What Is Wrong With the Young, Restless and Reformed Movement? An Interpretive Essay by Dr. Paul Owen

Below is a solicited essay by Dr. Paul Owen. Dr. Owen is Professor of Greek and Religious Studies at Montreat College in North Carolina, where he has taught since 2001.  Founded in 1916, Montreat College is the only liberal arts college in North Carolina that holds membership in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.  Dr. Owen’s academic articles and book reviews have been published in numerous venues, including the Calvin Theological Journal, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Journal of Biblical Literature, and Journal for the Study of the New Testament. (see a fuller bio at the article's end).

Dr. Owen is an occasional contributor on the comment threads at SBC Tomorrow, and it was his insightful comments on the so-called "young, restless, and reformed" theological trend which occasioned my request he tease his thoughts out further. He did.

Thus, the essay below is a spirited look at what TIME magazine listed in 2010 as one of 10 ideas changing the world right now--New Calvinism. Some will dismiss Dr. Owen's analysis as much too blustery. Others will praise his insight as spot on. Still others may raise suspicions concerning his conclusions since Dr. Owen's theological tradition is rooted in the Episcopal Church (unfortunately, we Baptists are at times prone to consider only Baptist contributions). What one cannot do, however, is ignore his studied, scholarly opinion.

I trust that whether or not one agrees with Dr. Owen, he will receive the respectful response a scholar deserves.

What Is Wrong With the Young, Restless and Reformed Movement?

by

Paul Owen, Ph.D.

I'm an Episcopalian. That means that I belong to the only major branch of historic Protestantism which has maintained apostolic succession through the historic episcopate (a linear succession of catholic bishops). My Christian beliefs and practices are shaped by the Bible (our only infallible source of doctrine), as read and interpreted by the undivided catholic Church, the consensual faith of the Patristic witness, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. But at the same time I'm also happy to be called a Calvinist. Clergymen from my Anglican church were present both at the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly.

In keeping with the Calvinist wing of Anglicanism, I affirm both the helpless depravity of man (his unwillingness to repent and believe without the operation of God's grace), and unconditional election (not based on God's foresight of human choice or use of his free will). That is to say, I believe that God's actual saving grace is bestowed only upon those persons whom God has chosen for eternal salvation before the foundation of the world. I also believe that the atonement which Jesus offered up to the Father on behalf of the whole world (strict adherents to limited atonement would differ), had its ultimate effect as its final and intended end—the salvation of all those elect believers out of the world. I believe that the grace God bestows on his elect people, because of its divinely intended effect, certainly and infallibly accomplishes their conversion unto eternal salvation. And I believe that none of God's elect saints, once truly converted by grace, can totally and finally fall away from the path of discipleship and salvation in Christ, but will certainly persevere to the end and be eternally saved. At the end of the day, I am still among those who see predestination as the primary reason why the grace offered to all becomes actual saving grace in the case of some, as opposed to my Arminian friends, who believe that it is the undetermined use of free will on the part of man which makes the primary difference.

So why then do I have so many misgivings about the state of Calvinism in the evangelical Church today? Why am I not more enthusiastic about what I see going on around me amongst the Young, Restless and Reformed? Why do I sometimes feel more of a kinship with non-Calvinists of various flavors, than with the children of Geneva? Having observed Calvinism "on the ground" (in America and Scotland) for around twenty years now, what follows are some of my misgivings and observations.

The TULIP Personality

Calvinism today seems to appeal mostly to a certain sort of personality, and that personality is not always healthy. I have discovered that the person who really spends a lot of time talking about the "doctrines of grace," tends to fit a typical profile. They tend to be male (rarely do you find women sitting around arguing about the details of TULIP), intellectually arrogant, argumentative, insecure (and therefore intolerant), and prone to constructing straw-man arguments. In order for the typical Calvinist's faith to remain secure, he seems to feel the need to imagine all others outside his theological box as evil, uninformed, or just plain stupid. I have seen this in men of all ages, some Baptist, some Presbyterian, some laymen, some ordained ministers.

I don't think there is any necessary connection between Calvinism and such traits, so why does it seem to be so prevalent today? Part of the reason, which I do not have time or space to develop here, is that the evangelical church has no robust ecclesiology, and thus no structured spirituality to put into practice as the body of Christ. And given the absence of a structured spiritual life, Reformed Christianity tends to be reduced to a set of doctrines to contemplate, which attracts mainly certain kinds of people, and encourages certain kinds of attitudes among believers. Thus, when you remove Reformed theology from its proper historical place in the structured life of Reformed religion and ecclesiology, and plant it in the foreign soil of modern evangelical gnostic spirituality, it takes a grotesque shape that is contrary to its origins.

One thing I have noticed is that such features tend to display themselves most dramatically in those who experience Calvinism as a "second blessing." They grow up either in a non-Christian home, or a Christian environment that did not talk about issues related to Calvinism. When they first encounter the "doctrines of grace," they are suddenly captured by the intellectual beauty of a logical system that "makes sense" to them. When listening to Calvinist newbies over the years, as they describe their first exposure to Reformed theology, there is an evident "conversion narrative." New TULIP converts speak in hushed tones about when they first "came to accept" the doctrines of grace. You get the sense that they entered a deeper state of Christian spirituality and walk with Christ by discovering that God arbitrarily saves and arbitrarily destroys whomsoever He chooses. I think that there is a certain obnoxious personality that likes to feel superior to others, and unfortunately, the "doctrines of grace" seem to do this for them.

The TULIP Gospel

On numerous occasions, I have seen Calvinists equate the gospel with the doctrines of grace. Supposedly, the doctrines of grace are simply the pure expression of the Christian gospel, and Calvinism is simply Christianity without the corruption of human merit mixed into the equation. Unfortunately, I have seen even men of great learning, who really should know better than to fall into such over-simplifications, talk in this manner. So any dilution of Calvinism is effectively a dilution of the gospel itself. Given this way of thinking, no wonder Calvinists seem to have a hard time playing with their friends in the theological sandbox! Who wants to be nice to people who are mixing human merit in with the pure gospel of Christ? Didn't Paul pronounce an anathema on people like that in Galatians?

This makes it very difficult for some Calvinists to acknowledge common ground with non-Calvinist theologies, or to admit when they are making good points. I have tried to avoid this insular way of thinking in my own theological reflection. There are verses in the Bible that Arminians seem to handle with more integrity than the typical Calvinist does. As far as it is possible, I try to listen to Catholic, Arminian and Lutheran theologians, and be willing to modify my Calvinism when I perceive it to be chastened by the Word of God. And the broad stream of theology which I follow is enriched not only by the views of Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Owen and the Westminster Confession of Faith (which seem to dominate the landscape of Calvinism today), but also by more moderate tributaries: Augustine and Aquinas, Garrigou-Lagrange, Bullinger, Vermigli, Hooker, Amyraut, Ussher, Davenant, Ward and the Second Helvetic Confession.

