At another blog there is a post up about a church that is hurting. And let me preface everything else to come by saying: a hurting church anywhere is a cause for all of us to weep. This church is in pain because of the specter of disunity and division. We should take the words of our Lord to heart from John 17:23, “I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” If we truly believe what Jesus says, then we truly believe that disunity and factions in church are ultimately a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel.
Disunity is damning.
And that should cause us to weep and to pray not only for the struggles in our own churches but also for our sister churches who are facing times of trouble. (Side note: the idea of unity above must be tied to the truth and holiness of God. It does us good to lay our pride aside and stand hand-in-hand with others who disagree with us on non-primary matters; but it does us no good to sacrifice the core truth of Jesus and his gospel on a alter of false unity.)
In this blog post, after sharing a letter of concern from a dear lady, the author concludes: “Do you hear this dear Christian’s anguish? Do you hear the cry of the unsuspecting church member who is being run over theologically and personally by Calvinists? This is where the rubber meets the road. This is no longer a theological debate. This is damaging the local church. Do you care enough to help stop it?”
I want to contend that such a response to the dear lady’s letter is damaging and also potentially damning in the disunity it creates as fearmongering.
The letter we read there, of course, gives us only one side of the story. When problems arise, truth always seems to be somewhere in the middle. But let’s work from the one side we have. I won’t reproduce the letter in total here, but two words in particular come to mind when reading the letter: pride and arrogance.
The pastor in question who is supposedly destroying this church because of his Calvinism is described in a way that paints him as difficult to know, mostly uninvolved, arrogant in response to questions, and uses big words people don’t understand.
But these are not marks of Calvinism, Calvinists, or Reformed ideologies. They are marks of a heart that does not understand shepherding in humility. I have personally known, and know of (as I’m sure we all do) Southern Baptist pastors who are not Calvinists who are difficult to know, mostly uninvolved, arrogant, and used big words. They have even split churches.
Should we sound the alarm bells? Should we cry from the rooftops? The debate is over, their non-Calvinism is damaging the local church, do you care enough to stop it?!?!?
Or should we focus on what the real problem is?
The letter also mentions the lack of having a revival or an alter call. I agree with the heart of what the pastor of that church said—we can’t make revivals happen. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. That being said, having “revival” meetings or not is also not a mark of Calvinism or non-Calvinism.
I spent 3 years at a church during my college years that was not only non-Calvinist, it was anti-Calvinist. Not once in that time did they have a revival meeting. Here at the church I pastor now, the man who pastored before me was a self-identified Calvinist, they had a revival meeting almost every year he was here. I’ve been pastor here for not quite two years, in that short time we have also had such a meeting. We didn’t call it a “revival” by name, but it was an event designed to fire-up the members and reach out to the town, involving guest speakers, special music, and a whole lot of advertising. I am also a self-identified Calvinist.
We did it because my theological beliefs inform me that not only has God ordained the ends—who will be saved, he has also ordained the means—the Gospel must be spread. The only way for anyone to be saved, the only way for the elect to be saved, is to hear the Gospel message. It is a necessity. God will not let his elect be lost; the rocks will cry out if we are silent. But Jesus didn’t give the Great Commission to rocks, therefore we will honor our God by spreading the Gospel in a variety of ways. And whether or not you agree with the “God ordained the ends” part of that, we would all agree whether Calvinist or Arminian or that great Baptist norm in between that if we truly love Jesus we have no choice but to spread the Gospel.
So let’s cut the rhetoric and the fearmongering and the intentional disunity that flows from agendas to drive.
The problem is not Calvinism and Calvinists, the problem is when pride pops up on both sides of the aisle. So can we have a little sanity, realize the issue, strive to be humble servants, and live in true unity?
(Where’s that picture of the rainbow people holding hands???)
Good post Mike. Yes, this is a problem, a huge problem that I am glad both Les(although I too disagree that it has anything to do with the theology of Calvinism and I think he knows this if he will be honest) and everything to do with sin and power, too much power which is true of some Fundamentalists as well. Six or more years ago I was writing the same charges against some Fundamentalists, but I wanted the power and control to end, not removal of Fundamentalists from the SBC. I wanted repentance and restoration of Grace in our churches and institutions.
That should read that I am glad both Les and you have brought up.
This is a good blog entry from John MacArthur and something that has been on my heart since 2005.
Brothers,We Are Not Rock Stars
Mike another good word. I saw about this situation and you’re right, this is only one side of the story. There are people all over these blogs telling about similar situations, pride, power, etc, and linking it to Calvinism and elder led models. This is preposterous. Some say they’ve interviewed these folks leaving after being hurt. I’ve asked whether the interviewer has interviewed the pastors/elders. No response. I doubt it.
Having been in ministry of some sort for almost 30 years, I can say that there is always another side not being told. Church leaders don’t ordinarily rush out to the internet to defend themselves and tell all from their side. That would be an ethical violation and a biblical violation as well.
They don’t because there is nothing to defend Les. It’s one thing if one person attests to these stories it is quite another when it is multiple people who normally would not have a voice. I believe them. The MO is too much like I know happens.
And yes they have attempted to talk to the ministers or the church. The church or minister does not answer the phone, reply to the emails etc.
Debbie, I don’t know how many church discipline cases you’ve sat in on or had first hand knowledge of, but I have been in more than I would like to have been in on. They are not fun and are heartbreaking for all involved.
But one thing I can tell you 100% by first hand knowledge: The ones who talked were the ones who were being disciplined (and in each case were in the wrong) and anyone listening to them and believing what they say based only on that were foolish. There was 100% of the time always another side of the story.
And, any minister who WOULD respond to an inquiry should be defrocked anyway.
BTW, I’m not that other Les…Puryear.
I have experience with at least one church where a Calvinist pastor came to the church without revealing his full intent, made changes that resulted in great damage to the church, and blamed those who left for their unspiritual responses.
It happens.
But the problem here is the idea that this pastor’s problem was his Calvinism. I’ve seen pastors do EXACTLY the same thing when their agenda was not Calvinism, but some other vision – seeker sensitivity, charismatic issues, whatever. I saw this happen with more liberal pastors in conservative churches.
The problem is a pastor who comes in with an agenda that he does not reveal then forces that agenda on the church. It is a character and integrity problem, not solely a Calvinist problem.
Yes, some Calvinists have done this, and we cannot deny it. But for the other blogger’s premise to be correct, this would have to be a problem unique to Calvinism, and I do not believe it is.
I do not think that it is fair to present this as if it flows from being a Calvinist. It flows from thinking you are right and everyone else is wrong – whatever the issue is.
I’m not sure, in instances such as this, how much being fair is on the agenda, and how much the agenda consists of scoring points against a perceived enemy.
“It flows from thinking you are right and everyone else is wrong – whatever the issue is.”
And this is why you’ll see me popping up from time to time, harping on I Cor 8:2. I see it as an often-ignored prescription for our tendency to assume my own (or my group’s own) knowledge must be correct, complete, and flawless. That level of confidence in our knowledge betrays a lack of essential knowledge – which I believe to be knowledge of how flawed our own knowledge is.
At the same time, of *course* I think I’m right and everyone else is wrong, this is the nature of belief. I believe my beliefs are correct, otherwise I would change my beliefs. And if you disagree with my beliefs, then of course I think you are wrong.
Humility does not take an attitude of, “Well, my beliefs are no better than yours,” but, “although I’m convinced of the truth of my beliefs, I will hear you and consider your words and be open to being shown where I am wrong and even though I am likely to remain convinced of my beliefs, I will still respect you and your right to disagree with me.”
I’d say one of the big problems in our day is we have many people on the one side who, in the name of humility, refuse to believe anything, and people on the other side who dogmatically refuse to consider or allow room for any other view. But having a firm conviction of belief is a good thing, not a bad thing.
‘Humility does not take an attitude of, “Well, my beliefs are no better than yours,”’
I’ll agree with that. This is actually a rather difficult thing to express, which is, I believe, why those who try to express it tend to express it in paradoxes. Paul’s “If anyone thinks he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know” expresses this paradox. G. K. Chesterton, that master of paradox, had his own version: “It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we could have possibly gone wrong”.
