Tag: movement

Reformed Rap: The Sound of the Reformed Resurgence

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Christianity Today recently highlighted Reformed Rap and Hip-Hop. Click here, to see a PDF of an entire page describing the key Reformed artists and this new phenomenon.

Some of the key rappers include: Trip Lee, currently a pastoral intern under Mark Dever at Capitol Hill Baptist Church; Marcus Gray (Flame), studying for a master’s degree in biblical counseling at Southern Seminary; Curtis Allen (Voice), an assistant pastor in Maryland; Shai Linne; Timothy Brindle; and LeCrae. All of these men are involved in ministry beyond their music, and all are affected deeply by Reformed Theology.

Here are a few excerpts from CT’s write-up.

SPOTLIGHT: Reformed Rap and Hip-Hop

Not since Maranatha! and contemporary praise emerged from Chuck Smith’s Calvary Chapel in the 1970s has a genre of Christian music become so associated with a specific stream of evangelicalism. And while not all Christian rappers are Reformed, nor do all see themselves as preachers and teachers working in a musical medium, the growing edge of the movement is explicitly taking its cues from Calvinist leaders. Several tracks have included direct references to (and even sermon clips from) John MacArthur, John Piper, C. J. Mahaney, and other pastors, and Curtis “Voice” Allen’s recent rap on the Westminster Catechism (with theologian D. A. Carson) went viral in March””as did his Heidelberg Catechism rap last October.

Is it the sound of Reformed resurgence?

While hip-hop has become a staple of young Reformed conferences, it’s not yet the dominant sound and it rarely appears in Reformed churches, said D. A. Carson. “I doubt that hip-hop with Reformed lyrics will ever become a primarily congregational corporate worship medium. It is a performance medium, and as such it is very useful for communicating with certain groups of people. . . . But that does not make it inappropriate for the more limited goals that it achieves quite strikingly at the moment.”

“The genre allows the rapper to cram loads of biblical and theological content in a single verse. I think we love hearing the Scripture “˜preached’ lyrically. Second, there is a “˜cool factor,’ which has helped bridge generational and cultural divides. But we can’t explain this without acknowledging the sovereign workings of God.” “” Thabiti Anyabwile, senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman

“Reformed hip-hop is a theologically driven masculinity movement. It says no to the prom songs to Jesus in CCM, no to whiny emo Christian music for hipsters, and no to empty, shallow, individualistic Christian music lacking theological content produced out of Nashville.” “” Anthony Bradley, associate professor of theology and ethics at The King’s College and author of Liberating Black Theology

Many conservative Christians, and fundamentalists in particular, refuse to endorse rap music or hip-hop of any kind. They cannot think of the genre without its cultural associations with a sinful lifestyle. But conservative evangelical leaders see the value in this music and the movement under-girding it. John Piper has interviewed LeCrae personally, and Desiring God has produced a three part video interview of him as well. Desiring God partnered with LeCrae’s Reach Records for a Don’t Waste Your Life tour. Mark Driscoll has interviewed LeCrae too, and Mark Dever interviewed Voice and Shai Linne (see the video here).

I’ve highlighted this musical phenomenon before (here and here), and I encourage you to listen to the music before rejecting it out right. I have a CD by Timothy Brindle entitled Killing Sin, which is basically John Owen’s On the Mortification of Sin translated into a new medium. Shai Linne has a CD called The Atonement which explains in depth the intricacies of limited atonement, substitutionary atonement and more. The music requires a high degree of lyrical intricacy, poetry and a command of language, not to mention an artistic sense. The songs these men are producing are excellent and filled with God honoring lyrics. Check out Reach Records or Lampmode Recordings for audio samples and lyrics.

I pray the Reformed Rap movement will continue to pick up steam and influence the hearts and minds of many people for Christ.

Fundamentalists & Evangelicals Together? — The Advancing the Church Conference Evaluated

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I haven’t listened to the audio from Calvary Baptist Seminary’s Advancing the Church conference yet, as it wasn’t available until yesterday or so. I started listening to the panel sessions, and plan to listen to most of the messages. I have been reading several reactions to the conference, however, and I wanted to make my readers aware of the conference and the discussion it has generated.

