Dishonest Calvinists (?) and the call for integrity
Does anyone else find it troubling to hear what sounds like a growing chorus of criticism directed toward Calvinistic pastors who run into difficulties when trying to shepherd their congregations toward greater spiritual health? Mixed in with the criticism is a charge that such men have been dishonest in the way they have gone into their churches because they did not make an issue of Calvinism from the very outset. Perhaps this can be legitimately said for a few, but they would be the exceptions and not the norm. Why, then, all the criticism?
The now-defunct baptistfire.com carried this 2004 quote from Dr. Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:
Nine years ago, in response to editorial that attacked Dr. Mohler for precisely these reasons, I issued a press release to Baptist Press. Here is part of what I wrote at that time:
The situation that Dr. Mohler inherited at Southern Seminary 12 years ago is very similar to situations that many historic Southern Baptist (despite what Dr. Akin says, this is a proper description of modern Southern Baptists whose theological convictions are in harmony with the views of the founders of the SBC) pastors face when going into a typical SBC church. Dr. Patterson made this insightful and telling observation about the state of many Southern Baptist churches:
If a man tries to introduce a biblical ministry into such a situation does it not stand to reason that there might indeed be some controversy along the way? When the Word of God begins to be taught and followed, those who have no appetite for it--and who have been not only allowed but encouraged to live happily in the church without it--will inevitably feel threatened, deceived and even "lied to" by the preacher. The reason is not Calvinism, but because of the strong reaction of godlessness to biblical Christianity, just as we saw happen at Southern Seminary with the changing of the guard a dozen years ago.
Should not that fact, coupled with the wisdom that recognizes that the proper goal of a genuinely Reformed ministry is not to "Calvinize" a church but to "Christianize" it more and more, lead a man who candidates for a church to emphasize his commitment to biblical Christianity more than to a theological system? This is not dishonesty. It is wisdom. It is just like saying, "I prefer to be called a biblical theologian rather than a Calvinist." I wonder if the above quoted critics would critize a minister who makes that statement?
The sad reality is that most Southern Baptist churches do not have much ability to discuss theological issues, even with their pastoral candidates. Dr. Akin uses the analogy of his commitment to pre-tribulational premillennialism, claliming that it would be "inappropriate" to seek a position in a church that was committed to amillennialism. Agreed. But that is a very cut-and-dried situation that, as most pastors know, rarely occurs in SBC churches. Let's make the example more realistic. What if he interviewed with a church that had pre-tribulationalism as a part of its church constitution and statement of faith, but had drifted away from that over the last 50 years? What if everytime he raised the question with the search committee, deacons, and everyone else he met in the process that all he got back were blank stares and a mumbled, "we just believe the Bible; we just want someone to preach the Bible?" Would integrity demand that in this kind of scenario that he withdraw his name?
Or what about a church that had a solid statement of faith regarding the authority of Scripture but had been led by a liberal pastor for the last 20 years. Would he feel compelled, as an inerrantist, to withdraw his name from consideration as a matter of integrity?
I am not at all suggesting that a pastoral candidate refuse to speak plainly with a search committee or church regarding theological commitments. But the reality is that most churches--including their search committees--are not very equipped to have that kind of conversation. Should the details of Calvinism--or pre-tribulational rapturism--be spelled out anyway, even though there is no understanding of the language, categories or constructs? Or would it be wiser to stick with biblical categories, language and constructs? When a man does the latter for the purpose of communicating as clearly as he can I find it disheartening to hear Southern Baptist leaders criticize him as being dishonest.
Furthermore, these kinds of criticisms expose the completely untenable position in which some Southern Baptist leaders place their Calvinistic brethren in the SBC. If we openly describe ourselves as Calvinists, we are accused of "wearing our Calvinism on our sleeves" and are admonished to stop doing this. If we speak in terms of wanting to recover biblical Christianity or the theological vision of the founders of the SBC we are accused of being deceitful and dishonest. When the same men level both criticisms it is a sure indicator that something more is going on than a quest for integrity and it causes their critiques to ring hollow.
Yes, let's insist on integrity, not only from Calvinistic Southern Baptist pastors, but also from non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist pastors. And let's not limit this call only to pastors, but let's expand it to include everyone in SBC life, even denominational leaders.
