Thank you for reading this. I’m trying something a little different here. I am speaking into text while at work, so I will most certainly need to edit this later. If you find anything totally crazy or uncharacteristic, please extend a little grace—or kindly let me know.
The last thing I want to do is make a theological assertion that crosses into heresy.
Some of my Calvinist and Reformed friends (and I could rightly call them brethren) will likely never read this. I wish they would. The ones who do rarely comment, perhaps for fear of starting a debate.
Let me be clear: I do not want to debate, argue, fight, hurt feelings, or start a war. None of that advances the cause of Christ (2 Timothy 2:24–25).
But I do want to address what appears to me to be an inconsistency in the way many of my Calvinist friends present the gospel. I doubt they are aware of it. If they are, that would be more concerning.
Let me explain.
A Little Personal Background
The first 26 years of my life were spent in churches that identified as IFB (Independent Fundamental Baptist). My father was a preacher and pastor. My mother was always the pianist or organist. If the church doors were open—even for cleaning—I was there.
Because of that upbringing, I am deeply familiar with the words of Jesus to Nicodemus:
“Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)
Those words were printed on tracts, painted above pulpits and choirs, and preached in countless sermons. Everyone knew what they meant. They were synonymous with being “saved.”
Jesus came “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).
He came as the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2), the Lamb of God (John 1:29), so that we might be reconciled to the Father (2 Corinthians 5:18–19).
It is no wonder that “Ye must be born again” became a well-worn phrase among those who could sing all 50 verses of Just As I Am during an invitation.
When Nicodemus was confused—imagining a second physical birth—Jesus gently corrected him:
“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)
The new birth was not a return to the womb, but the work of the Spirit:
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:6)
What “Born Again” Means in Baptist Theology
Whether IFB or now SBC (which I am), Baptists have never implied that being born again involves re-entering a physical womb. Rather, we teach that to be saved, one must be born again.
The phrases are interchangeable.
To be born again is:
- To become a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17)
- To pass from death unto life (John 5:24)
- To be adopted into the family of God (Romans 8:15)
- To be redeemed (Ephesians 1:7)
- To be grafted in (Romans 11:17)
- To be justified (Romans 5:1)
We are not saved by baptism or by partaking of communion.
We are not saved by works, “lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9).
We are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ.
And once saved, we are secure (John 10:28–29).
Spirit baptism places us into Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), and water baptism pictures that reality.
In short, in this theological framework, being born again is salvation.
The Calvinist Distinction
Here is where the tension arises.
In Calvinist theology, being born again is not synonymous with being saved. It is the prerequisite to salvation.
Regeneration precedes faith.
In that system, one does not believe and then receive new life. Rather, one receives new life so that he can believe.
The terms are not interchangeable.
Yet when listening to a Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian preacher call sinners to repentance—to “seek and save the lost,” to “compel them to come in” (Luke 14:23)—you will often hear the same words:
“Ye must be born again.”
But here is my question: is that consistent with their theology?
If a Calvinist were to frame his appeal strictly according to his system, it might sound something like this:
“If you have been regenerated by God, you will believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as evidence that you were chosen before the foundation of the world” (cf. Ephesians 1:4).
But that is not how the appeal is typically made.
Instead, the language used is almost identical to that of the non-Calvinist evangelist.
Where the Difference Shows
The greatest visible difference between the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist emerges in the appeal to the lost.
The non-Calvinist genuinely believes the lost man can respond. He urges him to repent (Acts 17:30), to believe (Acts 16:31), to receive the free gift of salvation (Romans 6:23). He speaks to him as one who is spiritually dead but able—by grace—to respond to the gospel call.
The Calvinist, however, believes the lost man cannot respond unless first regenerated.
Yet the language in the pulpit often sounds the same.
My concern is this: if regeneration and salvation are not the same thing in one’s theology, should they be spoken of as though they are?
A Plea for Consistency
I write this with hope—not hostility.
If a professing Calvinist happens to read this, perhaps he might consider whether using one set of terms in one setting while defining them differently in another creates confusion.
At best, it may be inconsistent.
At worst, it may blur important theological distinctions.
We owe the lost clarity.
We owe our brethren honesty.
And we owe Christ precision in the proclamation of His gospel (Titus 2:7–8).
.jpg)
The Recovering Legalist 
Critique of ‘Hallelujah’ in Christmas Worship
As of this writing, there are only five days until Christmas. If I had only spoken out a few months ago, things might have been different today. But I didn’t say anything earlier because I didn’t want to hurt feelings or offend. I can only hope that by protesting now, something good can come of it.
You may recall that a few years ago I wrote a scathing critic of Dean Martin’s “Baby It’s Cold Outside.” I wasn’t the first to point out the song’s sexually abusive lyrics. Nevertheless, my article did get attention. This wasn’t surprising since the #metoo movement was going strong at the time.
But here we are in yet another Christmas season and what do we have? More offensive lyrics in Christmas songs. What makes it worse is that they are part of worship services. These services are meant to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, not a sexual conquest.
It seems that all one must do these days is include the word hallelujah in a song, no matter the context of the borrowed lyric or tune, and it’s sure to be a hit at your next Christmas cantata.
“Hallelujah”
Let me be clear. It is not my wish to trash Leonard Cohan’s famous, beloved and oft-covered “Hallelujah.” Why would I want to? My complaints would just fall on deaf ears. Since the 1984 release of Cohen’s “Hallelujah,” near universal praise has been given for its lyrical, poetic, and harmonic beauty. But I’m not a fan. I can’t stand the song – not because of the tune, but the message.