What follows are some of my concessions to my non-Calvinist brothers:

1. Non-Calvinists are certainly correct when they note that Scripture everywhere confronts man with the obligation (not only the duty) and the opportunity to repent of his sins and believe the gospel of the true God (Acts 17:27, 30). This must mean that man, even in his fallen state, retains the operative faculties of human nature which make conversion possible in principle. God does not command absurd impossibilities, nor does He tell people without eyes, to look, or people without ears, to listen. Notice how even a Calvinist-sounding text like Isaiah 6:10 presumes that the unsaved still possess the faculties which could embrace salvation, if they were to put them to good use. The problem is not that fallen man is literally unable to believe, but that (without divine grace) fallen man is unwilling to believe. Men still have operative mouths whereby they might feed on Christ, but in their fallen state they lack any and all appetite to do so. God's grace operates so as to give man a spiritual appetite, not a mouth to eat.
2. Non-Calvinists are correct to see conversion as an active movement of the will of man, and not merely a passive reception of the gift of faith. God's grace does not exclude consent and a cooperative response on the part of man. Philippians 2:12-13, for example, says to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." God's being at work in them does not exclude their free response, but provides the rationale for it. Notice Paul does not say, "for it is God who works in you, to work for his good pleasure." That might give the impression that human effort or action is the mere effect of God's monocausality. Instead he says "both to will and to work," which means that the effort expended is caused both by God's working and the working of our human will. The working out of our salvation that we perform as we grow in sanctification surely begins with conversion and the first work of God's grace in us. But the work that we do (since it is we who do it by God's grace) is still our own doing, and thus the "willing" which characterizes the working out of our salvation is likewise still our own willing (not simply the irresistible effect of regeneration upon passive objects).
3. Since this is the case, there is no reason for Calvinists to continually shy away from language which includes man's free consent and cooperation in conversion. When Ephesians 2:8 says of salvation by grace through faith, "And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God," it does not mean that we do not freely perform the act of believing. By way of parallel, 2:10 goes on to say, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand." The fact that the good works we do were "prepared beforehand" by God does not mean that we are not expected to willingly perform them. God's grace does not exclude our free, active, consenting, cooperating response in the arena of salvation; rather, it makes conversion possible for all, and actual in the elect (however "elect" be understood).
4. But are we not "dead" in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1)? How can a dead corpse do anything to contribute to his conversion? We often hear Reformed people talking like this. But it's a bad argument, and needs to be set aside by Calvinists who wish to speak biblically on these matters. A similar statement appears in Colossians 2:13, "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him." This obviously does not mean that man is purely passive in the process of conversion, since the previous verse says that "you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God" (2:12). Being "raised with him" is a plain image of new life or regeneration, and yet Paul insists that regeneration happens "through faith"! Since regeneration happens through the operation of faith (an act on our part), man's consent and cooperative response to God's grace is constitutive of that regeneration, and not only the effect of it (as Calvinists sometimes assert when they wrongly insist that regeneration precedes faith).
5. Non-Calvinists are correct to insist that God gives sufficient grace to everyone so as to constitute a real opportunity to respond to the summons of the gospel. Whenever men hear the gospel, it is truly possible for them to put to good use their natural faculties in the process of conversion. The preaching and hearing of the Word of God is always accompanied by the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the audience. Romans 10:17 says that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." The "word of Christ" is the gospel, and wherever the gospel is heard, faith is truly possible (otherwise Paul could not call hearing the source of faith). Reformed theology has sometimes given the impression that the Word and the Sacraments are inwardly operative in the elect alone, and only outwardly operative in the lives of the non-elect. This does not seem to be the view of Paul, who says that faith comes from hearing (something not limited to the elect). He does not simply say that the command to believe, or the appeal to believe, or the outward call to believe, comes from hearing, but faith itself. If hearing the word of Christ does not make faith truly possible for everyone, then this would be odd thing to say, since, again, the elect are not the only ones who hear the gospel. I am not saying that Calvinists who disagree cannot explain this (by saying that hearing is the instrument God uses in regenerating the elect); but I am saying that a person who believed what Calvinists typically assert, would not naturally talk about faith as the effect of hearing the gospel, as the apostle Paul does here.
6. Note also how 1 Peter 1:23-25 attributes regeneration ("since you have been born again") to "the good news that was preached to you." Who is the "you" here? Clearly, the good news was not only preached to the elect, but to elect and non-elect. And yet regeneration is directly attributed to this preached word (not simply to the Spirit's secret operation in the elect). Such an assertion makes no sense if the preached word did not provide a real opportunity for regeneration to all who hear; and since we know fallen men will not make good use of their natural faculties without the help of God's grace, this must mean that the preached word is accompanied by the operation of the Spirit, which supplies grace sufficient to make actual conversion a real possibility. Some of those who heard the good news responded with "obedience to the truth," which "purified" their souls (1:22). Man's obedient response to the gospel is (from the human end) what distinguishes between those who are regenerated "through the living and abiding word of God" (1:23) and those who do not benefit from the grace put at their disposal through the preaching of the good news.
7. Non-Calvinists often raise points that make better sense of numerous other texts of Scripture. Why would Stephen fault those who are "uncircumcised in heart" (i.e., unregenerate) for "resisting the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51), unless cooperating with the Holy Spirit could produce a circumcised heart (i.e., regeneration)? Since those addressed by Stephen remained unregenerate, it must mean that they were resisting the grace of God which was sufficient to bring about their conversion. And is it not clear that since Jesus is the "true light, which gives light to everyone" (John 1:9), that all who are presented with the gospel have the real opportunity to receive Christ? What kind of light would it be, that leaves people without the chance to escape from the darkness? And is not that opportunity itself a real operation of God's grace? When John 1:11-12 goes on to distinguish between those who received him and those who did not, it seems clear that the fact that Jesus "gives light to everyone" was not highlighted in verse 9 to make a comment about the elect only, but also to show why those who did not receive him were fully culpable. "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light" (John 3:19).

The TULIP Cult

People are sometimes surprised to hear me speak of the TULIP cult. What do I mean when I speak this way? By a cult, I mean a sect within the broad landscape of Christianity which takes as its operating center some principle other than Christ crucified. This is certainly the case for the Young, Restless and Reformed. It is obvious that the operating center which holds this movement together is TULIP, not the gospel of the cross. One gets the impression that their sense of identity is inseparable from their sense of superiority, and thus it is tied to their adherence to and promotion of the doctrines of grace.