The now-defunct baptistfire.com carried this 2004 quote from Dr. Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:
When you are called to a church, be sure that you are a man of integrity and you disclose your full theological position to the church to which you are called. Many a church has called a pastor only to find, only to discover, a couple of years in, that he is determined to take the church in the direction of a Calvinistic church. He never told them that up front. He may even have deliberately misled them. One of my sorrows in hiring professors across these years is that I've often asked that question and gotten a misleading answer and found out later that this man was in the classroom perpetuating the system of Calvinism.More recently Dr. Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, made the same accusation in a recent article that appeared in SBC Life. One of the 6 suggestions he makes to Southern Baptists for responding to the rising controversies surrounding Calvinism is this:
Act with personal integrity in your ministry when it comes to this issue. Put your theological cards on the table in plain view for all to see, and do not go into a church under a cloak of deception or dishonesty. If you do, you will more than likely split a church, wound the Body of Christ, damage the ministry God has given you, and leave a bad taste in the mouth of everyone. Let me give an example. I am pre-tribulational/premillennial in my eschatology. It would be inappropriate for me to interview with a church and continue the discussion if I discovered that it was committed to an amillennial position.Even more recently Dr. Frank Page, pastor of First Baptist Church of Talors, South Carolina and an announced candidate for the presidency of the SBC, was quoted by Baptist Press as making these comments:
Now, let me address our topic. If a person is strongly committed to five-point Calvinism, then he should be honest and transparent about that when talking to a church search committee. He should not hide behind statements like "I am a historic Baptist." That statement basically says very little if anything and it is less than forthcoming. Be honest and completely so. If it is determined you are not a good fit for that congregation, rejoice in the sovereign providence of God and trust Him to place you in a ministry assignment that is a good fit. God will honor such integrity.
Noting that Reformed pastor John Piper's books are among the most read books on seminary campuses, Page said the movement is huge and growing -- "bigger than Texas," he stated. "We must have honesty about this issue. There are churches splitting across the convention because pastors are coming in quietly trying to teach Calvinism or Reformed theology without telling the pastor search committees where they stand. The vast majority of Southern Baptist churches are not Calvinistic in their theology and it's causing some serious controversy."Years ago liberals made the same kind of charges against Dr. Al Mohler after he became president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was accused of destroying the seminary, wounding the body of Christ and hijacking one of our prized institutions in an attempt to push his Calvinistic agenda. I defended Dr. Mohler then just as I am compelled to defend many unjustly criticized pastors now. Though the source and target of the criticism is different now than then, the substance, curiously, is the same.
Nine years ago, in response to editorial that attacked Dr. Mohler for precisely these reasons, I issued a press release to Baptist Press. Here is part of what I wrote at that time:
Mark Wingfield is very upset by the fact that after many years Southern Seminary once again has a president and some professors who actually believe the doctrines of grace. Though this is true, it should be clear to anyone who looks beyond the surface that Al Mohler has no agenda to promote five-point Calvinism. What he obviously is doing, however, is restoring doctrinal and ethical integrity to the seminary by rescuing the Abstract of Principles (which the seminary's professors have signed since 1859) from the ash heap of liberalism onto which it had been cast for most of this century and restoring it to its rightful place. This document forms the doctrinal covenant between our mother seminary and the denomination it serves.While granting the fact that there are, no doubt, exceptions, in the great majority of cases that I know about where Calvinistic pastors have encountered turmoil in their efforts to preach and teach God's Word, it was not because of Calvinism. It was because of biblical Christianity. Calvinism tends to be the tail on which the donkey of controversy is pinned, but the real culprit is the erosion of real biblical Christianity that has occurred over the last generation or more in many of our churches.
The situation that Dr. Mohler inherited at Southern Seminary 12 years ago is very similar to situations that many historic Southern Baptist (despite what Dr. Akin says, this is a proper description of modern Southern Baptists whose theological convictions are in harmony with the views of the founders of the SBC) pastors face when going into a typical SBC church. Dr. Patterson made this insightful and telling observation about the state of many Southern Baptist churches:
Regrettably I have to believe that anytime you stand up and face a congregation these days in the average church you're looking at 30-40% that have never been born again and are not genuinely saved.He is talking about the people who have actually showed enough initiative to be part of the regular Sunday morning congregation, which it typically less than half of the membership!
If a man tries to introduce a biblical ministry into such a situation does it not stand to reason that there might indeed be some controversy along the way? When the Word of God begins to be taught and followed, those who have no appetite for it--and who have been not only allowed but encouraged to live happily in the church without it--will inevitably feel threatened, deceived and even "lied to" by the preacher. The reason is not Calvinism, but because of the strong reaction of godlessness to biblical Christianity, just as we saw happen at Southern Seminary with the changing of the guard a dozen years ago.