The conference featured fundamentalist leaders Dr. Dave Doran (pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, both in Allen Park, MI), Dr. Kevin Bauder (president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, MN), Dr. Tim Jordan (pastor of of Calvary Baptist Church in Lansdale, PA) and Dr. Sam Harbin (president of Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in Lansdale, PA). The guest of note, and the keynote speaker, however, was Dr. Mark Dever (pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC and president of 9 Marks Ministries). Mark Dever, is a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention and is not a fundamentalist (in the sense of the fundamentalist movement common in independent Baptist churches). Mark Dever is a leader among the conservative evangelicals, and his ministry focuses on equipping local churches and promoting historic Baptist church polity.

So at ATC, we had Fundamentalists and Evangelicals Together! Well, at least one evangelical, together. I don’t know if the acronym FET will work as well as the one which marks another contemporary Church phenomenon (ECT)**. And furthermore, I am not sure what we have here is any kind of official convergence bringing opposing factions closer to a mutual agreement. But I, for one, am encouraged by the participation of Mark Dever in the ATC conference, and the fellowship that was shared publicly and in private between the fundamentalist leaders mentioned and Mark Dever.

To help understand what happened at ATC, the following news reports will help.

Baptist Bulletin has three articles reporting on the conference:

Brian McCrorie and a few others, contributed several summaries of the panel sessions and individual sessions on the Sharper Iron Event Blog. Click here for all the Event Blog posts, and click here for Brian’s concluding thoughts about his experience at ATC.

Dr. Kevin Bauder gave his reflections, which amounts to a very long blog post detailing his own personal conclusions, presently, about Fundamentalists working together with Evangelicals. For those wondering if Kevin is ready to eject from fundamentalism, this should answer your question with a resounding NO. Personally, I think Kevin Bauder is defining separation to broadly and ready to apply it to quickly — but that’s my general take on most of fundamentalism in general. If you’re interested you can see a bit of an exchange between yours truly and Dr. Bauder in the comments under that long post. I think Dr. Bauder clarifies himself but I still disagree.

Here is the link to where you can freely download the conference audio. Warning the file sizes are quite big.

Let me know if you have any thoughts on this. I’m interested to hear if anyone attended this conference or has listened to some of the audio/followed the blog conversation thus far. Are we looking at an eventual collusion between conservative evangelicals like Mark Dever and fundamentalists? Personally, I think both groups could be improved through such a scenario.

**I should note, that I am not in favor of the goals of Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

The Origin of Today’s “Conservative Evangelicals”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Dr. Kevin Bauder has been fleshing out the differences between “conservative evangelicals” (like John MacArthur, John Piper, Mark Dever, Tim Keller and etc.) and the fundamentalists. His series has covered a lot of ground (this is part 18!), and now has circled back into a bit of a historical mode.

Today’s installment focuses on where the “conservative evangelicals” fit in when it comes to the historical rise of fundamentalism and its antithesis, “neo evangelicalism”. I thought his essay posted today at Sharper Iron, really covered some important ground. It explains the origin of today’s “conservative evangelicals”, a label that perhaps most of my readers would be comfortable with.

I have excerpted the most important parts of the essay here for your benefit. I encourage you to read the whole thing, and (if you have some time) to read the previous essays he’s done on this same theme.   Note: in the excerpt below, words in brackets and any bolded emphasis are mine.

Fundamentalism surfaced in about 1900 as a doctrinal and ecclesiastical reaction against the influence of theological liberalism… It grew out of an American evangelical coalition that stretched across the denominations, produced the Bible conference movement, built mission agencies and Bible institutes, and produced The Fundamentals. This coalition has come to be known as proto-fundamentalism….

As the battles [against liberal theology] within the denominations warmed up, three evangelical groups became identifiable. One was a militant minority that intended to oust the liberals. These were the fundamentalists. Another was a minority that stood with the liberals, though they themselves were evangelical. These were the indifferentists.