It’s the latter ‘bigotry’ that I’m targeting, and that I believe Paul was targeting. That, and our ability to be too impressed with our own knowledge. There is a difference between the cockyness of the person who is certain he’s right and could not possibly be wrong, and the person who says (implicitly, if not explicitly) ‘though I know I’m quite capable of being wrong, and have in fact in the past been wrong, on , I’m certain I’m right’. Quite often, people are impressed by the first, and ignore the second. I’m to the point where I’m suspicious of the first, and quite interested in hearing what the second has to say.
Paul started off his Christian life by having his ability to be utterly certain he was right, but in fact being utterly, utterly wrong, pretty well shoved in his face. This didn’t keep him from being able to speak with certainty. It did make him circumspect about it. It caused him to make sure he distinguished between what he knew God had said, and what was merely his own views. I suspect it’s also what made him adverse to identifying himself as the person caught up to the third heaven, etc. I don’t think he wanted to garner the kind of “acclaim” too often given to the super-confident. And it seems to have galled him to have had to drag out his credentials in defending himself from the ‘super-apostles’ (II Cor 11-12), to demonstrate anything near the kind of self-certainty they did. That kind of self-certain, self-confident boasting had become so far from the way that he operated that he could, essentially, only do it while metaphorically holding his nose.
I’ll agree on the problem with the two sides that you expressed. And when addressing an audience of mostly Evangelical Christians, it is, alas, the second side I expect to find amongst them (not comprising all of them, but in disturbing numbers). We like being ‘the ones in the know’. And I think it harms our witness. When we let what is, essentially, worldly pride (it’s a form of the ‘boastful pride of life’) get mixed in with preaching the Gospel, it detracts from that preaching. It’s this side which needs to hear I Cor 8:2.
Suppose an sbc pastor committed sexual sin. And it’s then trumpeted that he is an Arminian. And that Arminianism is causing sexual sin in sbc clergy.
How would that argument go over?
“The problem is not Calvinism and Calvinists, the problem is when pride pops up on both sides of the aisle. So can we have a little sanity, realize the issue, strive to be humble servants, and live in true unity?”
Yes, please!
Brethren,
While acknowledging the problem that sometimes happens in churches related to pride in a number of other areas, in this case, and in many others like it, the problem is indeed that the people in our pews do not suspect a theological system is in the process of overtaking the doctrines they have traditionally cherished.
You really need to own the fact that Calvinism is the issue, in the same way that sometimes legalism is the issue and sometimes charismatic theology is the issue and sometimes it’s the color of the carpet. Yes, Non-Calvinist churches split, but that’s not really the point here.
I think it is fair to address Calvinist splits as a separate issue worthy of consideration rather than just saying that there are other splits too.
Are you saying that there is something in the Calvinist system that is more likely to divide a church than in other systems?
Yes, and that something is that 90% of our Southern Baptist Churches are not steeped in that theology so it represents a change that takes them by surprise. It is not really some inherent aspect present in Calvinism–it is the Calvinism itself. It is the very existence of a doctrine which challenges the belief system of the existing church. If they wish to reject the Calvinism, they may wind up rejecting the Pastor in order to do it. That causes splits and problems.
Splits are not happening very often over eschatology–they don’t care if the new pastor is a historical or a dispensational premillennialist. Splits are not happening very often over anthropology–they don’t care if he espouses a bi-partite or tri-partite view of man.
What they care about is Calvinism. I think the sooner you guys face this head on, the better prepared you will be to respond to it.
As my sons might say, “Just sayin’.”
That is recognized – many in the SBC do not like Calvinism. But another thing recognized is that many in the SBC do not know what it is that they do not like. They have heard a preacher man somewhere say bad things about Calvinism, they have heard misrepresentations and caricatures, they have heard or read horror stores that originate over the internet, and they do not like Calvinism. But they know pretty much nothing about Calvinism.
So, if I can read between the lines those who say they do not like calvinism are those who know nothing about it… is that what I hear you saying?
><>”
Bob,
No
Rick et al –
The problem is that 90% of our churches are not steeped in ANY theology because theology is hard and divisive and reserved for those in seminary.
The problem is that 90% of our churches are not steeped in theology because they are steeped in TRADITION. They know not why they believe, only that “it was good enough for grandma & grandpa and the deacons in my home church…”
Rick, I must disagree. If it could be carpet or legalism or anything else, and the “goat” for this instance is that she is connecting Calvinism as the problem, the Calvinism is definitely the problem inherently. And that is what many people are trying to state.
Many comments here and elsewhere are directly trying to say essentially, “So and so has been hurt at church X and is leaving because the pastor and elders are arrogant and harsh and demanding and won’t listen, etc. And BTW they are Calvinists.” See? The problem is Calvinism. That is what many are trying to say.
I say that is absurd and betrays a sincere lack of knowledge of Calvinism.
Now, if some Calvinists are arrogant, etc., then they don’t understand it either. But the biblical teaching we call Calvinism is not the problem.
Les, I’ll try my best to meet you halfway. “Calvinism” per se may not be the problem, but trying to preach “Calvinism” in a “Non-Calvinist” Church is indeed the problem.
I think the people are rejecting the Calvinism itself. When they ask the Pastor to leave in order to remove the Calvinism, things get ugly, he becomes irate and is then accused of arrogance. Then you guys come along afterwards and say, “You know, that Pastor just didn’t handle that right. It wasn’t the doctrine…it was his nasty attitude.”
But what it started it all was indeed the doctrine. And the doctrine that started it all was…wait for it…Calvinism.
Rick: So what is your solution? If you were czar of the SBC for a month, how would you solve this problem?
I think the solution is to run all the dirty calvitists, the “new calvitists,” out of the sbc. It’s time to sound the alarm. Where are all the watchmen? We must warn all these poor little Southern Baptist pew sitters about the dirty new calvitists and their sinister agenda to ruin sbc churches. *I also want to say that I have friends who are calvitists (this means I have a right to say bad things about calvitists), but they’re not part of this dirty “new Calvinism” that’s ruining my sbc.
First, I would open the GCR box. This would not solve the Calvinism controversy, but I may not live 13 more years and I am an exceptionally curious person.
Second, I would resign as czar, for I could not tolerate a pope, especially if that pope was me. I would have resigned earlier, but I really wanted to open that box. (See how absolute power corrupts absolutely?)
Third, in whatever my new limited role with accountability would permit, I would propose the formation of a committee, nominated by the Committee on Committees and elected by the convention PRIOR to the start of their work, whose purpose would be to educate Southern Baptist Churches on the unique challenges many of our churches have faced when calling pastors without properly screening for those theological differences that have proven to split congregations in recent years, to include not only Calvinism but also multi-site campus ambitions, a “radical” departure from the American dream, insistence upon elder rule, dramatic differences in the exercise of church discipline, a refusal to extend altar calls or pray the sinner’s prayer, and other controversies.
Fourth, I would clearly require all seminary graduates to reveal, up front, the particulars of their theological positions, especially concerning Calvinism. I would not mind, in addition to one’s resume, a standard form clarifying not only the minister’s theology, but also providing a criminal background check. Our seminaries should share the responsibility for informing our churches of the theology espoused by their graduates.
Fifth, I would roll back the commenting policies on SBC Voices so you guys could freely call me any names you like.
This wouldn’t solve the problem completely, but I think it would make things a lot better.
Rick,
I think I know what is behind all of the more controversial areas you mention, except one: “a “radical” departure from the American dream” What do you mean by this? What is the American dream that churches hold to, and what is the radical departure that should concern us?
” a “radical” departure from the American dream”
I’m going to need a little help with that one.
Where are these Southern Baptists who have an “insistence upon elder rule”?
Are folks still conflating “elder led” and “elder rule” after months of gentle and patient correction?
I’d actually like to see the names of 5 churches that have true elder rule.
I know of one SBC church that is truly elder rule.
It is also non-reformed and anti-calvinist. Go figure.