Should not that fact, coupled with the wisdom that recognizes that the proper goal of a genuinely Reformed ministry is not to "Calvinize" a church but to "Christianize" it more and more, lead a man who candidates for a church to emphasize his commitment to biblical Christianity more than to a theological system? This is not dishonesty. It is wisdom. It is just like saying, "I prefer to be called a biblical theologian rather than a Calvinist." I wonder if the above quoted critics would critize a minister who makes that statement?
The sad reality is that most Southern Baptist churches do not have much ability to discuss theological issues, even with their pastoral candidates. Dr. Akin uses the analogy of his commitment to pre-tribulational premillennialism, claliming that it would be "inappropriate" to seek a position in a church that was committed to amillennialism. Agreed. But that is a very cut-and-dried situation that, as most pastors know, rarely occurs in SBC churches. Let's make the example more realistic. What if he interviewed with a church that had pre-tribulationalism as a part of its church constitution and statement of faith, but had drifted away from that over the last 50 years? What if everytime he raised the question with the search committee, deacons, and everyone else he met in the process that all he got back were blank stares and a mumbled, "we just believe the Bible; we just want someone to preach the Bible?" Would integrity demand that in this kind of scenario that he withdraw his name?
Or what about a church that had a solid statement of faith regarding the authority of Scripture but had been led by a liberal pastor for the last 20 years. Would he feel compelled, as an inerrantist, to withdraw his name from consideration as a matter of integrity?
I am not at all suggesting that a pastoral candidate refuse to speak plainly with a search committee or church regarding theological commitments. But the reality is that most churches--including their search committees--are not very equipped to have that kind of conversation. Should the details of Calvinism--or pre-tribulational rapturism--be spelled out anyway, even though there is no understanding of the language, categories or constructs? Or would it be wiser to stick with biblical categories, language and constructs? When a man does the latter for the purpose of communicating as clearly as he can I find it disheartening to hear Southern Baptist leaders criticize him as being dishonest.
Furthermore, these kinds of criticisms expose the completely untenable position in which some Southern Baptist leaders place their Calvinistic brethren in the SBC. If we openly describe ourselves as Calvinists, we are accused of "wearing our Calvinism on our sleeves" and are admonished to stop doing this. If we speak in terms of wanting to recover biblical Christianity or the theological vision of the founders of the SBC we are accused of being deceitful and dishonest. When the same men level both criticisms it is a sure indicator that something more is going on than a quest for integrity and it causes their critiques to ring hollow.
Yes, let's insist on integrity, not only from Calvinistic Southern Baptist pastors, but also from non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist pastors. And let's not limit this call only to pastors, but let's expand it to include everyone in SBC life, even denominational leaders.
posted by Tom at 5/31/2006 12:26:00 PM
150 Comments:
Amen Tom.
I happen to be a student at Southern seminary, which has for past couple years been experiencing unprecedented growth in enrollment. In fact, we recently had to change class hours to accomodate the lack of parking for students. If most SBC churches, according to the SBC, are not Calvinistic in their theology, one has to wonder why the biggest and fastest growing seminary is unapologetically Calvinistic.
Furthermore, I have a problem with this idea of Calvinists being dishonest. If pastor search committees want full disclosure of every theological position of their pastor (which is hard for me to believe since most search committees don't take an intense theological approach), then why should we not expect every Arminian to do the same? Why don't we make the outcry that those who believe in a Trinitarian salvation to come out and say so? Those who believe that God is not sovereign in salvation to confess accordingly? Those who subscribe to freewill theism unsupported in Scripture to explain such? Those who hold to a decisional regeneration view of evangelism to describe their understanding of conversion?
I think once we disclose the difference between the "dishonest" Calvinists and the Arminian alternative, most of these churches will want a Calvinistic minister, especially when they realize that their doctrinal positions are biblically grounded. It is just that Calvinists are automatically demonized when the "C" word is brought up. I sometimes feel like some of these leaders trumpeting such warnings and admonitions are really looking for 21st century lepers to declare, "Unclean! Unclean!" and have found the Calvinists with the scarlet letter "C" on their chest to identify them as such.
Why don't we include that when pastor search committees desire that those "dishonest" Calvinists are called to have the integrity to disclose every theological nuance to their doctrinal positions that we include the Bible, the Baptist Confessions, and the Baptist history of the SBC? The point is that these leaders want disclosure to a degree, just enough to throw that cuss word "Calvinist" out there to a group of people who probably have little knowledge thereof. If the call for integrity is a call for disclosure, then by all means let's disclose, and do so fairly and openly.