It is not the name of the Lamb that is constantly on the lips of these men, but the names of Calvin (though I have found most of the YRR have actually read very little of him) and the personalities featured at Calvinist conferences, gatherings and websites. What seems to be of paramount importance to these people is the demonstration of the superiority of the arguments for TULIP and its consequences for thinking out the logic of the Christian faith. The Christian faith, in other words, finds its coherence in the "doctrines of grace," rather than in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. Rather than glory in Christ, and see in Christ's face the focus of divine revelation, Calvinists these days glory in the doctrines of grace, and see the focus of God's revelation in today's preachers of TULIP religion. And just as reflecting on Christ makes us more like Christ (2 Cor. 3:18), reflecting on these Calvinist personalities seems to shape many Christians into a far less pleasing image.

Some of these Calvinist ministries have been plagued with scandals of a sexual nature in recent days. I can't say this surprises me. I strongly suspect it is because they are expressions of the TULIP cult. When Christianity is reduced to talking, singing, arguing, and teaching about the "doctrines of grace" and their manifold ramifications, their spiritual well is bound to run dry pretty quickly. This is simply because the TULIP cult is not the time-tested, historic Christian religion. It is no different from the Prosperity Gospel movement, although it operates on different theological principles. In both cases, you have a movement which derives its theological center from something other than Christ crucified. The Christian religion starts at Calvary and works outward from there. The Prosperity Gospel works outward from the principle of material blessing in response to human faithfulness (at best a sub-theme developed in parts of the Bible). And the TULIP cult works outward from the principles of the doctrines of grace, though not as cautiously expressed in Scripture, but as dogmatically expressed in the highly fallible writings and sermons of men who have attempted to popularize Reformed theology for the masses.

The Spirit of God is not going to be present and operative in the promotion of TULIP as the essence of the Christian religion, any more than He would ever participate in promoting the empty "gospel" of the prosperity message. Where the Spirit of God is not present, you will only find the doctrines and myths of men, and where people are being fed on such a diet of spiritual junk food, it should not shock us to see all manner of spiritual diseases and dysfunctions. It is particularly dangerous when the pious-sounding doctrines of universal human depravity, and Christ's perfect active and passive obedience on our behalf, are distorted by unstable and untaught men, so that the gravity of sin and the necessary obligations of Christian holiness are minimized. No wonder people begin to think that it is normal for Christians to use filthy speech, to adopt the world's view of sexuality, and to engage in heinous sex crimes. (We're all just wretched sinners after all!) But thank God for his unconditional grace, and that perfect, imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ! Let's sing a few cool songs about that….

One final note. I am not a Baptist, but I suspect much of the discussion about Calvinism in the SBC is looking more at the symptoms than the disease. The disease is not Calvinism. There have been strict Baptist Calvinists on the scene since at least the seventeenth century. The disease is the TULIP cult of today's spiritually sick Church. It is the TULIP cult mindset that seems to be tearing apart the SBC. For whatever else you can say about the Baptist tradition, it is most certainly a version of Christianity which finds the gospel of the Cross and the offer of free forgiveness through the shed blood of Jesus as its operating center. When you have men in the SBC who are more zealous evangelists for conversions to Calvinism than conversions to Christ, more earnest in their apologetics for TULIP than for the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, more excited about the doctrines of grace than the gospel itself—coexistence is going to be difficult.

And there are further related problems. When adherence to TULIP is the ultimate priority, other things, which should be of greater priority take a back seat. As long as the "doctrines of grace" are promoted, it matters very little to these men how the Church worships, how the pastor dresses and conducts himself, the order of the service, the form and content of the prayers, the atmosphere promoted through the structure of the service, the tone and substance of the sermons, the tempo, content and style of the music, and the themes which are viewed as suitable subjects for Christian teaching and reflection. There should be (and have been) distinctively Baptist patterns for "doing" church, grounded in a distinctive theology of what the Church is, and what exactly is its purpose. But in the TULIP cult, rather than being based on principled theological convictions, all these matters are up for grabs, for they have no substantive, distinctive theology to undergird preaching, ministry and worship. At least no theology that they have the time to reflect upon. Thus, you have churches today which are making all manner of compromises and accommodations to the trends of our shallow culture, but pride themselves on their adherence to the "doctrines of grace." The TULIP cult is certainly not alone in this regard (as seeker-sensitive church growth fads have shown for decades); but it is ironic that men who claim to be building on the insights of the Reformation and its recovery of the sovereign majesty of God, the sole authority of the Bible, the power of expository and doctrinal preaching, and a Reformed worship that is humbly subject to the commandments of Scripture, can be so tolerant of worldliness, shallowness and cultic devotion to know-nothing Calvinist celebrities.

Comments

[peter lumpkins]

It's not about "getting into an argument," Tony. It's about offering response to a particular position. It doesn't have to be "an argument". And, yes I agree: Dr. Owen's article was incisive. But according to your assessment in the first comment you logged it was an "accurate" incisiveness, something you appeared to ignore in the latter. That's all I'm suggesting, Tony. It doesn't even have to be an "inconsistency"; just clearly--at least for me--a change in focus on your initial assessment.

Now, you completely missed the point of my naming the leaders I did and the L to which they all adhere. To suggest I reduced the ministry of all these men to near nothing but TULIP by naming what theological notion remains common among them all makes sense in what way exactly, Tony?

On the other hand, when there exists within the history of Calvinism empirical demonstration that not all Calvinists hold to the so-called Five-points of Calvinism--TULIP--yet to a man among the YRR shakers and movers, they all hold to Limited Atonement, in what way may we claim they are not focusing and embracing and promoting and encouraging TULIP as a theological paradigm? Indeed in what way may we conclude they are not theologically monolithic at least as far as soteriology is concerned?

[Max]

Peter writes “I’m not sure one could make a stronger case for monolithic belief amongst a socio-theological community than what one may observe in the YRR leadership.”

You don’t get any more monolithic, rigid and unwavering in your message and tone than when you say things like:

“Where else are they going to go? If you’re a theological minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going to end up basically being Reformed, basically something like this new Calvinism, or you’re going to have to invent some label for what is basically going to be the same thing, there just are not options out there, and that’s something that frustrates some people, but when I’m asked about the New Calvinism—where else are they going to go, who else is going to answer the questions, where else are they going to find the resources they are going to need and where else are they going to connect. This is a generation that understands, they want to say the same thing that Paul said, they want to stand with the apostles, they want to stand with old dead people, and they know that they are going to have to, if they are going to preach and teach the truth.” (Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)

Where else are they going to go … if they are going to preach and teach the truth?! Words like this only serve to fan the fires of the young (but not wise), restless (and rebellious), and reformed wannabe champions of a cause. Such arrogance fuels rebellion without revival and reformation without transformation.