These two groups did not exhaust the spectrum, however. A third group was present. It was a larger group than either the fundamentalists or the indifferentists. This group constituted what Richard Nixon would someday call the “silent majority.”

This silent majority was firmly evangelical and was usually willing to be labeled as fundamentalist. For the most part, the members of this majority agreed with the fundamentalist desire to be rid of the liberals. They were, however, squeamish about some of the tactics employed by fundamentalists. They would have rejoiced if the liberals had simply walked away from the denominations, but as a full-scale ecclesiastical conflict loomed, they lacked the lust for battle….

Institutions like Wheaton and Moody certainly opposed liberalism from a distance, but they did not actually have to fight liberals. They were outside the denominations and de facto removed from fellowship with liberalism. Their focus was on building a positive network of missions, education, publishing, conferences, and itinerancy….

Eventually, the fundamentalists either left their denominations or were forced out. As they built new missions, schools, and denominations, they drew help and support from the interdenominational network. For a time, it looked as if fundamentalism and the silent majority might reconverge into a single, self-aware movement.

The thing that kept that from happening was the emergence of the new evangelicalism. [The attitude of co-belligerence with liberal apostates, which amounted to a rejection of separation — my defiinition].

The whole thing came to a head with Billy Graham’s 1957 crusade in New York City. This was the crusade that solidified a New Evangelical coalition and made Graham its captain. The cooperative evangelism of Billy Graham involved a clear rejection of separation from apostasy. Consequently, it led to a final break between Graham and fundamentalism.

What about the silent majority, the evangelical mainstream, the people who were the most direct heirs of the old proto-fundamentalism? Certainly, they did not approve of Graham’s cooperative evangelism. Unlike fundamentalists, however, they stopped short of breaking with Graham. He was the world’s most successful evangelist, and they felt themselves drawn to him. They had no desire to fellowship with liberals but every desire to support the magnetic young evangelist.

By the early 1960s, neoevangelicals had clearly gained the initiative in missions, evangelism, and scholarship. They welcomed the support of the evangelical mainstream without insisting that other evangelicals break ties with fundamentalists. While neoevangelicals were focused upon positive work, however, fundamentalists were focused upon neoevangelicals. They muttered their disapproval of the evangelical mainstream for not distancing themselves sufficiently from the most prominent neoevangelicals.

The more that moderate evangelicals [sic] shied away from the muttering, the more strongly fundamentalists expressed their disapproval. Many fundamentalists refused to acknowledge any middle ground or mediating position between themselves and the new evangelicalism. Moderate evangelicals were forced to choose….

By the end of the 1970s, the evangelical majority had staked out a position midway between separatist fundamentalism and neoevangelicalism. Leaders and institutions have wandered into and out of that position, but the position endures to this day. It is the position that we now call conservative evangelicalism. It has, however, been supplemented from a new and unexpected direction.

Before the 1980s, Southern Baptists were not reckoned as a part of the evangelical movement in America. Because they saw themselves as Baptists, they disliked the inter-denominationalism that characterized evangelicalism. Because they saw themselves as Southern Baptists, they disdained an evangelical movement that they viewed as a predominantly northern phenomenon.

That situation has changed. The conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention has brought many Southern Baptists into close contact with northern evangelicals. Conservative leaders like Albert Mohler and Mark Dever have found camaraderie and moral support in the evangelical movement. They have identified with it and they have found themselves welcome. Given the battles that they have fought against liberals and moderates, they have naturally aligned themselves with the conservative evangelicals. The degree of congruence is so high that these Southern Baptist leaders have become a defining force within the renascent conservative evangelical movement.

Many””perhaps most””Southern Baptists still do not consider themselves to be conservative evangelicals. They simply consider themselves to be Southern Baptists. Increasingly, however, many SBC leaders are forging an alliance with other evangelicals, and the alliance is a conservative one.