THIS IS ONE OF THE BETTER ARTICLES YOU HAVE WRITTEN IN RECENT TIMES!
I can only pray that you will see fit to include it in a forthcoming issue of the FOUNDERS JOURNAL.
All Southern Baptists need to know that INTEGRITY (or the lack of it)
is the basic, fundamental problem facing the individuals and churches of the SBC.
There has been a such a scarcity of INTEGRITY in the actions of so many (leaders and followers) for so long that we desperately need a new biblical reformation and a fresh spiritual revival across the entire convention!
PS: Which Abstact of Principles did Paige Patterson sign when he was at SEBTS? Was this the original Abstract of Principles now
signed by all at SBTS?
The first to supply the answer to this question is my hero for the day, week, month and year.
Timmy:
I think your assessment is "spot on."
Scripture searcher:
Thanks. I may put this in a future journal one day, or maybe even in a "blook" (ask Gene Bridges:) ).
The Abstract at SEBTS is the same that was created for and used by SBTS. (Do I get a T-shirt?)
My interview process fits nicely into what commonly happens in SBC churches (as you wrote). These are some sample questions that were asked of me:
--Do you believe the Bible is true, the Word of God?
--Do you endorse the Baptist Faith and Message 2000?
--Do you believe the Pastor of a church should tithe his income?
--Do you support the Cooperative Program?
--Do you support the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship?
Do you prefer songs to be sung accompanied with tape music or accompanied by live music?
I remember the first time I laid out for the congregation the views of Premillennial-Postribulationism (which I hold to), postmillenialism, and amillennialism, the members said they had never heard these things before.
These kinds of comments are themselves "misleading" and "dishonest". The call should be for them to come out and say what they really mean, and not to hide behind the cloak of anti-Calvinism. -- Also, I was taught that the sentence should be "I am an historic Baptist."
(Also, just a general blogging usage note to fellow commentors... there are tags for emphasizing words, such as bold and italic. ALLCAPS is generally seen as shouting, and is personally unnerving.)
"If we openly describe ourselves as Calvinists, we are accused of "wearing our Calvinism on our sleeves" and are admonished to stop doing this. If we speak in terms of wanting to recover biblical Christianity or the theological vision of the founders of the SBC we are accused of being deceitful and dishonest."
A catch 22, you might say? I hate to say this, but sometimes you get the feeling that having Calvinistic convictions is "akin" (no pun intended) to having some hidden sin. It's almost like the gentlemen you quoted think that those being interviewed who may hold to some form of Calvinist doctrine are more likely to decieve people.
I think that the point about the knowledege of categories among the average SBC member is a good one. If you voluntarily declared you were a Calvinist, these days you are more than likely to be mistaken for a Hyper-Calvinst who doesn't believe in evangelism. A one-time interview is a difficult place to start explaining theology in detail to people who may not be familiar with those terms to begin with. Pastoral candiates should articulate what they beleive to best of their ability, but the best way for a search committee to find out what a candidate for pastor believes is to actually listen to his sermons.
Tom,
I second both Timmy and SS: an excellent and timely article.
At Strange Baptistfire, we considered the idea of investigating and writing about the accusations of ‘church splits’ that Baptistfire and others have thrown out. But for now we have decided against it due to the subjective nature of trying to figure out what really went on in each situation.
Personally, I think the those who call for this double-standard are in the same camp as others you mentioned above: “When the Word of God begins to be taught and followed, those who have no appetite for it--and who have been not only allowed but encouraged to live happily in the church without it--will inevitably feel threatened, deceived and even "lied to" by the preacher. The reason is not Calvinism, but because of the strong reaction of godlessness to biblical Christianity…”
Like it or not, those who so strongly oppose Calvinism do not do so because of ignorance or personal distaste, the issue run much deeper than that...
SDG
Good post - thanks!!
Timmy, regarding: "most search committees don't take an intense theological approach" - Amen to that!! A few years ago I was on a search committee for a music pastor. Riding in the van with the older members of the cmte (I was about 23), you know, the ones who are supposed to be more knowledgeable..., some of them got on a discussion of predestination. I kind of sat back because I was just getting into the doctrines of grace, but they obviously were all clueless about it.