I’ve been a Southern Baptist for 50+ years and have known its majority to be believers who truly “want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ” … multitudes of Christians who have taken the precious message of Christ to a lost world without “basically being Reformed.” Good Lord!

[peter lumpkins]

Max

Exactly. If that is not indicative of promoting a monolithic message, it's hard to know what "monolithic" even means when we speak of it...

[Paul Owen]

Tony, the purpose of my essay was to describe what is troubling to me about the YRR movement. It was not within my scope to discuss its positive features. But rather than make excuses, people need to start asking hard questions about why exactly there is such a heated dispute about Calvinism within the SBC in the first place? Is it because the Calvinists "make much" of Christ? Is it because they are so God-centered and gospel-focused? Obviously that's not what their Traditional Baptist brethren are complaining about. They are complaining because they sense a shift of focus among the YRR (and within their churches) away from what has been at the center of Baptist life: the cross of Jesus and the earnest gospel invitation to come and be washed in the blood of the lamb. I don't think most Traditionalists give a hoot how many points of TULIP you affirm, as long as you don't monkey with the cross and good old Baptist soul-winning. Furthermore, the YRR have an edgy kind of friendliness with the world about them, that I think makes Traditionalists understandably uncomfortable about the direction all this is heading in terms of how one lives out the Christian life.

[Scott Shaver]

For those of us who have experienced and seen the destructive militancy of hyper-calvinism, The note Tony sounds in favor of the "fullness of ministry" offered by those he names rings hollow when one also considers the adverse effects of such "fullness" on the lives and ministries of thousands.

Over the last 30 years, I've seen the presence of Founders within SBC circles as a primary catalyst in this never-ending divide and conquer spirit dominating what remains of a previous version of the SBC.

When the Founders Movement and SBC Fundamentalists teamed up to purge and correct the SBC, the goal of Founders at that time was to infiltrate and plant their preferred theological system and adherents in every local church to which they could get a foot in the door. That is still their stated intent.

We are to actually buy into the idea that their primary concern now is peaceful coexistence via theological triage?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice .... shame on me.

"Incisiveness" is exactly what the doctor has ordered IMO.

Thank you Paul Owen.

[Max]

Scott writes "... the goal of Founders at that time was to infiltrate and plant their preferred theological system and adherents in every local church to which they could get a foot in the door. That is still their stated intent."

If anyone doubts what Scott just said, take a gander at "A Quiet Revolution" http://www.founders.org/library/quiet/

I have observed an interesting development in this regard. While most “old” Calvinists (of the Founders' sort) may be opposed to the methodology of their neo-brethren, others in the old guard appear to be putting up with the YRR brand as long as the essential reformed message moves forward in SBC ranks. What the Founders could not do over the past few decades, they have now found new energy for their mission in a generation of 20s-30s disillusioned with their parent’s way of doing church. They need the rebellious spirit to loudly do what they could not quietly accomplish. While there may be a few Founders' fingerprints and current SBC leaders involved, I truly believe that what we are observing is primarily the result of outside non-SBC reformed influencers and entities that are spearheading a larger Calvinist reform throughout the American church, just not in SBC ranks. As I noted earlier, I don't believe that "Old" Calvinism is the problem ... "New" Calvinism is. In my humble (but accurate) opinion, Dr. Owen has nailed it on the head.

[Doug]

Male, check; intellectually arrogant, check; argumentative, check; insecure (and therefore intolerant), check; prone to constructing straw-man arguments, check; he seems to feel the need to imagine all others outside his theological box as evil, uninformed, or just plain stupid, check. Peter, he's just described you perfectly!

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Doug. Back for your yearly injection of insult into the comment thread? How nice. Now, either offer some type of viable contribution to this thread (including allowing us to know who you are so commenters can all identify the yahoo for future reference) or run along to the next blog in which you glory kicking sand into people's faces. We have no time for your pestilent school boy pranks...

[Scott Shaver]

You get to a place in the Christian life (maybe an age) where you realize how inadequate all human thelogical systems are for capturing the fullness of God and His ways.

You also realize that you would like to spend the remaining years of your life involved with more constructive activities "to the glory of God" than beating others over the head whose grasp of Christian truth differs from yours.

I have not the time, conviction, or patience for finding middle ground with hyper-calvinism that SBC leaders seem to think is needed.

Bright side is the Founders movement will not be successful in mass at the local Baptist church level.

Dark side is you may wake up one day in the not-to-distant future wondering how Founders etc. managed to gain control of all six seminaries where SBC ministers are trained.

Too sot in me ways :)

[Scott Shaver]

Max:

Thanks for posting the link. Had not seen or did not remember that pertinent exhibit.

You and I suffer from the same paranoia :)

[Mary]

Hey Scott, are you still in moderation over at Pravda? Have you been watching the comment thread where the lone nonCalvinist has the audacity to suggest that going door to door was something ministers should be doing? Anyone wanting evidence of how the YRR will swarm in and attack those of differing views can see that in action. Also notice that Dave Miller who will moderate nonCals in a heartbeat is nowhere to be seen while a nonCal is attacked by the swarm. He somehow always misses that while finding nonCals offensive and worthy of moderation and banning all the time.

[Paul Owen]

In the thread above I put down some thoughts for Luke as to how the YRR brand of Calvinism can work at cross-purposes with Baptist patterns of doing church. This afternoon I came across a fine essay by Malcolm Yarnell, "The Potential Impact of Calvinist Tendencies Upon Local Baptist Churches," in Whosoever Will (B&H Academic, 2010). His well-researched piece deserves a very wide and considerate hearing in the public discussion regarding the place of Calvinism in the SBC. Calvinists in the convention would do well to consider his warnings and make sure they are first and foremost BAPTISTS, even if secondarily in sympathy with Reformed soteriology.

[Scott Shaver]

Mary:

Honestly don't know about my current moderation status at Pravda. Don't care. Had a rather strong difference of opinion with Miller. He did not like my questions about how one of his posts might come across to non-calvinist readers.

I'm a little tired of being called a "hostile ranting moderate extremist" for simply disagreeing with the guy on various points.

Putting it mildly, I asked him privately to blow the self-righteous rhetoric out of his posterior. Haven't attempted to post or comment there since.

In the future I may check the Pravda threads to see if it's the same unrestricted hand full of preachers kicking up dust. Wasting any more juice attempting to participate in discussion,however,is not in the cards for me.