I think there are a minority of non-Calvinists who have been hungry for power. They want total control of the SBC in office, in doctrine etc. I think that the political moves are dangerous, outdated, and will put the nail in the coffin of the SBC as it shrinks in numbers over the years. Look at the last 6 even before the Convention was in session the number of those who some disagreed with were ousted out of their offices of service? And for what? Disagreement in the BFM, no? Disagreement in third tier doctrines. But the ones who wanted to narrow had the power.
“a “radical” departure from the American dream”
Would that be things like preaching that
1. things like preaching the Gospel, letting God conform you to the image of His Son, and ministering to others take priority over your acquisition of the American Dream, and God’s work in your life is likely to reflect that priority. While God does give prosperity, prosperity isn’t God number one priority for you in your life.
2. if you’re praying for revival solely for the purpose of making the country you live in more comfortable, or winning the culture war, God likely won’t send that revival. Revival is for the purpose of furthering His Kingdom, not making the kingdom you live in more comfortable. That may be a consequence, but it’s not a divine entitlement.
?
I don’t think it necessarily is. I think it is a mischaracterization.
In the church I grew up in, I got to hear from people who don’t go there anymore that Calvinism is “evil”–exact words used. When asked why, you couldn’t get an answer out of them. It was just something someone told them was bad, so it was evil.
I’ve been the pastor of a couple of churches now–none of them are/were calvinist churches. On the one hand, I don’t get up and make all my sermons and teachings about the 5-points. I don’t preach Calvinism. I preach the Bible and if I come to a passage about predestination or election or what not, I preach what I believe is the best interpretation of that passage. I don’t give options or “this is what these groups believe.” I preach what I believe the text says.
No one has ever had an issue with the “calvinism” in my sermons. One of these churches was even a church that licensed a guy to the ministry then revoked the license later b/c he started pushing calvinism in Bible studies. I didn’t know that until after I was pastor there. In two different meetings–one with the search committee and one with the deacons I was asked what my views on Calvinism were. My reply was, “What do you mean? That’s a broad topic.” They said, “Explain to us your view of election and sharing the gospel.” I laid it out for them exactly how I believe it, pointing to different places in Scripture. Their response, “Oh, that sounds good to us.”
They thought their issue was with the doctrines of Calvinism, but it was with a guy who took the doctrine of unconditional election to an extreme where he downplayed sharing the gospel–and that is not Calvinism.
I am convinced that the root problem is rarely Calvinism.
It’s caricatures, misunderstandings, and some bad apples.
“I am convinced that the root problem is rarely Calvinism. It’s caricatures, misunderstandings, and some bad apples.”
So I guess you and Chris are in the same boat… those who disagree with calvinism do not understand it?
Amazing. Simply amazing.
><>”
No. I think there’s plenty of people who disagree with it and understand it.
In the vast majority of my encounters, though it is misunderstandings. Sorry if you think that’s absurd, but that is my experience.
I have lived and pastored in towns where people switch from baptist to methodist to the christian church at the drop of a hat. Don’t like the baptist youth program, go to the christian church. Why? Because they either don’t know or don’t care that there are differences in how we understand baptism, the nature of the church, and eternal security. “Oh, it’s all just the same thing,” some of them say.
The majority of people who go to church in my experience don’t really understand much of any theology. And I don’t mean that pejoratively as if they’re a bunch of dumb hicks who can’t. They are people who could understand it if they tried and/or were taught. But it doesn’t matter to them.
But then they’re told “so and so believes this.” And it sounds bad so suddenly it’s a big deal.
We went around door-to-door tonight to share the gospel. One of the guys I went with told a story about the last time he did this, met a lady who goes to the Christian church here in town. When he said he went to the baptist church she said, “Oh, I could never go there, you don’t believe in the Holy Spirit.” And it was because someone in the past taught that certain gifts have ceased, and from that came we don’t believe in the Holy Spirit–a misunderstanding.
Maybe where you live people are more theologically educated and astute. Where I live, this is day-to-day reality.
“The majority of people who go to church in my experience don’t really understand much of any theology. And I don’t mean that pejoratively as if they’re a bunch of dumb hicks who can’t. They are people who could understand it if they tried and/or were taught. But it doesn’t matter to them.”
Could that be because, in a lot of churches, the practical reality is that they act as if the pastors are called to be the ministers, and the church members are called to be spectators (or maybe support), instead of the the pastors being called to be equippers, and the church members called to be ministers? If the members aren’t called to be ministers, it will seem a lot less important for them to understand theology.
Also, I forgot to mention this. I’ve heard that in almost every church problem where people leave and blame it on Calvinism, that the actual truth is that the pastor and elders were predominantly dark haired!
If this were not so serious, that might be humorous.
There are a few details I would like to know from this story:
Have the members and deacons been coming to the pastor because he is actively trying to change their views and focusing on Calvinism as a critical matter for the church, or have they been coming to him because they learned he is a Calvinist even though he has not made it a central issue of his ministry?
Is the issue his theology or their displeasure with his interpersonal relations with the members?
What is their view of the ministry of the pastor?
Good words Mike.
Calvinism is not the cause of this. Sin, pride, and arrogance are.
I am a self identified Calvinist. My Calvinism was arrived at through 3 years of studying, sweating, losing sleep, and losing friends who couldn’t deal with the fact that my soteriology was changing. I was accused of believing a lie from the pit of hell. I was invited over to a friend’s house only to be faced with an intervention of sorts – I didn’t know that the real reason he invited me over was to square off against a KJO Arminian friend of his.
So, I could say that Arminianism is the cause of KJO fundamentalism. But that’s just plain silly.
I could also say that Arminianism is the cause of friends accusing others of lying from the pit of hell. Again, that is just plain silly.
I could also say that Arminianism is the cause of disfellowship and iding the truth from a brother. Even through that, I tried my hardest to keep that relationship solid, but my friend simply couldn’t deal with it. He truly felt that I had become a Sith or something.
I’ve learned many things throughout the years, and because I’m also an engineer, one of the things I have learned is that correlation does not equal causation. Pirate incidents are down. Greenhouse gasses are up. All we need to do is increase the number of pirates, and we can put an end to global warming once and for all! See how fun it is!
In this case, it may well have been Calvinism. But we don’t know both sides of the story.
Rick – you said “I think it is fair to address Calvinist splits as a separate issue worthy of consideration rather than just saying that there are other splits too.” I agree, but I’d say it this way “I think it is fair to address any church split as a separate issue worthy of consideration rather than just saying that there are other splits too.” This would include Arminian caused splits too.
But this is all kinda pointless – we all know that the main reason churches split is because people don’t like the music.
“This would include Arminian caused splits too.”
I agree in principle, although I’ve not heard of any. Theoretically, a strongly Calvinistic church might call an Arminian Pastor. Why? Perhaps by mistake. Perhaps they didn’t do their homework. Whatever the reason, suppose this new Pastor preaches that one can lose their salvation.
If the people ask him to stop preaching that and he refuses on principle, then what is the cause of the ensuing showdown–his arrogance in not backing down or his Arminianism that provoked the issue in the first place?
I find it very easy to believe that there will be serious personality conflicts emerging when a congregation must deal with a serious clash of irreconcilable “isms.”
So…you guys know Les Puryear self-identifies as a Calvinist in his pamphlet, right? Just checking…
Greg: Les used to be a Calvinist. Now he is a very outspoken anti-Calvinist.
I have wondered if he use to do all the bad things he says Calvinists do.
Ol’ Les doesn’t allow comments, didn’t offer his take on the thing or his response to the lady, and I couldn’t find an email address for him.
The lady complained about:
1. The pastor and especially his wife were ‘hard to get to know.’ This is a personal, not theological issue. I’d advise the lady that she should have no criticism of the pastor’s wife in this regard and is wrong to complain about her.
2. Pastoral care issues and expectations. This is non-theological. There has to be some accountability and some formal or informal method to address these in a Christian, non-threatening manner.
3. Pastor wrote a book on calvinism on the church’s coin. See above re: accountability.
4. No altar calls. This is directly as a result of the man’s calvinistic views. It’s not a deal breaker.
5. Calvinistic beliefs. There is clearly a divide between the congregation and the pastor and some followers. This could be a deal breaker. It is, as Rick said, not about eschatology or glossolalia. Calvinism is the culprit.