Consequently, today’s conservative evangelical movement combines ecclesiastical DNA from two kinds of leaders. It gets part of its heritage from the old proto-fundamentalism, traced through the moderate evangelicalism of the 1960s and 1970s. It gets another part of its heritage through the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Unlike neoevangelicals, conservative evangelicals (whether northern or southern) oppose theological apostasy and refuse to fellowship with apostates. Unlike fundamentalists, conservative evangelicals have been reluctant to issue public rebukes or declare public withdrawals from those who share the neoevangelical attitude toward apostates. This is the nub of the most important difference between these groups….

I, for one, don’t hesitate to embrace the “conservative evangelical” label. And I would view many conservative evangelicals as much closer in practice to fundamentalists, than most fundamentalists would acknowledge.

“Global Awakening: How 20th-Century Revivals Triggered a Christian Revolution” by Mark Shaw

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

In many ways, America is a world unto itself. Until some tragedy strikes beyond our borders, we are content to fret about our internal problems and concerns. But more and more the world out yonder is coming in to us. Globalization is forever changing our way of life. And the wide world is ever shrinking.

Almost every social arena is affected by this trend, and the Church is no exception. American Christianity has long prided itself as the beacon of world-wide missions. Yet we still are tempted to think the Church outside our shores stands in need of our American ingenuity. Mark Shaw in Global Awakening: How 20th-Century Revivals Triggered a Christian Revolution reveals how ignorant such a perspective truly is. Missionaries are now flocking to our own shores, and the story of the 20th Century is the world-wide surge of the Evangelical Church.

Some of us may have missed the newsflash. Mark Shaw explains:

When one looks beyond Atlantic shores the most significant change in the world in the last several generations is the broader revival of religion sweeping the southern hemisphere…. To miss the rise and significance of the new World Christianity would be like a concerned Christian in sixteenth-century northern Europe missing Luther and the Reformation. Something that affects the renewal of Christianity worldwide is afoot and no one should miss the party. (pg. 10-11)

From many quarters I had heard of this global renewal of Christianity. Mark Shaw’s book offered the chance for me to sample its various manifestations. Shaw uses eight case studies to illustrate his views of the nature and rise of global revivals. He argues that there are natural and supernatural factors at play. And he utilizes missiological and sociological studies to analyze these movements. Global Christianity, he finds, is less an exported Americanism than an indigenous inculturation of Christianity.

For the average Joe like you and I, his study still offers an accessible look into the variety and vivacity of worldwide Christianity. And to a large degree many of the movements he surveys from Korea and China, to India, Africa and on to South America, are the fruit of earlier mission endeavors.

The author shares what we all can learn from these historical revivals “as we look toward the future of the church” :

The current global awakening needs to shake us from our cultural isolation and obsessions as North American Christians…. What the current global awakening teaches me, however, is that the real emerging church is a wildly global and culturally pluralistic one which moves us toward the vision of 1 Corinthians 12, a body of Christ with many parts each recognizing their global interdependence. The message of global revivals is that God is internationalizing his people and we stand at an Ephesians moment (to use Andrew Walls’s expression) in which the cultural, geographic and political barriers are breaking down in light of the gospel. The current global revivals are not ends in themselves. Their ultimate significance will be seen in multicultural missional churches that seek to change their world in the power of the Spirit and in partnership with the mission of God. (from an Author Q & A provided by IVP)

This book isn’t for everyone. It’s a bit technical and doesn’t develop the stories as much as an average reader might like. Furthermore, Shaw is not as critical of new Pentecostal movements as some might like him to be. Nevertheless it offers a helpful survey of the growth of Worldwide Christianity and serves to enforce the notion that the proper term for such global developments is “revival” . Shaw helps us see that God uses both natural factors and human movements as catalysts in His work of growing His Church.

Ultimately, Global Awakening spurs us American Christians to see beyond ourselves and look for the hand of God in other places around the world. To serve this end I recommend the book for a wide audience.

Pick up a copy of this book at Amazon.com or direct from InterVarsity Press.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by IVP Academic for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Defining KJV-Onlyism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 12 Comments

This post is from is from my newly redesigned, group KJV Only Debate blog.