Why waste time interacting when one's thoughts are all filtered through the judgement of a megolamaniac?

[Max]

Peter - your patience with the "Doug's" of the world is remarkable! If it was just the occasional folk of this sort that cropped up in YRR ranks, I wouldn't be so concerned about this movement. But, I could take you to a SBC-YRR church plant near me where there are numerous young folks with an attitude just like his. Thus, I continue to be concerned about the eventual outcome of this explosion of arrogance determined to recover the lost Gospel. What love is this?! (note: if Doug comes back and mentions that he is not YRR and older than 20-30 something, then I'm really worried about him).

A further note: I am pleased to see a youthful generation returning to church. It's just a dirty shame, that Southern Baptists couldn't have served up something else to attract them. I praise God that not all young folks have fallen for Mohler Moments, Piper Points, and Driscol Drivel. I heard a young SBC pastor preach the Cross with a passion just the other day and lead six new converts in the sinner's prayer ... with that, I still have hope.

[Scott Shaver]

Like Max,

Casting my lot with a younger generation of Baptists as described in paragraph 4 of his post.

Not a younger generation that,for the sake of truth, the glory of God, apple pie and Calvin, will post secretly obtained and fraudulently accessed "gotcha" recordings of such soul-winning preachers on YouTube as character assassination.

But then again as Tony has pointed out previously (and as Doug has dropped by to remind us)....We should refrain from being overly "incisive" of the latter considering their "fullness" of potential for fruit in the gospel and mutual ministry endeavor.

[Lydia]

Dr. Owen,

Great essay. Thanks so much for articulating your views as a believer with Reformed views.

You wrote:
"When you have men in the SBC who are more zealous evangelists for conversions to Calvinism than conversions to Christ, more earnest in their apologetics for TULIP than for the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, more excited about the doctrines of grace than the gospel itself—coexistence is going to be difficult."

One of the biggest problems I see is they (in general) do not recognize this about themselves. It is a movement that redefines concepts, actions and words to the point that any semblence of reality is lost.

And yes, it is a sort of cult so I am glad you acknowledge that. it is mostly about following and emulating the gurus of their movement.

But the biggest problem they have is that many will have to pretend a lot has not actually taken place over the last 7 years or so in order to coexist. not so sure the trust is in place for that to happen since there has been no acknowledgement from certain quarters that us free will types also want to see the nations rejoice for Christ and that it is NOT ok for pastors to use the 1st Amendment to protect child molesters.

So, I suppose there are quite a few out there that are willing to play pretend unity?

[eric]

Mr. Owen writes:

"...... I don't think most Traditionalists give a hoot how many points of TULIP you affirm,as long as you don't monkey with the cross and good old Baptist soul-winning."

My experience is the exact opposite. I've been repeating this over and over again. As one who is in and runs with reformed Baptist, I don't know anyone that would monkey with the cross and soul winning. The fact is, they/we/I am passionate with proclaiming the cross and soul-winning.

All you have to do is read the comments on this site over the years and see that there is an extreme bias against "TULIP" otherwise referenced as "Calvinism" or Reformed Baptist. Of course they give more than a few hoots about how many points of Tulip I affirm because they think it is a false Gospel.

And I'm not saying that as a negative. If you think "Calvinism" is flat out wrong, I would expect you to "rail" against the "TULIP".

Please name some YRR leaders who monkey with the cross and are against good old Baptist soul winning?

[peter lumpkins]

Eric,

You write:

"All you have to do is read the comments on this site over the years and see that there is an extreme bias against "TULIP" otherwise referenced as "Calvinism" or Reformed Baptist. Of course they give more than a few hoots about how many points of Tulip I affirm because they think it is a false Gospel."

First, I'm glad to know you've read this blog over the years. Second, and just what do you expect a blog that was launched to counter aggressive Calvinism in the SBC to do? Be an advocate of the doctrines of grace as interpreted by Calvinists? Third, while I've certainly expressed my reservations with the Calvinistic doctrines of grace, I've not written my critiques with a decided "bias" against or, in your term, "extreme bias" against Calvinism. I've been as fair as I know how to be with the sources I've criticized.

Finally, you assert "they think it [Calvinism] is a false Gospel." Now, since you've read on this site over the years, you've obviously got a lot of evidence that I've emphasized here Calvinism to be a "false gospel". Fine. Produce it. Just one statement I've made out of 21000 comments and 1300 posts over a 7 year period where I've either indicated Calvinism to be a "false gospel" or perhaps an heretical belief. When you can, I'll be glad to post an official apology for doing so.

Nor am I interested in you suggesting it wasn't me to which you were referring. The fact is, this is my site. And, what's promoted on this site is what I personally write. And, while there's a measure of responsibility a host possesses for the comment stream, it cannot be held that what others may write represents what the blog host believes himself or herself.

Hence, either produce the evidence--a single time will do--that I maintain Calvinism to be a "false gospel" or retract the statement. You can say anything you wish about this site on another blog if they'll let you (and many of you do write these false charges). But you and others will not come here popping off about what I maintain about Calvinism or any other subject for that matter without being held accountable for it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Paul Owen]

Eric, just to be clear. I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am glad to hear that you are an advocate of evangelistic preaching, altar calls, leading sinners to Christ, passing out gospel tracts, and soul-winning. The Calvinist Baptists I know don't do those things. Those are not prominent topics at conferences organized by T4G or TGC. I don't see the Acts 29 Network talking a lot about soul-winning, how to preach evangelistic sermons, praying for and expecting Holy Ghost revivals, the sinner's prayer, how to do altar calls, etc. I haven't noticed such topics in John Piper's books or the website for Desiring God Ministries.

As for monkeying with the cross, anyone who denies that the death Jesus died was offered up to God as a sacrifice sufficient for the sins of all men throughout the whole world, and for that reason, to be preached to all men throughout the whole world as the basis for their real opportunity to be saved, would be monkeying with the cross I suspect. No need to name names, since the answer is obvious.

[Scott Shaver]

Don't know about Paul or Peter, but I'll throw my two cents in on this Eric by admitting my bias straight up.

And TULIP is not the primary issue.

My bias, historically, is against those who have allowed Calvinism to inform Scripture rather than vice versa and with their egocentric views of reform rip the passion right out of preaching the cross to all.

When YRR and similar organizations become old enough to have even developed a sense of history they might understand why this is deja vu for some of us.

[eric]

Peter,

Did you read my complete comment including the following?