6. The deacon chairman’s dismissive and condescending attitude was presented in such a way that, if true, will assure a serious church fight. It’s over calvinism, i.e. “…don’t you believe the Bible?’ Can’t be any plainer than that.
7. If he is indeed making the church into a Reformed church, why deny that Calvinism is the culprit or that this could be any pastor?
Sure, there are two sides to this. We’ve heard one. Maybe the other side would change a lot. But this follows the pattern I’ve observed repeatedly over the last fifteen years. I would advise the lady that if a proposal is made to move from deacons to a few elders, or any hint of the pastor and the few elders having considerable power, it would be quite a serious matter. Congregations have lost their property in this manner.
The material presented was a mixture of the usual pastor criticism and calvinism. It’s rather silly to deny the latter.
Calvinism is often presented as an inherently divisive issue, not because people disagree over Calvinism but because the nature of Calvinistic theology is necessarily divisive. Thus preachers and others will warn about the divisive nature of Calvinism – not because of disagreement, but because Calvinism is divisive. Such a claim is absurd and leads one to be very reluctant to ascribe Calvinism as a central cause in conflict. The issue is disagreement, not Calvinism. Calvinism is the subject of the disagreement. Calvinism has not caused conflict, disagreements have caused conflict. The question is, how will the church resolve those disagreements?
And from reading the letter, I can’t help but wonder if Calvinism is simply being made a scapegoat for other things certain members don’t like about the pastor. Since Les has given the letter with no additional information, context, other side’s case, etc, it’s impossible to know. His post amounts to little more than gossip.
I called it a mixed set of issues and calvinism is in the mix. So far, as i said the calvinism isn’t a deal breaker but I’d watch things closely.
I don’t think the earth would stop spinning if calvinists recognized this.
If a church splits over the color of carpet, what is the cause of the split – interior design, or a badly handled disagreement? We can identify the issue that is behind the disagreement, and in this and other cases that issue is Calvinism, but neither the theology nor the carpet made people act like children.
Chris,
You wrote… and if you are quoting someone else, i did not see that. “Calvinism is often presented as an inherently divisive issue, not because people disagree over Calvinism but because the nature of Calvinistic theology is necessarily divisive. Thus preachers and others will warn about the divisive nature of Calvinism – not because of disagreement, but because Calvinism is divisive. Such a claim is absurd”
I will agree with the bold statement, which I of course added. Surely you are NOT suggesting the problem that some, many have with calvinism has NOTHING TO DO with the FACT that there are those who simply DISAGREE WITH CALVINISM? If that is the supposed meaning of your statement, I indeed find that Such a claim is absurd”
><>”
You are correct, that is not what I am suggesting.
What were you suggesting when you wrote, ““Calvinism is often presented as an inherently divisive issue, not because people disagree over Calvinism but because the nature of Calvinistic theology is necessarily divisive.”
><>”
Bob,
The way the issue is presented, people imply that Calvinism in and of itself is divisive, whether or not people agree or disagree with it.
Sometimes when I read you guys it is like watchin cats always landin on their feet…
“well… that is what i said but that is not what I meant.”
You do know that does not always work don’t ya?
><>”
Bob,
And just about every time I read you I – and almost everyone else who talks with you – come away with the conclusion that you work very hard to misunderstand and misconstrue everything we say to you. Is there a reason you feel the need to be so divisive, confrontational, and uncharitable toward your brothers in Christ?
Chris,
You wrote the following, “Calvinism is often presented as an inherently divisive issue, not because people disagree over Calvinism but because the nature of Calvinistic theology is necessarily divisive.”
I asked what you meant. You did give me an answer but you did not answer the question i asked but that was ok.
You then wrote, ” I – and almost everyone else who talks with you – come away with the conclusion that you work very hard to misunderstand and misconstrue everything we say to you.”
You do mean everyone HERE shares YOUR conclusion… and for the record I do not work hard to misunderstand you at all. The problem is I DO UNDERSTAND you all too well. I do not have to misconstrue what you say… not in the least. I wish I could. I promise, I always give you the benefit of the doubt but it seems you are pretty good at removing that as well.
><>”
Bob: I think you understand too yet twist things around as if you do not understand. The way you attempt to explain what we believe is totally wrong. Totally divisive on your part. Did I mention totally wrong?
Bob,
I will try again to explain what I mean. You claim to give the benefit of the doubt, then trust me that this is what I have meant throughout this conversation. Hopefully this will help clarify what I mean.
Dynamite is inherently explosive. If you are handling dynamite, you already know you are dealing with something dangerous because it is in the nature of dynamite to blow up.
Frogs are not inherently explosive. If a frog blows up, it is probably because someone filled it with gunpowder.
Calvinism is not inherently divisive. Calvinism is not like dynamite, it does not inherently cause division. This is what I meant earlier when I said some describe Calvinism as though it were inherently divisive. If conflict and division happens because of disagreement, that is like stuffing gunpowder in a frog (how’s that for an image?), and it could be either side stuffing the frog. But on its own, Calvinism is not inherently divisive.
Even when people disagree over Calvinism, it does not have to create division. We can disagree and get along just fine within a church, certainly within a convention. A church may well decide that it wants to be intentionally Calvinist or non-Calvinist, that’s fine. But most churches in the SBC have not taken sides, even if most members fall on one side or the other. As those churches consider the Calvinism issue, I would want to be sure their information is accurate and fair, and unfortunately, many if not most of those in the non-Calvinist camp who address Calvinism are neither accurate nor fair in their representation.
Chris,
I must say frogs and dynamite do bring an interesting twist to your explanation of why calvinism is not in and of itself as you suggest. Let me say for the record, that you are correct: “Calvinism is not inherently divisive.” That is an accurate statement. It is the practice of calvinism that makes it divisive. In a sense, the illustration of stuffing gunpowder down the frogs throat may well be a better illustration that you intended it to be.
I can even agree with the following statement as well: “Even when people disagree over Calvinism, it does not have to create division. We can disagree and get along just fine within a church, certainly within a convention.” Our disagreement with calvinism DOES NOT HAVE TO CREATE DIVISION. Agreed.
Here is where you and I are going to part ways as we see what is actually happening. Let’s consider your concluding statement: “But most churches in the SBC have not taken sides, even if most members fall on one side or the other. As those churches consider the Calvinism issue, I would want to be sure their information is accurate and fair, and unfortunately, many if not most of those in the non-Calvinist camp who address Calvinism are neither accurate nor fair in their representation.”
It is true, most churches have NOT TAKEN SIDES. I am confident you and I will disagree as to WHY they have not done so. You suggest it is because it does not matter to them; I suggest it is because they are not aware of the ramifications and the nuances of calvinism and fortunately for many of them, they have not had to make such a decision because they have not been confronted with the different theological posits.
Once this does happen, may I suggest that you consider the possibility that their exposure to the efforts to move them to a more reformed position educates them real quick! That would be what I would term “on the job training” that is being conducted with live ammunition. I mean it is difficult to argue the position that the unsuspecting church is getting upset because the doctrines of grace are being taught to them whether they approve or not. It would seem to me to be a moot point that these folks who are struggling to make sense of total depravity and irresistible grace and limited atonement are doing so because of mischaracterizations unless they are coming from the pastor who is trying to institute that kind of theological position in THEIR church… remember… they are the ones who have been there, some all of their lives; it is the new pastor that none of them even knew until he was called to be their pastor who is seeking to make these theological changes.
Your argument seems to be more of a “universal application” where there is no conflict. As I see it, the conflict becomes real WHEN the leadership makes it a “front and center” position.
This is my SOLE beef with the situation with the SBC. As long as it was a church issue, my voice was silent. No one even heard a peep out of me. When I discovered that it was a SBC entity issue that makes it a situation of a different matter and that is reality whether or not you like my position or not.
One other comment: the charge of mischaracterizations and misrepresentations is an interesting one indeed… Sometimes the ones crying foul the loudest are actually the ones who are the most guilty! That is not my characterization but one commonly used by many. For the record, that is NOT an accusation, just an observation.
><>”
Debbie, please discuss the issue, not the person – that goes for all of us.
