin? Our worship is so different from what they are used to when it comes to sensual lyrics, sensual musical performance, stage lights, etc., that I don’t think there is a strong enough correlation in their mind.
Today, if you go to the dentist, go to a shopping mall, eat at Wendys, attend a ball game, go to a bowling alley, pop music and a syncopated beat is everywhere. It is the air we breathe. And for that reason, I contend, that it has become just a normal part of the culture. Heavily sensual beat, gyrating dance, intense and very loud music – that is part of the club scene and has characteristics quite different from what you hear in the doctor’s waiting room.
All of that means is that the average Joe who comes to hear our syncopated worship songs, won’t think anything inherently strange or sinful is happening. It is the music expression he is used to – his language. The lyrics and God-ward direction from the worship leader(s) will be what is new, and powerful, and attractive. And he’ll also encounter older hymns, and choral pieces that are different to his average experience that also communicate the depth of church history and the grandeur of worshiping a holy God.
What if someone in your worship team wants to perform secular music in secular venues as well?
Certain kinds of secular music don’t necessarily have to be seen as immoral. But it would depend on the type, the context, etc. It hasn’t come up in churches I’m aware of, or a part of. But consideration would be given for sure. Do we have to have a rule book which says you can’t do X, Y and Z outside of Sunday’s serivce and Saturday’s practice times, in order to be a faithful church? How about we disciple people and respond in biblical wisdom to situations as they arise?
Feel free to jump into the conversation in the comments below, or over at Sharper Iron.
There are a variety of reasons for the “worship wars,” as they are called. And for fundamentalist Christians, most of the arguments center on the worldliness or immorality of the very musical instrumentation itself — the contemporary, beat-driven sound that makes up CCM. Growing up, I was trained to recognize a strong beat in musical accompaniment and to envision that anyone singing to such music was worldly. As I started thinking through the subject in more detail, I wanted to find a Biblical argument for my stance against pop musical styles. And Frank Garlock and David Cloud had to suffice. Even then, I could see the arguments were quite weak, so most of the rationale had to depend on an analysis of the psychological affect of rock music on people and of all things, potted plants. Yes, plants!
Well, after I walked away from strict fundamentalism and re-evaluated my position on cultural matters in light of an open-minded examination of the Bible, I came to embrace contemporary worship and I was then able to really enjoy worshiping God in music to a whole new degree. I encountered deep, Christ-exalting lyrics (more meaningful to me than some of the shallow and almost trite hymns we sang growing up). And the music resonated with me – it moved me. It was like speaking in the language of my own culture — which I had been trained to deny and put down, but that really was a part of who I was. I was able to express myself in worship, to lift up my soul and exult in new, powerful ways. And I have since come to really appreciate the contemporary worship song for all its worth.
Don’t get me wrong. I still value the old hymns, and I value traditional music as well. I sing in choirs and enjoy harmony and special numbers. I also don’t enjoy any new song, indiscriminately. There is a lot of shallow music without much doctrinal depth out there, for sure. But there are some great songs which bridge the gap between traditional and contemporary. I have written, years ago now, on the Modern Hymn movement. UPDATE: USA Today just did a piece on the Gettys who I also feature in the article linked above. And I still enjoy a balanced worship approach that seeks to unite styles and generations, as well as ethnic affinities, together into a blended, unified, corporate celebration of worship. And I appreciate John Piper’s emphasis on gravity alongside our gladness in worship too.
Now, to the point of my post, after having come to where I am now on worship, I became aware of a newer position on music in fundamentalism. This position eschewed some of the more Gospel-ish hymns, and didn’t take to the sentimental songs that were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They took to more doctrinal-centered, high sounding hymns. And they also stressed “religious affections” — an approach which majored on appropriate feeling in worship, and stressed that God desired the best aesthetics in music. I didn’t get sucked into that movement, although it did seem appealing and intellectual. But it didn’t sit well, especially when it was not Scripture that was judging between various music forms but research and supposed universal aesthetic principles.
I say this to encourage anyone who is following me here, to go read Bob Bixby’s recent post pointing out some grave errors in this “religious affections” approach to music. This approach stresses that there is a right way of feeling, and that how you sing and what you sing in church, reveals if you are having right feelings toward God. It sounds right, but it isn’t. Of this movement, Bixby notes:
They’re separatists by condescension. They don’t practice separation; they practice superiority. And that separates them….
Theirs is a Christ-less conception of worship. It’s Gospel-free. It’s enraptured by form. It’s old-school fundamentalism. And it has little to do with the religious affections that Jonathan Edwards wrote about.
Bixby’s piece is worth reading if you have ever tended toward frowning on contemporary worship styles. If you have preferred traditional music, his post will help you examine your own heart. It will also show how this stance toward the worship wars can so easily turn into a pharisaicalism that looks down on others and in turn, becomes an empty shell of externally focused religion.
I have to quote one more bit from Bixby’s post before encouraging you to read the whole thing.
Consider the God-ward, God-glorifying form of the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. “I thank thee God that I am not like that poor Chris Tomlin singer over there who shuts his eyes and lifts up his hands with the pitiful, artless, crude hip-swaying style of corrupted orthopathy.” Ah, yes! The feelings of thankfulness were genuine in the Pharisee. He had, in fact, religious affections of sincere gratitude that God — indeed, he credited God! — had not made him as that poor loser in the corner, crying out to God with bad poise, seemingly unconscious of God’s glorious transcendence and preference for hymns. No one had more concern about form worthy of God than the Pharisee. No one.
Now if you really want more after reading Bixby, you could try to wade through this old post in my archives, with its 50 plus pages of debate on the subject of the morality of music! But you probably have better things to do!
This past Sunday, I had the privilege of preaching for a special five-part series at our church. Each week a sermon has been devoted to one of the Five Solas of the Reformation. In English, the Five Solas are: Christ Alone, Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, and to the Glory of God Alone. This is also the order we are using for the sermon series. Our pastor has opened the series and will finish it, and two other men and I are privileged to contribute one of the messages for the set.