"And I'm not saying that as a negative. If you think "Calvinism" is flat out wrong, I would expect you to "rail" against the "TULIP"."

before you wrote:
.."Second, and just what do you expect a blog that was launched to counter aggressive Calvinism in the SBC to do?"

As I implied in my previous post, I expect you to do exactly what you are doing.

You don't have a fight with me brother.

I will retract the words "false Gospel" because I cant think of one comment that specifically use those words.
My apologies' for any offense.

So let me replace "false gospel" with "Not true"

I was not referring to you or any individual.

If This site doesn't have many comments to be in the "anti-Calvinist" camp. Or if those comments cant be characterized as having a bias (extreme or not) against "Calvinism", I will admit, I am a complete knucklehead.

My comment still stands that many folks do give a hoot about how many points of the Tulip I promote in the Baptist Church because they don't think it is true.

Mr. Owen:
I will have to accept what you are saying about Reformed Baptist not doing those things. The extremely difficult disconnect I am having with that thinking is I know many hundreds of Reformed Baptist who are passionate about evangelizing.....Out of those hundreds, I don't know One that is against it.

[Max]

So do YRR genuinely "evangelize?" I suppose that depends on how the Gospel is delivered to the lost through a reformed grid.

I offer the following real-life example that I struggle with coming from my non-Calvinist Southern Baptist background. I follow podcast sermons of various SBC-YRR church plants. One in my area is growing in leaps and bounds and now planting churches in South Africa. In a message after returning from a SA mission trip, the young pastor related a story of a fellow who had paid a visit to the village they were working in. Toting a Bible given to him by a previous missionary to that area, the man asked to meet with the pastor to discuss the Jesus and Nicodemus encounter in John 3. He had read that passage and now essentially asked "What must I do to be saved?" The pastor responded "You don't have to 'do' anything - God's grace has been extended to you." No discussion of the text, no examination to see if the fellow really understood what he had read, no discourse on sin and redemption, no message of the Cross, no sinner's prayer, no invitation to accept Christ. Apparently, the young pastor believed that this fellow was of the predestined "elect" because he had read the Scripture and showed up in the camp to seek the pastor out - drawn there by God; thus, he must be saved.

Perhaps it's my SBC soul-winning upbringing, but I had trouble with this Gospel delivery, this form of evangelizing. I'm hoping this is an atypical YRR approach to reaching lost folks (you don't have to "do" anything), but I wonder if some YRR view belief and repentance as "works" and not faith. And of course, regeneration before faith clouds this form of evangelism to me for "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" You don't have to "do" anything - God's grace has been extended to you?!

[peter lumpkins]

Eric,

Yes, I read the entire comment before I responded. You say, "As I implied in my previous post, I expect you to do exactly what you are doing." Well, I'm definitively not doing what you implied I am doing. Namely, projecting 'an extreme bias against "TULIP" because we somehow think "it [Calvinism] is a false Gospel." Is this not what you implied we were doing, Eric? I see you've retracted it now which is fine. No problem.

But you further assert,

"If This site doesn't have many comments to be in the 'anti-Calvinist' camp. Or if those comments cant be characterized as having a bias (extreme or not) against 'Calvinism', I will admit, I am a complete knucklehead."

Yes, I'm sure you'll find many comments out of the 21K which could be viewed "anti-Calvinist." Nonetheless, there is a profound difference between being "anti-Calvinist" and flat out asserting Calvinism as a theological notion is a "false gospel." I've never uttered such so far as I know and have corrected many who have characterized it as so.

Finally, as for bias per se, there is nothing inherently uncommon about bias since we all have it to some extent, and thus we can speak of a healthy, necessary bias. For example, one without a fixed bias against eating certain mushrooms would find themselves sick at times and maybe even end up dead.

But you did not reference bias in such positive terms I'm afraid when you cited to Dr. Owen to read over the years the extreme bias against Calvinism on this site offering the singular reason for the bias being "because they think it is a false Gospel."

Hence, contrary to your assurance that I "don't have a fight" with you when seem to possess no reluctance to skew both my site's content and purpose I'm afraid I must disagree. And, as for you being a "complete knucklehead" I'll allow you and others to discern (I will say I'm puzzled as to why you'd bring up something like that; perhaps you're just being facetious).

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I'd like to get the comment thread back on Dr. Owen's focus (I'm obviously to blame for some of this!); namely, whether or not his essay rings true that the YRR as a socio-theological community can be said to possess general tendencies including unhealthy focuses on personalities and TULIPs, leaving an emphasis on the person of Christ and work of Christ for the world behind, and consequently embracing a weakened ecclesiology, and at times, a non-existent ecclesiology, especially an ecclesiology counter-productive to traditional Baptist ways of "doing church."

[Paul Owen]

Max, that's a great illustration. "You don't have to do anything," as a definition of the gospel, is almost as heretical as telling them they need to earn their salvation to be saved. The quite obvious answer is, "You must repent and believe the gospel to be saved." On the one hand, I see my Calvinist brothers claim that they are being caricatured when others say that they empty faith and the operation of the will of all meaning, but then you find them so reluctant to rob God of his monergistic regeneration that they can't even speak in plain biblical language as to what one must do to enter God's kingdom and find eternal life! And I strongly suspect many YRR would have given the same answer to that sincere man, "You don't have to do anything." That is a theologically inept thing to say at best, a lie from the pit of hell at worst. And when that logic gets applied to sanctification as well, as many YRR people do, you basically have a very deadly antinomianism poison running amuck.

[Bill]

I'd still like to know if people agree with everything Dr. Owen wrote in this essay.

[peter lumpkins]

Bill, I'd expect few if any takers on the question, at least the way you've framed it. Truth is, virtually every document would cough up something with which one could quibble including Dr. Owen's essay. Heck, I could go through something I've written and quibble with my own writing!

Why don't you just pull the nail you think Dr. Owen drove in crooked and hammer it back down again? Then, you just might hear some sawing going on...

[Scott Shaver]

Bill:

Your question prompted me back for another reading of Paul's post.

I for one, agree with him at every point he develops in the article.

Truth doesn't make me Episcopalian. In this case, it makes me a frustrated Southern Baptist :)

[Scott Shaver]

Yep, read it again a second time this morning.

My agreement in point with Owens on the addressed subject goes right down to autobiographical where "The Call of The Wild" is listed as favorite fictional story. One of mine as well.

However, Paul, my youngest daughter, 13, just had to read it for school and complained that it dragged.

[Kirk Jordan]

This essay let me breath. I count myself a non-Calvinist, who can never quite distance myself from the major themes of Reformed theology. (When I am around people who are not given to Reformed distinctives, I become a spokesman for the same.) This article helped me see why I am apprehensive taking on the term "Calvinist." You hit many of my misgivings on the head.