William,
My email address is on my profile. Left column, towards the bottom.
I’m always happy to hear comments through email. You will forgive my not posting it on this thread as I do not wish to receive a bunch of junk email. 🙂
Les
p.s. And yes, Calvinism in the SBC is the problem.
…comments on a website don’t cause a rise in junk mail…
With humble heart I must say that we are all broken and in desperate need of the Holy Spirit to bring us to our knees. Even the disciples argued among themselves about who was right and who was wrong, about who was going to be first in the kingdom of God. To paraphrase, Jesus said “the servant would be first….those who washed feet, not those who demanded that their own feet be washed.” The Word warns us about the wicked nature of the human tongue and how untamed it is on its own. Instead of people focusing on being a leader in the church (leader of a community group, leader of a ministry etc. etc.), where is the heart that says “I want nothing more than to serve You, Lord. Change everything about me that does not reflect Your heart.” I believe in Revelation the Word says that purification by a refiner’s fire is the way to having a servant’s heart. I don’t know anymore. I have been hurt by people in the church. I cry out to the Lord for His wisdom, not mine. I ask Him to help me with any part of my heart that is wicked and does not reflect His heart. It is a painful process, this dying to self. Pride is constantly knocking on my door to tell me to defend myself. I so much want to. And yet I don’t want to wander in the wilderness for forty years like the Israelites who were more concerned about me-my-I than about being thankful for the God Who saved them and delivered them from captivity. This may seem too simple for this discussion; however, I have come to the place in life where I’m tired of fighting battles among the body of Christ. I trust God to do what He says He will do in discipling the body of Christ. My part? To pray, praise, give thanks and ask God to forgive us for being so self-centered instead of Christ-centered. Gail
Well, Mike, it was worth a shot. The plea for sanity and unity seems to have gone unheard. Sometimes when I type in the url for this site, I leave out the “o” and end up typing sbcvices……..hmmm…..seems appropriate sometimes….
Great post, Mike.
I always enjoy your blogs.
Why is it that the calvinists are always calling for unity?
I am pretty tired of all of these stories of calvinists splitting churches as if it doesnt happen the other way around. As you point out, it isnt even about the calvinism debate. I sure wish common sense could win the day in this debate, just once.
Thankfully, I think while people like Les might be getting louder and louder they are falling on deaf eyes more and more. Praise the Lord.
Amen!
AMEN!
Do noncalvinist churches get caught off guard theologically from new pastors more than calvinist churches?
I would probably say, yes. Why? Because typically calvinist churches ask more theological questions than noncalvinist churches. The fault isnt the pastors, it is the churches. Why in the world would you ever higher a person to be your pastor and yet not know where he stands on theological issues?
The bigger problem here is the theological apathy of most of the churches in the SBC. Theology simply isnt valued as it should be. If the church in les’ story really cares about theology why didnt they ask theological questions before highering a PASTOR?
Calvinism isnt the only issue here. Many SBC churches would also freak out if they found out their pastor is Amillennial because their uncle Tim Lahaye raised them.
Stop belly aching over pastors preaching something a church doesnt agree with when the church didnt even care enough to ask theological questions in the interview process. It is pathetic.
When I was hired at my church I was drilled with questions concerning my character, theology, philosophy of ministry, and how I led my family. Im sure glad to be at a faithful church.
Matt,
But this is the only issue that matters! Which is why churches must be sent guides helping them learn how to spot and avoid those evil Calvinists!
You guys really are amazing…
Do noncalvinist churches get caught off guard theologically from new pastors more than calvinist churches?
I would probably say, yes. Why? Because typically calvinist churches ask more theological questions than noncalvinist churches. The fault isnt the pastors, it is the churches. Why in the world would you ever higher a person to be your pastor and yet not know where he stands on theological issues?
Here is another question… I would NOT want to even consider attempting to pastor a Reformed Church… but that is just me I guess… and then there are those like Mike up earlier who told of his experience…
“In two different meetings–one with the search committee and one with the deacons I was asked what my views on Calvinism were. My reply was, “What do you mean? That’s a broad topic.” They said, “Explain to us your view of election and sharing the gospel.” I laid it out for them exactly how I believe it, pointing to different places in Scripture. Their response, “Oh, that sounds good to us.”
We all have the ability to answer questions to our benefit… I mean my dad taught me when I was growing up… son do not ever tell a lie but you do not have to tell everything you know. I am seeing that more and more every day now.
I told a search committee the other day… if you ask a prospective pastor about calvinism and he gives you the run around, then you can beware. I am fairly confident that is good advice. a non-calvinist will in no uncertain terms say so… when someone begins to do that linguistic dance there are usually problems…
But… it is what it is today. Buyers beware is my only recommendation.
There is no warranty; if it breaks in half, you own both pieces. ENJOY!
><>”
Bob,
If you ask good questions and you dont get good answers you dont make the hire. It isnt rocket science.
The theological apathy in most SBC churches is astounding.
Matt,
Do you think people expect the best in people or should suspect the worst in them? I do agree that there are problems with the theological depth in most churches but I challenge you to do something… find me a place in the Bible where God ever blessed the masses? Seems to me, in most cases that I am familiar with, God is seen blessing the people because of the faithfulness of the leaders… now that is not an excuse for the people to not be well grounded but I think there is a reason Jesus called His people sheep… and His focus is on Him being the shepherd and our being good shepherds…
So while we do need to make the most of shepherding the sheep, it may be that the best laid plans of mice and men is nothing more than that… and is looking to you and me for how well fed the sheep we have been given charge over are.
With that being said… it may not be the questions the sheep ask that God is listening too but rather the answers of the prospective shepherds. OUCH.
><>”
Give people the benefit of the doubt? So a church that wants will stand before God for her faithfulness ought to simply give all the prospective pastors the benefit of the doubt in the matters of theology?
I hope you are kidding.
The church has a much higher calling than that. What do you think it means that the church is the pillar and buttress of truth?
God is listening to both. Which is my entire point. Did you read my comment?
All we ever hear about is those terrible pastors that catch the unsuspecting church off guard and yet never ask why they are all caught off guard. Again, theological apathy in most of our churches is a MUCH bigger problem than the ones you noncalvinists keep fussing over.
If churches understood and valued “good doctrine” that Paul always talks about they wouldnt be caught off guard all the time.
Matt,
If you want to blame the theologically apathetic Search Teams, fine. Feel better? Regardless of who’s to blame, once you have a bad fit, there is going to be a bad outcome. Everyone loses, but especially the pastor who “snuck” in to lead the fellowship because the Search Team did not cross every “t” or dot every “i.”
See, it really doesn’t matter whose fault it is. The more theologically astute party should try to anticipate possible problems down the road. If that’s the pastoral candidate, and I don’t dispute your assertion that it usually is, then he’s the one who should be more proactive in exploring potential mine fields.
Rick,
I like your explanation… and it echoes my point very well. I am not convinced that people here are having any trouble understanding what it is that I am saying they are just reluctant to address it because there is no good way to say… I cannot tell them exactly WHAT I believe because we ALL know the church probably will not hire me.
So what we have are side stepping going on that is defended by the mischaracterization and misunderstanding of those non-calvinists that do not know what they believe or why they believe it and when it comes to calvinism that is expecially true!
So these guys intentionally are not upfront and forthright with the church that they know has no clue why they and the prospective pastor do not see “eye to eye” with them on their soteriology… but the excuse for not discussing it beforehand is, “well it is not my fault they do not know the right questions to ask me…. ”
OK.
><>”
So asking a question for clarity to get to the root issue, then explain to them my actual belief is akin to giving the committee the runaround?
Am I reading that right, Bob?
Sorry, just saw your question… which I may have touched on in my comment above your question in response to a comment Rick left…
While I am NOT speaking to the intent of your heart or why you may or may not have answered a question yourself personally, it does seem to me that there is a LOT of side-stepping going on by some when the discussion of calvinism comes up in an interview with pastor search committees… and I am fairly sure that everyone here is at least familiar with the section on the Founder’s web site called “walking without slipping: Instructions for Local Church Reformation… ”
We ALL know that there have been calvinist pastors that have been less than forthright in their revelations on their particular theological views to get hired and then worry about the ramifications later. It is a fact. For the record, I am NOT saying that all or even most calvinist pastors are guilty of that… so do not go there either. I am simplay saying it has happened and continues to happen.