But, the irony was that on the resume of the prospective pastor, he stated that he adheres to Boyce's Abstracts of Principles! Codespeak for "I'm a Calvinist..." These older people who grew up in an SBC church had no idea what those principles were. I just kind of smiled to myself.
darel - what a cute picture you use in your advertising. how old were you when it was taken? and how long ago was that?
sorry some of us have "UNNERVED" you using CAPS from time to time. GUILTY! i plead GUILTY!
i may not please you but i do know all the proper styles of writing - i simply like to UNNERVE some of my friends in Christ.
TOM - NO SHIRT BUT I KNOW A LITTLE SHOP NEAR A LOCAL FUNERAL HOME THAT SELLS HAIR PIECES!
darel - I was SHOUTING at our beloved brother and fellow Berean!
At his age, his ability to hear is not what it was when he ran around in Beaumont,TEXAS! lol
Personal example:
After being on staff with a church for over two years, we had a staff and deacons meeting (a total of about 15 people in the room). There was a moment where guest cards were brought up, and a lady mentioned the following, "It is obvious that you are a church that holds strongly to Arminian theology, and because of that, I don't think I will be coming back." After chuckling for a few moments, the men in the room looked at one another and finally asked,
"What in the world is an Arminian?"
Not a single person knew, including the "senior pastor." This was the leadership (staff/deacons) of the church which has in the past two years preached six anti-Calvinist sermons since then - none of them supported with the Bible.
I can remember when I first mentioned the "five points" of Calvinism to my pastor. He had never heard of it before. When I explained them to him (which took about two hours), he agreed to every one of them - that is, until his mentor Johnny Hunt got to him. A year later he was reading What Love Is This? by Dave Hunt and preaching it from the pulpit. The rest is history.
Tom,
So far, all I have heard is that Calvinist pastors are dishonest with search committees. As a result of Calvinist teaching, the church splits. What about the pastor (such as myself) whom God leads to the truth regarding salvation during his pastorate?
Praise the Lord, our church never split. By God's grace, most of the congregation was won over to the truth. (We even, just recently, changed our church name back from New Hope Ministries to New Hope Baptist Church!) However, what do the accusers say about the church that splits because a pastor, during his tenure came to Reformed theology?
I ask this because it seems as though it is automatically assumed that if you believe Reformed theology you are a deceptive pastor.
Brian:
That's a good question. I don' t know how the folks I have quoted would answer it. But it is true, isn't it, that like every other Christian, pastors also grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ. Yet, a pastor continues to preach, teach and lead as he grows. If that growth takes a man down a path that leads to disagreement with a clearly articulated point of doctrine in the church, he should make that known and perhaps resign--depending on the issue.
For example, Fred Malone resigned once he came to baptistic convictions while pastoring a Presbyterian church. He did it in a proper way, making his reasons known to the proper church authorities according to their own procedures. I grew to see and believe the doctrines of grace while serving a Southern Baptist church that was founded in the late 19th century. The only doctrinal statement they had stemmed from that era and was a very brief summary. My developing views were not inherently contrary to the church's theology and were much closer to the original, stated positions than those that the church had sort of drifted into over the previous half century. God providentially moved me from that church but I had no qualms of conscience about staying and teaching them what I was learning as long as I did. I was simply trying to take them deeper into God's Word, which meant a return to what the church's founders intended for the church to believe and teach.
Sadly, Churches split all the time! Most for the most frivolous reasons. Occasionally, it's over some point of doctrine. Why are we not criticizing all the non-Calvinist pastors who's churches have split? Early in ministry before I came to hold to the doctrines of grace, I was at a church that split. It was awful! Bottom line; it split because many didn't want the intensity of biblical Christianity lived out in their congregation. Lives were being changed, souls saved, new Sunday School classes begun, it was incredible. No one said we were splitting over growth etc. They found the usual criticisms of the pastor. When they couldn't find enough to get rid of him; they made stuff up. The same thing happened in many churches in our association within a few years of each other. None had anything to do with Calvinism! Where were the denominational leaders then?
Allow me to say this though: I love Danny Akin! I cannot understate his contribution to my life and ministry when I was his student at SEBTS in the 90s. He was a great prof, very fair with those that disagreed with him. I just referenced his systematic theology notes from my class today while preparing for a message on the Holy Spirit. I hope we can find a way to respect each other and celebrate our differences rather than let our "depravity" tear us apart in the SBC!
Thanks for the response, Tom.