[Paul Owen]

Lydia, by the way thanks for your kind words!
Scott, LOL! I'm glad to meet another London fan. :)
Bill, it might help if you identified something specific in the article that you have in mind. Since there aren't a lot of Episcopalians running around SBC Tomorrow, I can imagine there might be some things that others here would see differently. But I am sensing a wide consensus of agreement as to my critique of YRR.

[Max]

Bill, to answer your question from my perspective ... Dr. Owen's characterization of the YRR movement compares so closely with my own observations, that I'm considering becoming an Episcopalian! I even agree with his last comment that there is an "antinomianism poison running amuck" in some YRR fringes. The abuse of Christian liberty will eventually lead to antinomianism, if left unchecked. In my opinion, we need some SBC leadership giving more attention to this particular theological/ecclesiolgical drift than the Calvinism advisory committee did. I repeat yet again: "Old" Calvinism is not the problem in SBC ranks ... unfettered "New" Calvinism is!

[Paul Owen]

Max, lol! I would not advise you to jump ship too quickly! The water is awfully cold over here at the moment! :)

[Bill]

In his essay Dr. Owen did not state that the YRR lacked a robust ecclesiology, but that evangelicalism did, including non-Calvinist Southern Baptists (something that I clarified with him up higher in the comment stream). He also mentioned "foreign soil of modern evangelical gnostic spirituality" which he again said was not only true of Calvinists but non-Calvinists alike. I'm not saying I disagree with him. I think he's closer to the mark than many of us would like to admit. I was just curious to know if my non-Calvinist brethren here agree with him on those points.

[Paul Owen]

Bill, to clarify, I do believe that the Baptist tradition has the resources to have their own robust ecclesiology. I don't think the problem, as such, is with the free church tradition. But many Baptist churches have drunk the cool aid of the church growth/George Barna trend. Rather than stick to their Anabaptist roots, many churches have chosen to take their cues from the culture when it comes to worship. This seeker-sensitive, let's market the church to make it appealing to the culture mentality is perhaps the most serious spiritual disease infecting evangelical Christianity today. It has now reached it's most heretical expression in the "missional community" model, which is popular not only among the YRR and emergent churches, but among evangelical church planters at large.

[Bill]

Dr. Owen,

I don't disagree. Do you think the megachurch phenomenon is also a product of this kind of thinking?

[Paul Owen]

There is some overlap, but not a complete identity. John MacArthur is certainly not guilty of pandering to cultural trends. Nor was Jack Hyles. (I am not giving a blanket endorsement of either of them of course.) But personally, I would say Bill Hybels and Rick Warren are illustrative of our theologically bankrupt evangelical ecclesiology today. No offense intended to those who may have profited in some way from their ideas and ministry. To the extent that mega churches have implemented the seminal and paradigm changing ideas of Donald McGavran, yes, they are a product of this kind of thinking.

[Max]

"... pandering to cultural trends."

We must be careful in our efforts to adjust ministry to be "culturally relevant" that we don't leave the Cross behind. In all the hype of the day, I think we forget that Jesus is the eternal contemporary.

There were a few one-liners in Greg Laurie's message at the SBC-2013 Pastor's Conference that I believe were aimed at the YRR movement (or at least appropriate):

"Don't trade reverence for relevance."

"If you try to be relevant, you may lose your authority."

"Sometimes when we try to crossover, we don't bring the Cross over."

Sure, Jesus talked about fish to fishermen, sheep to shepherds, and crops to farmers ... but His disciples took the message of the Cross to all men. This business of asking folks which way they want to go and then getting out in front to lead, will get you a crowd but not a congregation. What we have in too many places is a river 3 miles wide, but only 1 inch deep ... Christianity Lite.

[Chuck]

BB Warfield's definition of Calvinism:

"That sight of the majesty of God that pervades all of life and all of experience... The Calvinist is the man who has seen God (in the Scriptures, parenthesis added)."

If we were all broken at the foot of the cross, as Mt. 5:3 and Isaiah 57:15 teach,

1. We would have no problems with TULIP.
2. We would have nausea over personality cults and hipster religion.
3. We would have no problem with regeneration preceding faith.
4. There would be a sweetness and humility to our convictions.
5. We would probably write fewer words. (Ecc. 5:1-5, Proverbs 10:19).

[Paul Owen]

Chuck, unfortunately you have failed to interact with the substance of my essay. Are you aware that TULIP did not even exist prior to the 20th century? You will not find the atonement described as "limited" in any Reformed confession. Nor will you find God's grace being described as operating in an "irresistible" manner on the elect. Nor will you find regeneration being performed unilaterally by God prior to the subsequent human response of faith.

Furthermore, your comments merely confirm the very problem I highlighted in my post. Are we really to believe that Christians who do not affirm TULIP in all its details, which would mean most Christians who have ever lived, and most believers on earth today, are not yet broken at the foot of the cross? Talk about hubris! Yeah right, John Wesley wasn't broken at the foot of the cross. And sweetness and humility are the exclusive possession of today's TULIP Calvinists? Yeah, that rings true to experience!

[Ian Elsasser]

Chuck,

Are Calvinists the only ones who sees in the Scriptures the things Warfield cites? Really? I have know many whom this describes but are not Calvinists.

Furthermore, your comment about regeneration preceding faith is questionable, nor do all Calvinists believe it (some believe faith precedes and some believe the two are simultaneous). Regeneration is never apart from faith or the word. Rather, the new birth is of the Spirit through faith by means of the word; that is, the Spirit works through the proclaimed word to give life in conjunction with faith.

[Max]

Another non-Baptist theologian has weighed in on the woes of New Calvinism. Dr. Jerry Faught, Wiley College, provides his perspective in an article at Associated Baptist Press: http://www.abpnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8622-the-new-calvinism-in-the-sbc#.UcnxNZwltdU

Dr. Faught summed things up well I think in his closing paragraph regarding the Conservative Resurgence "Southern Baptists, obsessed with blocking a liberal left hook, got hammered with a hard right." Yep, a hard right indeed ... I would say we let the pendulum swing all the way back to the 16th century.

[Leslie Puryear]

Dr. Owen commented, "Are you aware that TULIP did not even exist prior to the 20th century? You will not find the atonement described as "limited" in any Reformed confession. Nor will you find God's grace being described as operating in an "irresistible" manner on the elect. Nor will you find regeneration being performed unilaterally by God prior to the subsequent human response of faith."

If this is true, this is a game changer. It means that 19th century Calvinists did not believe the same as 21st century Calvinists. It means that the Founders ministry is way off base on the beliefs of SBC founders. The implications of this statement are huge.