><>”
She complains that he wrote a book while serving as pastor. So if you are a pastor of a church, they own your time, 24/7?
And it has taken 7 years for this split to come on?
And this is one that kills me: He uses big words. Seriously?
Bill, did you not know that using big words and writing books is the WORST thing a pastor can do!
“And this is one that kills me: He uses big words. Seriously?”
That one is one I can actually understand, if you understand lay-speak. I suspect it might expand out to “He uses big words, expects us to understand him, but never bothers to explain what they mean in words we can understand”. I’m reminded of a C. S. Lewis essay, called, I believe “On Communication” (I’ll check and correct it if I find I’m wrong), where, among other things, Lewis suggested an ordination exam where the student is given a passage from some theological work he would have had to study, and is required to translate it into ordinary, everyday language. No adorning it, no explicating it, just ‘translating’ it. Failure on this exam would mean failure of ordination. After all, the purpose of all that education is to be able to minister to the sheep. If you can’t express it in words the sheep can understand, how is that education helping you to minister to them?
C.S. Lewis was able to express theological concepts using simple language in his ‘Narnia’ series:
For example, he captured something about the Incarnation in this way:
“”Yes,” said Queen Lucy.
“In our world, too, a Stable once held something inside it that was bigger than our whole world.”
compare that child-like simplicity from Lewis
to the fairly complex theological writing on the Incarnation from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, here:
“” We now know that we have been taken up and borne in the humanity of Jesus, and therefore that new nature we now enjoy means that we too must bear the sins and sorrows of others.
The incarnate Lord makes His followers the brothers and sisters of all humanity. The “philanthropy” of God (Titus 3:4) revealed in the Incarnation is the ground of Christian love towrd all on Earth that bear the name of ‘human’.
The form of Christ Incarnate makes the Church into the Body of Christ. All the sorrows of humanity fall upon that form, and only through that form can they be borne.
The earthly form of Christ is the form that died on the cross.
The image of God is the image of Christ crucified.
It is to this image that the life of the disciples must be conformed:
in other words, they must be conformed to His death
(Phil. 3:10; Rom. 6:4f).
The Christian life is a life of crucifixion.” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer)
Hmm. Going back to the original article, I note that the lady didn’t complain about ‘big words’. That was Mike’s (understandable) interpolation. Her complaint was ‘He uses words we do not understand’. This pastor evidently didn’t bother to learn to express the theology he’d learned in words the sheep can understand. This isn’t a Calvinist/non-Calvinist issue. It is, as Mike put it, an issue of not understanding shepherding in humility.
I am by no means a Calvinist, but I can agree with Mike’s post. Don’t lay at the feet of Calvinism problems that are not actually the fault of a Calvinist theology.
I checked, and that essay is called “Before We Can Communicate”. It can be found in the C. S. Lewis collection “God in the Dock”.
I can solve this.
Calvinists, quit splitting churches.
You can thank me later.
Thank you, Bill Mac. Why should we procrastinate?
Hi MIKE LEAKE,
just wondering if anyone has ever thought of fostering ‘unity’ by creating a stronger faith community by deliberately celebrating the Lord’s Supper with the goal of ‘unity’ in mind? I don’t think it can hurt, as people seem troubled, and Lord’s Supper, celebrated as ‘thanksgiving’ draws people of faith together focused on their shared Lord, and not on their many differences
Bob, keeps harping on the divisive nature of calvinism, and there are two responses which I wish to make to his claim. One, that it is false, for I know churches where the doctrines of grace have been preached and put into practice and they have had peace for years and won souls, too. Second, it is true (this ought to bend Bob’s mind out of shape for sure), because Jesus got to the heart of the issue with this statement in Matt. 10:34-36: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Now, bob, Jesus says He is divisive and His message is divisive, so calvinism must be the Gospel as it brings division (your words). So what is your excuse now? Could it be that the Lord is convicting you of the error of your ways and beliefs? I mean here you are in a denomination noted for its source in Sovereign Grace theology and, though, it like others has weakened in its faith, you want to continue the departure from its original truth, apostasy it is called, i think. Your good man, Bob, but your getting carried away with your pique over some theological points you can’t quite stomach. I had the same difficulty many years ago. I decided I would straighten out my pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell who had a Ph.D. from Bob Jones and had studied Greek for seven years, Hebrew for four years, and etc. He had said he was a supralapsarian hyper-calvinist from the pulpit and in person to person conversation. He said to me, “I will not discuss it with you. You do not know enough to talk about it.” He hurt my feelings. He wounded my pride. But he was right. I really did not know enough to discuss it. When I was ordained to the minister (it will be 50 years ago this coming Sunday (May 20, 1962), Dr. Campbell conducted the examination of my doctrinal views. When he asked me about original sin, I said, “Which view do you want. There are six of them.”(I had outlined 4-6 works in systematic theology in preparation for the ordination). Dr. Campbell said, “Jim, don’t be a smart-alec.” My ordination council consisted of ministers of the Association in the St. Louis, Mo., area, and my Bible professor from St. Louis Baptist College, Dr. W.L. Muncey, Jr., was on the council. In any case, Dr. Campbell and the council; did ordain me, and I went on to my first church where in one year of time of dealing with some very frustrated and divided and angry church members (they had had to fire the pastor before me, a popular well-liked fellow who turned out to have some tendencies for which he was fired from a school system and put out of the Lodge and finally fired from the church (I’ll leave you to guess the reason)), I came to the conclusion that Dr. Campbell was right: There is original sin, and it includes total depravity and total inability/ It helped that I had had a teacher at the age of 6 who explained to me: “You mean ‘May I go get a drink,’ ‘can’ refers to ability. You have the ability. May means permission, and I give you permission to go get a drink.” Well, Jesus said, “No man can come to me…(Jn.6:44,65). that clearly means, Bob, tht no one has the ability to come to Him, except the Father which sent Jesus draws that individual, except it is given to that individual by our Lord’s heavenly Father. Clearly such being the case, the Father has to choose the person to come, choose to give the wherewithal to that individual to respond. As Paul said in Ephes.1:3,4 the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ chose us in him before the foundation of the world. And He did not choose us, because He foresaw we would respond. He chose us to respond or as it says in Ps.65:4, “He chooses and causes to approach Him.” Like Jesus said to His disciples, Jn.15:16, “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain.” Bob, you remind me of the only words that I remember from Bro. George Washington Gray’s many years of preaching, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” I can still hear that old quavery voice after 60 or more years. God grant you to come to know the peace that He does bring to His children, even those He has chosen to adopt, and etc.
Dr. Willingham,
Not sure WHICH Bob you are speaking to here but I will accept the thought that it is ME since the only other Bob to speak in this tread did not do so until After you wrote this post. I respectfully ask you to point out WHERE I have “continually harped on the divisiveness of calvinism” as you charge. The only times I even mention it, is in reference to Chris’ comments and it is not the divisiveness that I was challenging but rather the conclusions he offers related to the reason for the divisiveness. So, I respectfully as you to consider your accusations more carefully, if you will; not that there is a shortage of material that I have written for you to be critical of.
Let me assure you my mind is not as twisted with the tenets of calvinism as you might think. I am a very complex thinker and have a very good concept of calvinism and unlike you, I simply have not embraced those tenets. Your own statement is worthy or repeating: “I came to the conclusion that Dr. Campbell was right: There is original sin, and it includes total depravity and total inability.” I simply have not done so as I read and understand the Scriptures. Basically the charismatics make the same argument but I have not followed their convictional suppositions either.
Let’s look at another statement you wrote, ““No man can come to me…(Jn.6:44,65). that clearly means, Bob, tht no one has the ability to come to Him, except the Father which sent Jesus draws that individual, except it is given to that individual by our Lord’s heavenly Father. Clearly such being the case, the Father has to choose the person to come, choose to give the wherewithal to that individual to respond.”