You stated: pastors also grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ
It should be pointed out that if a pastor were to lead his congregation toward theological *and hopefully, pragmatic!* reformation, the hope is that he would do it with that same grace (patience) and knowledge (teach, teach, teach). I know, at least for myself, the temptation is to lead change like a "bull in a china shop." This will most certainly cause controversy.
2 Timothy 4:2 (ESV) "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching." (emphasis mine)
If pastors are willing to be faithful to this verse, splits would be rare. Incremental change is still change.
Tom,
You shared some excellent thoughts, which encourages me. I am a young first-time pastor who was *very* candid about my theological beliefs, even before I was aware the church already had issues in the past. I was very open with the search committee and the deacons. I answered all their questions, and I even met with the entire Body the night before I preached "in view of a call."
I was voted in 100%.
8 months go by, and we begin a discipleship series on several topics, one being the attributes of God that one of my discipleship teachers was using Pink's material;-)
Long story short-based on biblical teaching and not wavering from the truth, our church experienced a pruning by God. It was glorious for the simple fact it was over truth and not over carpet.
One gentleman, after I had offered several chapters for him to read in the Bible and who apparently had big problems with my theological understanding,told me, "You know, I love the Lord with all my heart, but I have a hard time just sitting down reading the Bible." But yet he was one of the major individuals who spear-headed this charge to deceive souls and dramatize the situation. Needless to say, he along with about 40 others are gone. In addition, he was fully aware of my Calvinism.
It is hard for me to imagine that many Southern Baptists Churches have split over the issue of Calvinism. The average Southern Baptist is simply unaware that such a thing even exists. I agree that every Pastor should be upfront and be clear about where he stands on doctrine, but honestly pulpit committees simply do not ask deep theological questions. They are much more interested in things like whether or not you are purpose driven and what kind of music you prefer in worship services.
I agree with Paige Patterson that a large percentage of the members of an SBC church are indeed lost. I would place the number a little higher maybe 50-70%, but the result is the same. As soon as a Pastor begins to preach the Bible there is going to be trouble. As soon as he begins to institute church discipline and clean up the rolls, there is going to be a problem.
Quote:
"As soon as a Pastor begins to preach the Bible there is going to be trouble."
Bingo.
Many churches do split and I've often heard it said that splits are our major method of church planting. Too bad.
Having one first hand experience with calvinism splitting a church and a couple more close at hand, I think the brethren are right when they say that calvinists ought to be upfront about such things to a search committee. And sure, the problem is that unless a church has already had a bad experience with an overly agressive (and usually younger) calvinist pastor, they don't have a clue what to ask.
Why don't those who are serious calvinists ask the church where they stand on the pertinent doctrines? Every serious calvinist I've ever known has the ability to do that. If the church is clearly arminian, the candidate would say that he will attempt to bring the church to a more biblical position. That ought to generate a fruitful discussion.
Thanks for this.
I have heard that Calvinism is like underwear. You need it, but it is inappropriate to show it publically.
As a music minister who is reformed, I discuss these issues with the pastor when I talk with a church, but never with the committee. It becomes and issue when we make it an issue.
Interesting thoughts...
I was recently asked to send a resume to a church for a youth ministry position, because the pastor's adult son knows my dad and knows I just graduated from college (the assumption being that a college student makes a perfect youth minister, I guess.) Anyway, I just e-mailed the resume about ten minutes ago, and chances are good I might get a request to go visit. Here's the kicker: my Dad's not a TULIP fan (but knows I am) and neither is the church I sent it to. In other words, this very topic has been in the forefront of my mind tonight.
Good thoughts, all of you...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
As this was referred to on my blog, I thought it would be good for this discussion. Jim Eliff and Donald Whitney wrote a few articles about a prospective pastor and certain questions which should be asked. He is a question about the questions asked:
Question:
About half of your questions address specific doctrinal concerns. Do many search committees give doctrinal issues enough attention or do they often assume if the candidate is a Southern Baptist and has "been to seminary," then that qualification has been satisfied?
Answer:
I think it's generally true that if a man has been raised and educated in a Southern Baptist context that search committees assume he's orthodox in all matters of doctrine, especially if he has already pastored in an SBC church. A few doctrinal questions may be asked, but they are mostly pro forma. . . . Committees should take nothing for granted theologically about a candidate. With more than 45,000 SBC churches and even more ordained ministers, you just can't assume that they are all doctrinally sound. That's especially so in a day such as ours when there's so much change occurring on the theological landscape. The best way to find out a man's theology is to ask him directly about it. Furthermore, I think that the most theologically solid men will actually appreciate the concern for correct doctrine expressed by asking good questions.