But as with many things, even though I’m not a fan, if it stays within the bounds of its intended secular audience, I’m content to let rotting dogs lie.
It’s only when the putrid scent of death begins to taint the fragrant incense of worship that I get offended. My gag reflexes tempt me to puke.
Unfortunately, as of late, I’ve had to keep a barf bag close by. It seems that more and more Christians have gone odor blind and cannot detect even the slightest stench. Everywhere I turn, Cohen’s agnostic and broken Hallelujah” is being incorporated into holy worship.
A Little Background
With just a little digging, I found that the first time “Hallelujah” became linked to Christmas was in 2010. Susan Boyle from Britain’s Got Talent included it on her Christmas album. It featured the original lyrics.
Then, early in December of 2012, Cloverton released the now popular Christmas version of “Hallelujah” which tells the story of Christ’s birth. Below is the first verse.
In 2017 the group Anthem Lights released “Hallelujah Medley,” a mashup of two classic Christian songs with “Hallelujah” woven throughout. The other two songs were “Hallelujah, What a Savior” and Michael W. Smith’s “Agnus Dei.”
This year I heard both the Cloverton and the Anthem Lights versions in the same church Christmas cantata. However, as an instrumentalist in that church, I couldn’t bring myself to accompany either one.
Giving Grace
But I want to extend grace. I don’t want to disparage anyone who sings these covers or re-writes of “Hallelujah.” Their intention might be to glorify God. They may also encourage others to praise Him. Even Paul was hesitant to condemn those who, out of jealously, added to his suffering, for even then the Gospel was being preached (see Philippians 1:15-18). That was the main thing.
I’m compelled to show grace, too, because others may genuinely see things differently. They may consider what is being done with “Hallelujah” as an act of sanctification. They might argue that the tunes of some of the greatest and most beloved hymns were once big hits in the pubs and ale houses. Therefore, incorporating the tune or some of the lyrics into Christmas music is no different than how we sing “Amazing Grace” to the traditional tune of “New Britain.”
And, if nothing else, I must be careful to offer a lot of grace because I’m not perfect. I’ve had a bad cold, recently, and lots of things irritate me more when I feel sick.
What Are the Issues?
So, what is the issue (or issues)? What is there to complain about this time? What makes me cringe? What makes me nauseous?
Issue 1: The Lyrics
To begin with, it all goes back to Leonard Cohen’s original “Hallelujah” and its meaning. You see, I like music, but I also try to understand the lyrics. Just because a song has a happy tune, that doesn’t mean it’s worth listening to. I try to feed my soul with good stuff, not garbage.
Compared to many songs, though, “Hallelujah” is downright tame. It’s not a vulgar, pornographic jingle celebrating wet body parts (e.g., Cardi B). But it isn’t religious, nor is it wholesome for all ages, either. Actually, it is a song that draws loosely from the lives of biblical characters to describe dysfunctional, sexually-involved relationships that seek consolation through mutual brokenness.
But as a Christian, what bothers me most is the way Cohan distorts and contorts the word hallelujah. It offends me that such an intrinsically holy word (made up of two Hebrew words, hālal and yâ, which means “praise the Lord”) is used to describe a sexual release in the second verse.
It may seem petty, but it also irritates me how Cohan (born a Jew, but a practicing Buddhist) not only mixes the stories of King David and Samson, but does so in a self-justifying, slanderous way. David needed proof for his faith? Whose throne got broken?
But who really cares about the verses of this song, right? I mean, all that people really care about are the melody and the haunting chorus that repeats the word erroneously attributed to a “baffled” king.
Hallelujah is the real money maker, after all.
Issue 2: The Fusion of the Holy and the Unholy
The other big issue I have is not only the willingness, but the ambivalence toward fusing holy, Christian works with unholy, secular, even blasphemous works in an attempt to be creative.
Here’s the thing. I can’t sing “Amazing Grace” without including the accompanying tune once connected to bar songs. However, when I or any other person hears “Amazing Grace,” the words of “New Britain” never enter our minds. The older song is totally disassociated from Newton’s “Amazing Grace” and the author of “New Britain” never gets any credit.
But “Hallelujah” is a different thing entirely. Whenever either the tune or the lyrics of “Hallelujah” are used in either a lyrical remake or a mashup with other Christian songs, some sort of attribution must be given to Leonard Cohan.
Issue 3: Ignorance is Blessed
I asked my wife for her thoughts on the rendition of Cloverton’s version of “Hallelujah” that our praise band did last week. Like everyone else, she thought it was beautiful. And from a purely musical perspective, even a worshipful one, it was moving.
But on the other hand, on hearing “It goes like this, the fourth, the fifth, the minor falls, the major lifts,” when does one wonder: “Why are the words of an agnostic Jewish Buddhist being used out of their context to praise the God and Savior he doesn’t even believe in?”
But that’s just it. Most people don’t know.
Most people aren’t aware of the source material. For that matter, most people never parse the lyrics to any of the songs they sing, even in church, and are usually content remaining ignorant, but blessed. Honestly, I can’t blame them. It’s easier that way.
And frankly, at least in this case, what you don’t know probably won’t hurt you, so worship away.
But I do know. That’s why I just had to say something.
Share this:
2 Comments
Filed under Christianity, Christmas, Church, music
Tagged as Christmas, Church music, commentary, critique, faith, God, Hallelujah, Jesus, Music, Theology