Surprisingly enough, I do not have a problem with this statement. I can agree with what you said. The problem I have is the counter-position of this statement that those who do not come to Christ are those who are not drawn by God… or at least effectually drawn who by default are completely unable to respond. There is the theological problem I have with the DOG. I disagree.
Thanks for the parting prayer, ‘God grant you to come to know the peace that He does bring to His children, even those He has chosen to adopt, and etc.” May God continue to do the same for you and everyone that reads our exchange. Notice in parting for the moment, the peace He does bring to “His children even those He has chosen to adopt”; those He chooses to adopt are those who believe that He is everything He says He is and that He will do everything He says He will do in His precious Word… why does He choose to adopt those? Because that is the way He chose before the foundation of the world to do them!
><>”
One thing most of us Calvinist miss is what you said:
“he has also ordained the means—the Gospel must be spread.”
We learned in RA’s a motto: “We are ambassadors for Christ”. The verse that went with it is the very verse that is overlooked when the gospel needs to be spread. We are the means of the spreading. We carry the grace to the lost. All of the lost.
“Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore [you] on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” 2 Cor. 5:20
Great post.
This example of church conflict is a mixed bad. The seven year tenure of the pastor, somethings I skipped over earlier, is significant. The pastor must be glacially slow about a takeover if there is one.
I’m wondering how my calvinist friends here, who are always quick to defend any and every colleague in these situation, would advise the lady.
First by seeking more information, such as what is actually going on.
The church is the problem in this case, not Calvinism. When the search committee makes the statement “I hope we have done the right thing” it speaks volumes about the spiritual immaturity of the church. The children of Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years because they chose the wrong leaders to spy out the Promised Land. They were accused of having an evil heart of unbelief. BTW, they would still be complaining if they got the right pastor because they would have to get off their duff and minister and serve in the community. Most people don’t like that either.
It may sound funny, but I’ve never heard Calvinism preached. I’m not sure I even know what that means.
But then, have you ever heard a preacher say that all a man’s days are numbered before any of them comes to be? Or that someone’s demise didn’t catch God by surprise? Or that God had to give satan permission to beset Job .. and in fact even suggest Job to satan?
Or how about Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s son turning out to be not only a Christian but a preacher. Sound a little miraculously elect?
Oh, and when I say I never heard Calvinism preached, did I mention that even included my years in Presbyterian churches? Maybe I was a good Presbyterian but a lousy Calvinist. Or maybe vice-versa.
Ben, Bill and Chris,
I don’t want to hijack here, but I know of at least one church that split when the pastor attempted to initiate some of the principles in Platt’s “Radical” by introducing a new culture of radically giving away possessions, moving the family to a smaller house, and essentially giving up their standard of living for Jesus.
Now certainly, we are all called to a lifestyle of sacrificial serving, but it does not always look exactly like that. If every middle class Southern Baptist in all of our churches truly did that, it MIGHT impact some of our inner cities, but it would also wreak havoc upon all of our institutions, seminaries, churches and historic missions support channels like Annie and Lottie.
Years ago, when some pastors tried to copy Warren and Hybels, they discovered they could not get away with it because they were neither Warren nor Hybels. All I’m really saying is that David Platt is able to do some things that would get most of us fired. It has happened already.
Considering the phrase “the American dream” usually points to materialistic and selfish desires, it’s one I would tend to avoid. I’ve not read anything from Platt but I’m familiar with his teachings and while a pastor who tries to push his people to give up things is going too far, a pastor who encourages his people to step off the train of the American dream is simply being biblical.
I suppose it might depend on how you define the American Dream, but I certainly prefer it to, say, the North Korean Dream. We are called to give sacrificially for the cause of Christ. If a bank president or Tim Tebow wants to live in a nice house, witness to people at the country club and donate dormitories to Christian colleges and new buses to Children’s Homes, I’m not going to say that simple obedience to the Bible requires them to join the lower class.
Within my understanding of the American Dream, there is room both for a comfortable standard of living and for faithful and biblical stewardship.
True, how one defines it would impact what I have to say about it. When I hear the phrase I think, “Self-made man; someone who has reached a point to earn enough to live in some measure of luxury.” There is nothing wrong with being prosperous and successful, and there is nothing wrong with enjoying the prosperity one has earned, but the problem I see with the American dream is its focus: the money is the end goal. The goal of the American dream is not to be in a position to assist others in need – whether it be the poor, missionaries, or the church – the goal of the American dream is to earn enough money to be able to sustain the kind of lifestyle I want to live. It does not focus on glorifying God but giving ease to self. Although I have not read anything from Platt, I suspect this is the mentality he wants to combat.
Chris: I disagree with you here or with David if that is his message. There is nothing wrong with pursuing the American dream. If David Platt was called to poverty or living among the poor that is one thing, to tell others they have to or they are not glorifying God is another and wrong. It’s legalism.
It’s glorifying to God that He gave health, the job, the means to pursue the American dream. Was King Solomon glorifying to God? Was Abraham who was wealthy, was Job, who after losing everything God restored more than he had before? He was a man of wealth. King David?
Debbie,
The distinction I want to make is as to the motivation. The American Dream sees money and luxury as the end goal; these ought never be end goals for the Christian. Resources are tools to use for the glory of God. The money I earn, the stuff I acquire, should all be to this end: that by any means I might glorify God and make him known in this world of darkness. The American dream seeks to build a more comfortable life for me; the Christian purpose seeks to magnify God’s glory on the earth.
I think the Christian can do both Chris. There is nothing wrong with wanting or seeking comfort for me. We could do nothing and still glorify God because it’s what Christ has done for us, not what we do for God. That is the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
For those who are called to be missionaries and give up their home and yes, the American dream, they should go. Not everyone is so called.
Again, the message you are giving is bordering on legalism Chris. The difference before Christ is my thinking I attained wealth. After Christ it is knowing God provided and thanking him for all the good things and yes the comfort.
David Platt talks about the way we give the Gospel and I agree. Where I disagree with him and Francis Chan is that wealth and comfort are wrong. They are gifts from God to be enjoyed. And yes being born in America is also something to enjoy and a gift from God. There is nothing wrong as long as God is seen as the provider and not us. There is nothing wrong with working hard, being rich and wanting to be rich. The rich not being in the kingdom of heaven is talking about unbelievers not believers.
This is one problem among a few others that I have with some in the YRR, they are leaning more toward law and do, do, do than grace.
I can agree with you somewhat concerning motivation Chris, but we all have the Holy Spirit in us who is our motivation. Wealth can be as glorifying to God as can being poor if God has place us there. Without wealth among Christians, those missionaries and those such as Platt couldn’t sell their books could they? Missionaries couldn’t be as well funded as ours are. We can always do better, but in the SBC our missionaries have it easier than those without such a network.
Nothing wrong with writing a book, but one thing that bothered me from this post is the woman writing to Les that the minister did not visit or look on his sheep. In big churches there are ministers delegated for this, but in smaller churches to have no one look in on the sheep or comfort them in illness bothers me. This has not been addressed unless I missed it.
Debbie,
There is nothing legalistic in saying man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. We are not called to serve wealth, we are called to serve God. The American dream puts people in service of wealth, not God.
I don’t think they say wealth and comfort are wrong, but that they are wrong when we put our wealth and comfort above our obedience. I cannot serve two masters. I cannot serve God and money, God and comfort, God and luxury. I serve God and seek his glory. Money is not the end I seek, God is the end I seek. Along the way God may grant me material goods, but whether or not he does makes no difference to my chief satisfaction, for my soul is to delight not in the comforts of this world but in God himself.
The American Dream sees money and luxury as the end goal; these ought never be end goals for the Christian.
Chris,
Great point. A Christian cannot look to build a comfortable life and glorify God at the same time. Now, while a Christian is living to glorify God they may end up with a comfortable life. That could happen. But they can’t have both those goals at the same time. Jesus said “You can’t serve God and money”.
Joe,
Indeed. That’s what I’m trying to say.
David Platt says in his book “Radical” this:
If people are dying and going to hell without ever even knowing there is a gospel, then we clearly have no time to waste our lives on an American dream.