Here are the links:
http://www.spiritualdisciplines.org/quest.html
http://www.spiritualdisciplines.org/qfaq.html
By the way, they listed 55 questions to be asked. Yes 55.
Here are questions 26-29:
26. How does the Bible relate the sovereignty of God to salvation?
27. What does the Bible teach about the extent of man’s depravity?
28. What does Christ’s atonement accomplish?
29. What does the Bible teach about the perseverance and preservation of believers?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Why is this last post even allowed to remain as a post. JCRip, you have missed the whole point! Defending one's theological position is not "whining!" It is giving a correct "apologia" to the hope that is within, and with gentleness and respect.
Dude, (only those from the west coast and socal can really use that term in the right spirit) you are being disrespectful!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
If anything, these posts have shown me how demonic some people who claim Christ can be. Maybe this is due to the theology that all that matters is praying the prayer, and speaking to Christians as though you are speaking to Christ doesn't matter (afterall I'm saved no matter what, Jim Bob). But you will know them by their fruits and certainly Arminian/Ignorant Baptist theology produces, even among so-called "nice" people, some of the nastiest and hostile people when the truth comes to light.
Interesting Comments. I completely agree with Dr. Akin's comments. Perhaps most Southern Baptists don't know the five points, TULIP, pre,post,amillenialism, or any other theological term that we throw around. But, shouldn't that be one of our callings at the church? The biggest thing we hear today is that the church is biblical illiterate due to lack of sound biblical preaching and the lack of deep theological teaching to the members. Perhaps you should explain your theology within the frame work of the five points, then explain that this is referred to as Reformed theology, Calvinism, whatever. You have a duty to explain as much about yourself to the committee, regardless of their knowledge or understanding of biblical truths. A pastor must be willing to step forward and say "here I am. Here is what I believe, and here is what I am going to preach/teach." I think too many times pastors just try to get through the interview because they need a job/place to preach. As Dr. Akin once said, "Better not to be doing it (preaching) than to be doing it at the wrong place."
It hurts me that things are said against those that I admire (Dr. Patterson, Dr. Akin, Dr. Hunt) just because they may or may not be a five pointer. As someone that is fairly new to the study of Reformed Theology/TULIP, I find myself struggling to reconcile all view points. Perhaps I am fighting a battle that has been fought for hundreds of years.
I'll keep reading because you all entertain me.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I had a meeting with Dr. Floyd today. I asked him about the issue of Calvinism in the SBC. He said he felt that Calvinism was good for the SBC, except of hyper-calvism and he brought up the dishonesty issue. I immediately asked him if he felt this dishonesty was rampant in Calvinist circles - he said no he doesn't.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
(Oops. I need to clarify that I was talking about Eph. 2:1 in a certain spot.)
Dr. Tom Ascol:
That is a good article. I never realized the Catch-22 position a lot of us reformed Christians could fall into, through no fault of our own. Saying that reveals I haven't had those unpleasant experiences (yet, though apparently I should stand prepared). I fully affirm the call for integrity for all SBC pastors, Calvinistic or not.
It concerns me that some people are so ready to demonize Calvinism, and do so in claim of God's defense. My few encounters with this underscored the major foundations of such objections: a fundamental denial of the ultimate sovereignty of God, denial/misunderstanding of God's intrinsic goodness and holiness, and a fundamental cheapening or whitewashing of original sin and man's consequent sin nature inherited from Adam. I want to ask these people these questions: What do you feel is so threatening about God's sovereignty? If God is Holy and completely good, what is the problem? And, why do you value man's so-called free will over God's free grace?
I believe that many in the SBC do not truly understand/believe the doctrine of original sin, and man's inherent sinfulness. I know I did not fully understand these for years, and I am still learning from the Scriptures (especially Romans 1-3). Funny how in the SBC many would in Eph. 2:1 happily substitute "sick" or "wounded" in trespasses and sins, for "dead." Perhaps some would even substitute even less-offensive terms such as "troubled" or "perplexed" by sin, though basically good and upright.
This is a far greater matter than Calvinism/Arminianism, that's true. This is a scriptural issue. I wish pastors all across the land that know and understand Romans would begin taking time as the Lord leads to teach these precious truths from it.