[peter lumpkins]

Max, A friend had already sent me a link. Thanks for posting it here. It's an article that seems to have used this site as a springboard leading to many sources. I literally could have written almost the entire essay; and frankly it possesses no real point we've not made here at one time or another!

More seriously, it's refreshing to find some of the same conclusions we've expressed about Neo-Calvinism coming so closely together from two independent non-Baptist theologians--Dr Owen an Episcopalian and now Dr. Faught presumably a Methodist.

[Scott Shaver]

Between Paul Owens and Jerry Faught, the image of a punch drunk former heavyweight having his pockets picked by new neighborhood bullies keeps running through my mind.

[Jennifer]

Although I am a few days late, I would love to weigh in on this discussion. I will first give a little background. I guess, I will call myself one of the dreaded new restless, reformed folk, and I'm proud of my title. It's not one I picked up easily, and I disagree with much of Dr. Owen's article.

I and my husband joined a reformed fellowship after much prayer and soul searching. Neither one of us was really looking of switching to "Calvinism" for a multitude of reasons. Your commenters and many on your blog knock the evilness/under-handedness of the new reformers. I would like to point a finger back at my southern Baptist heritage.

I was proud to be a cradle-roll child. I served as a NAMB summer missionary for 4 summers. I've done my share of door-knocking and back yard bible clubs for churches whose members wouldn't/couldn't. I went on to attend and graduate with a church history masters from SWBTS during the Dilday/ conservative takeover era. I then went on to attend for over 10 years a mega-church that boasted a SBC president. It wasn't until I moved to a small town Baptist church, that I was done.

My church/denomination was no longer, my church. I saw teenage pregnancy every Sunday. The church wasn't allowed to practice any type of church discipline and divorce was rampant. I was used to the 10% doing most of the work but even the S.S. leadership was getting upset because they couldn't get enough help. Bible school- the one touted salvation tool of the SBC was brought down to 4 days. We had just moved to this town and I offered to help where needed the Sunday before it started. I was thrown into a 5th/6th grade class where all the teachers had backed out and was expected to teach and lead from material I had just been handed. I could site more examples, but the kicker came in my SS class a few years later.

This was not reformed theology. This was from our highly praised lifeway material. I personally liked the old Bible Book Series but this was the topical one. I am a home-school mama and one of the few times I got group bible study was on Sunday morning. The particular Sunday I had enough was the Sunday when the lesson revolved around having a good Christian marriage while attempting to lead a blended family. Yes, the whole SS lesson dealt about how to handle a new family and do it the right way the 2nd or 3rd go around.

BTW, the pastor resigned from the ministry and the church. The youth director and several "young, restless, arrogant, TULIP" men started a reformed fellowship and we started attending.

Since joining a reformed, "sign on the dotted line," covenant fellowship, I've seen a man disciplined for cheating on his wife and he actually followed the elders and asked the fellowship for forgiveness. It's still a long road but at the least the church did something.

Our kids are experiencing family worship with their dad which was never taught in my SBC church growing up. I can quote the Roman Road backwards and forward- my youth group and church helped plant a church in North Michigan(which is still meeting 25 yrs later back in the day when the Arkansas Baptist Convention partnered with Michigan), but my preacher never taught the dads to lead the family like that. I was blessed that my dad didn't need such and he was a deacon and Sunday School teacher for over 60 years.

I've taken communion every Sunday and heard the cross explained to my children over and over again by their dad. They believe that God changes people. They've seen people open their homes to orphans. Dr. Owen didn't talk about the good side of being missionally minded. Just because I know longer support the foreign mission board, we've helped start a Christian school and monthly support an African pastor because we don't have building expenses.

This new reformed movement may be growing because it may make sense. The reformed church I attend is not "seeker" friendly and I don't agree theologically with seeker friendly churches nor do most of the reformed folk I know. Rick Warren is not welcome in my home. Please don't lump all of us new reformers in one huge bunch. My church lets my children sit with me(yes there was a sign at my mega-church asking small children not to be seated in the sanctuary.)

The church I attend may focus a bit more on Romans, but we've also done what Baptists used to do in Training Union- we've studied doctrine. I've read stuff that goes over my head such as Bonhoeffer. I've been forced to re-discover what church membership really is and should be.

Remember when all SBC churches used to have their covenant hanging in the church lobby. This new reformed church is up front about what it believes. Check out the websites and read the distinctives. So what if the young bucks are trying to grapple with hundreds year old theological ideas- they did in my seminary days and it wasn't reformed. They'll be doing it until Jesus comes back- heck they do at my fellowship.

We sing the old hymns along with new choruses. We recite scripture together. The messages aren't topical. They're exegetical. We just visited one of these new churches (we're moving and looking for a new church)and it was all about the cross. How could it not be when the elders are working through John and it was about Pilate turning his back on Jesus and giving the Jews Barabbas.

The SBC doesn't need to be concerned about this new radical uprising, it needs to get a handle on its own systemic problem. It let the culture in too far and forgot about the next generation. I don't want my kid to be one of George Barna's stats. I want the gospel to still be "relevant" and alive in my grandchildren.

Thank you for letting me rant. I've been following your blog for months and don't always appreciate your tack/take on this current uprising within the SBC.

[Paul Owen]

Jennifer, thanks for sharing your experiences. I'm glad to hear that your encounter with the YRR movement has been spiritually healthy and uplifting. I could provide many anecdotes to the contrary, but for what purpose? I'm glad that you are experiencing good Christian fellowship and teaching. But if you think teenage pregnancies and other unpleasant realities of human existence are solely a SBC problem, or that Reformed churches always do a great job in meting out church discipline, you may end up getting disappointed in the long run.

By the way are you aware of the systematic abuse of children which was allowed to take place under the watchful eye of C. J. Mahaney and SGM? And would you characterize Mark Driscoll as a model of what a godly pastor looks like? Just curious.

[Mary]

Jennifer you could have been a little more concise in your rant by just typing "Only Calvinists know how to do church and only Calvinists care about doctrine and the Bible." You're attitude pretty much just proved every point of Dr. Owen's article and the fact that you completely missed that shows the attitudes we're dealing with.

[Scott Shaver]

Jennifer, if it's working for you more power to you and your local fellowship.

One person's subjective experience however, does not a movement make.

You sound a little more excited about the exercise of church discipline through a board of elders and "signing on the dotted line" than most Baptists I know are comfortable with.

Hence, I don't want to be part of a Baptist denomination that requires me signing off at the local church level "on the dotted line".

And I differ with your conclusion that the SBC has "nothing to worry about."