That is simply not true. The Gospel is being spread, we do talk to our neighbors about Christ and people are still dying and going to hell. It’s legalism wrapped up neat and tidy.
Debbie,
Legalism says, “Here is what I must do to win God’s favor.” Platt says, “Here is what we ought to do if we love God and our lost neighbor.” Materialists say, “But what about my stuff?!?”
Now we have “Radical” the book and “Radical” the Bible study. People have to have money to buy such a thing do they not? They charge for their conferences to be seen online just as we rightfully accused John 3:16 of doing. It is an oxymoron to charge for everything and then tell people they are not to pursue the American dream because it takes away from glorifying God. When they give their conferences away, give their books away by the droves, then we’ll see.
Legalism says, “Here is what I must do to win God’s favor.” Platt says, “Here is what we ought to do if we love God and our lost neighbor.” Materialists say, “But what about my stuff?!?”
Chris, what you have written here again. You are saying the exact same thing I said just in different wording. Ought to in order to show my love for Christ? I am to take up the cross, it does not mean I give up all comfort unless I am called to do so. The Holy Spirit guides me, not David Platt. That is the New Covenant. The Bible guides me through the Holy Spirit. David Platt is radical yes, Biblical not necessarily. Radical does not mean Biblical. Christ did for me, I love him. I show that love but I don’t live in poverty and I certainly don’t do it by choice. To show my love for Christ or to gain God’s favor, it’s all the same thing, David’s just sounds holier.
Guilt trips just don’t work. Some are called to poverty or to give up all like Francis Chan and David Platt. It does not make them more holy, they do not love Christ any more than I or someone else who is in love with Christ does. They are called, they answered.
Legalism is when you have a conviction and attempt to pass that conviction as a standard for all.
Joe: The passage says the love of money is the root of all evil, not money itself. There is nothing wrong or sinful about having money, money . I thank God daily for the money I have, I recognize where it comes from. But….I work hard and pursue the American dream. Hard work, business sense, etc. is why most in America are rich and I wouldn’t have it any other way. That too is a gift from God.
Like GCB and The Last Temptation of Christ, The Institutes put me to sleep. I’m certainly glad no one preaches them expositionally…
I’m torn by this story because I’ve been in a circumstance where a Calvinistic pastor was almost called to a decidedly traditional SB church and I’ll add that it was the candidate that brought up that the search committee wasn’t probing deeply enough in theology so he initiated the discussion due to being run off at a previous church for his Calvinistic perspective.
I’ve served as both teacher and SS director at the same church as a Calvinistic Baptist. And the chairman of the pastor search committee was also a Calvinistic SB. While you might conclude we were working together to orchestrate a takeover, until the day AFTER the interview where the candidate brought the subject up, neither of us was aware of the other’s soteriological stance. That candidate reluctantly submitted his resignation as interim and the church–divided by the non-Calvinists into groups for and against calling him not by search committee diligence nor by a visible work of the Holy Spirit but by politicking and gossiping–voted to accept the resignation RATHER than having a church-wide discussion and debate so everyone could understand the issue.
I voted to accept the resignation because I saw the divisiveness as a sign of deep spiritual immaturity but felt there was little chance of the church surviving unsplit if he was called as pastor.
But this was when I was in my twenties and still fairly close to Rob Zinn because dad was still Rob’s associate. I called to talk with him about it and where he stood. His view is like most folks here: most SBs whether they realize it or not are at least two pointers because we believe in original sin and the inability of the person to create righteousness via works therefore requiring imputation of righteousness. We all also generally adhere to eternal security of the believer which is as anti-Arminian as you can get.
He said at the time that he was either a 3 or 4 pointer himself if not a 3.5 pointer. I can’t recall among a couple hundred sermons anything that screamed “I’m a Calvinist and I’m gonna bite your neck and make you one, too.” But he was the Chair of the Executive Committee a few years ago, so you guys better scour their minutes to see if they installed the Secret Order of the Calvinistic Illuminati on his watch. 😉
I actually think Mike’s blog is pitch perfect. If you can justify the handwringing over whatever theology you fear after reading Jesus’s high priestly prayer and its central emphasis on unity, then you need to ask if maybe you don’t need a little MORE emphasis on God’s sovereignty and his ability to accomplish his own will. Because you might bet seated at the banquet table next to someone you disagree with.
And I predict you will like it.
Joshua, Bill and Mike,
Because this seems very important to you, any time I happen to type the word “rule” please substitute the word “led.” Practically speaking, however, I hope you recognize that whatever word you wish to use, the elders are still the ones “large and in charge” from the perspective of the congregation.
But since I want to practice the “Golden Led” I will defer to your wishes.
Rick: I’m still not getting it. What is the difference between 3 people “large and in charge” or one person? Aren’t all SBC churches elder-led? What is it that bothers you: plurality? The term elder rather than pastor?
This is what it seems to me, that you are fine with one pastor (or elder), but when there are more than one, they must in reality be ruling rather than leading, despite what they may claim. What else I suspect bothers you is that a church that used the term elder is more likely to be Calvinistic.
Do you think the single pastor board of deacons model is the most scriptural?
Let me check with the other elders and I’ll get back to you. 🙂
Rick,
Do you know of any SBC churches that are “elder ruled” or seeking to be elder ruled?
No, they are all elder LED. (I thought we covered that.) And as everyone knows, old guys who lead would NEVER start ruling.
http://bit.ly/LgkL5V
Rick,
I thought we had too but your previous statements above seemed to indicate there is a real problem with SBC seminary grads and “elder rule.” This is why I asked.
You said: “would be to educate Southern Baptist Churches on the unique challenges many of our churches have faced when calling pastors without properly screening for those theological differences that have proven to split congregations in recent years, to include not only Calvinism but also multi-site campus ambitions, a “radical” departure from the American dream, [b] insistence upon elder rule[/b]”
Rick: Do you rule your church?
Deacon rule is indistinguishable from elder rule except the division of the executive (pastor) who usually serves ex-officio except in “emergency” sessions designed to fire said pastor. The rough-and-tumble, good-ole-days of the 60s and 70s when deacon-ruled churches kept pastoral sovereignty in check also averaged two-year pastorates at least across most of Texas.
That isn’t leadership, either. 😉
I don’t think there is a problem with a Calvinist serving a non-Calvinist church, but he needs to be completely upfront with them. He also needs to volunteer the information that he is a Calvinist, and give assurances as to what, if any, agenda he has regarding the teaching of Calvinist doctrine. He also needs to be prepared for the fact that anti-Calvinist fearmongers may have gotten there before him, and his honesty will not be rewarded.
In the end, if the congregation fears having a Calvinist pastor, for good reasons or very bad reasons, they shouldn’t have one.
Hey Bill,
I think your statement here is absolutely correct. It really has NOTIHNG to do with who is right, certainly not at that level, but who is or is not a good fit to serve together. Now even with that being said, it has also been noted that there are calvinistic pastors who do not make the theological differences an issue; ie, it is God and God alone who saves those that He saves and however He does it is perfectly fine… there are many who fit that bill and minister and preach without bringing differences to bear and that works…
The central issue for me still is the tenets themselves and the centrality they command especially where the entities of the SBC are concerned and then in cases where the issue is an issue for whatever reason with churches themselves.
Thanks for your comment, I believe it was well stated.
><>”
Bill and Joshua,
We keep running out of comment nests. No, I don’ t view myself as ruling, but as an undershepherd who leads by serving and serves by leading. I really have no desire to debate the merits of elder led polity, the issue itself not being my primary concern.
It was only illustrative of a host of issues which may present the subject matter for my primary concern, which I might state as “Pastoral Candidates With Views Contrary To Their Prospective Churches Who Keep Mum About Such Views, Accept The Position And Then Surprise Their New Church Creating Needless Controversy They Could And Should Have Avoided.”
Rick,
But it is a straw man…there are not any seminary grads advocating elder rule SBC churches. The issue does not exist.
I’m just confused as to why battling or being concerned with something that doesn’t even exist would be one of your “Czar duties.”
Also, there need not be a reply link in order for you to still reply. Just scroll up to the previous reply link and nest for days.