KJV Onlyism is hard to define. And like any grass roots movement, there are many competing manifestations of it. As a former, self-dubbed “KJV-onlyist” I will try to carefully put forth a definition. I know I’m going to say something wrong here and won’t please everyone, but I hope the end result is helpful for those new to the debate.

Simple Definition

The KJV-only position holds that the only Bible an English speaking Christian should use is the King James Bible. While some KJV-only proponents bristle at the label viewing it as a derogatory term, most don’t hesitate to affirm it. In KJV-only circles, you cannot disavow the label. Rather, you qualify it.

Now, for study, some KJV-onlyists may allow the use of other translations. But for memorization, church preaching and teaching, and general reading, the KJV should be the only version of the Bible one uses.

Why the King James Bible?

Different KJV-onlyists will offer different answers to this question. These are some of the common arguments used by most KJV-onlyists.

The Better Text Argument — The KJV is the only widely used Bible exclusively based on the Textus Receptus Greek & Masoretic Hebrew Texts.

The Better Doctrine Argument — The differences between the KJV and other Bible versions are examined and the KJV’s readings preserve a superior doctrine and more of Jesus Christ’s divine titles.

The Conspiratorial Argument — The manuscripts that support the newer Greek text were only found recently and were found in areas like Egypt where false doctrine was prevalent.

The Historical Argument — The Reformers and Puritans used the KJV and it launched worldwide missions and the Great Awakenings.

The Better Manuscripts Argument — The manuscripts that support the text behind the KJV agree with one another closely, don’t show signs of textual corruption and represent the vast numerical superiority – 90% of the manuscripts.

The Better Translation Argument — The KJV translators were masters of English and knew Greek and Hebrew and multiple other languages far better than translators today, plus they used a literal translation technique instead of the dynamic or loose method in vogue today.

Groupings of KJV-Onlyists

I mentioned before that there are numerous manifestations of KJV-onlyism. Sometimes the different groups are treated like one entity. I want to be careful to distinguish terms and not broad-brush the entire movement by the crazy antics of Peter Ruckman or Gail Riplinger, for example.

Generic KJV Only Position — Most KJV Onlyists find themselves here. They haven’t thought out a more specific position, or just believe the KJV is the only Bible that should be used and leave it at that.

English is Inspired View — This view takes issue with anyone correcting the KJV English. Since the Bible seems to show translations of the OT as being treated like they were inspired, the English is treated like it is inspired. Some versions are more strict than others, but all bow to the KJV as the final authority before they would trust a lexicon or dictionary.

Double-Inspiration View — This view goes further and says the English corrects the Greek. In some sense the KJV was inspired directly by God. People with this view (and some of those in the previous view) would hold that translations of the Bible into other languages must be guided by the English of the KJV.

Pure Seed View — This idea comes from 1 Pet. 1:23-25 and basically claims that the use of the KJV is essential for people to be saved. No one can be saved from an impure seed (the NIV, for instance). Any of the first three positions above could hold to this view as well, but no one in the next three camps would.

TR Only View — This view holds the Greek and Hebrew as superior to the Greek, but also holds that they were word-perfectly preserved. The text behind the KJV usually is the text held to be the word-perfect copy of the original text. The word of God is “intact” in English, and while they would correct the sense of the KJV through scholarship and original language study, they still would not see this as any kind of overt error in the KJV. Few if any, TR-onlyists use the NKJV however.

Ecclesiastical Text — This view places greater stress on church confessions and the historic use of the Textus Receptus by the church of the Reformation period and afterward. Some in this view would hold to errors in either the TR or the KJV, and some would use the NKJV or 21st Century KJV.

Majority Text — This view should be distinguished from the previous views. Proponents of the Greek Majority Text may or may not use the KJV or NKJV. They hold to a textual theory of the superiority of the Byzantine view, but they acknowledge the merits of careful, believing scholarship and textual criticism. As the Majority Text as such didn’t exist prior to 1980, they don’t see adherence to that text as a binding matter of faith for all Christians.

King James Preferred — This view is held by some who see some weaknesses with the King James Only position, but still believe the TR is the best text we have or else use the King James primarily for traditional or other reasons.