COMMWENT DELETED COMMWENT DELETED
COMMWENT DELETED COMMWENT DELETED
COMMWENT DELETED COMMWENT DELETED
john calvin rip:
Bristopoly's post does not contain your name, and neither does mine. I was reflecting on my personal experiences, that is all. Don't accuse people of what they're not guilty of doing.
You apparently confuse five-point Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism. This is simply wrong. But it is a common false charge against those who are reformed (I didn't know what it was, either, before).
You would do well to read this:
Primer on Hypercalvinism: an excellent article by Phil Johnson.
If you want to have a meaningful dialogue here, you will have to lose the hostility, show respect, and be willing to learn. If not, you are wasting our time and yours. Your current monologue here only reflects badly upon yourself, while possessing no redeeming or instructive properties.
Dr. Tom,
Thanks for this excellent post. I'm going to reference it in my post that I'm currently working on that addresses some of the things Dr. Page said in that BPNews article you referenced.
Once again you touch on a timely subject and are gracious in your presentation...not to mention hitting the nail on the head in the process. :)
God bless you sir.
SDG,
David Hewitt
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just to let you guys know, John Calvin RIP is on the move. He has already commented twice on my blog. Just thought I'd let you know.
Also, in light of this, let's not get away from Tom wrote about. Let Tom deal with trollers and drive-by comments. Let us interact with what Tom has written in a mature and responsible manner for healthy discussion and Godward edification.
Timmy:
You are right, sir. I should have not even bothered commenting to our newest drive-by, whoever he or she is. And the article by itself should generate a lot of good discussion.
Tom,
Thanks for the gracious, insightful post. I believe that we are required to use Biblical terms to describe what we believe. Most of the time "Five point Calvinist" doesn't describe to most pulpit committees what we indeed believe, but conjurs up misconceptions about what we believe.
This is not being dishonest but wise.
I could go one, but would only be repeating what you have already said.
BTW - Tom allows comments from people who disagree with him and are not reformed provided that they are substantive and made in an irenic spirit. If your comments are constantly deleted you probably should step back and consider not only what you say, but how you say it.
Well, there some of you go again!
With my apologies to one of our greatest presidents, "Well, there you go again!" How often did Mr. Reagan say, "Well there you go again?"
In most discussions (not cuss-ings)
about Calvinists and Calvinism ~
~ terms I like much less than BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANITY ~
some uninformed brother brings up the old "strawman" called HYPER Calvinist or HYPER Calvinism.
Methinks this is done because the individual does not know what he or she is talking or writing about!
As I have asked so many times in the past fifty three years - both privately and publicly all over the nation -
GIVE ME HIS NAME AND ADDRESS!
I have asked so many teachers and preachers for this information that a few have replied that they know what my question is before I even get to state it.
To date, and this is June of 2006, no one has provided me with the NAME AND ADDRESS OF A SINGLE HYPER CALVINIST in the Southern Baptist Convention!
Again I ask all you wonderful Bible believing Christians, including some who have "ranted and raved" in recent days -
Supply us with the NAME AND ADDRESS of one (or more) HYPER Calvinist in the Southern Baptist Convention. We are waiting!!
One very distinguished (not extinguished) SBC seminary professor has had several months to give me that guy's name and address. I suppose he is still looking! His president can't find one of these critters, either!
Still waiting!! Still waiting!!
Reading this I can't help but think that if churches more closely followed the biblical pattern of church leadership, these kinds of issues wouldn't loom so large. So a church would not be basically rudderless in looking for a new pastor they don't know.
Dr. Tom Ascol:
I'm sorry for messing up several times in my posts and for having to delete them. I really should master that mysterious button labeled "Preview" someday.
Tom; this post is the best one I have over here at the founders blog. Thanks for the precise formulation of your thoughts.
I really wonder how we are supposed to be 'honest' with the search committees when, as has been stated before, they have NO CLUE of what they believe to begin with. If they have it in their minds that Calvinists are hard, cold, anti-evangelistic, authoritarian theological bullies then how would we ever communicate anything differently? In every interview that I have ever had... pathetically even my ordination interview... I have only been asked 2 theological questions (and both referred to my belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures). Each time I HAD TO BRING UP THEOLOGY! When I did I didn't use words that they had absolutely no valid understanding of. I told them that I did believe that God's Word is without error and cannot err. I told them that God's Word was both authoritative and sufficient. I told them that I beleive that God is sovereinty over His creation and that He is the author and finisher of our faith. I spoke of His control over everything and our depravity.
Interestingly enough when I told them that I believed that no one comes to the Son except the Father draw him there were NO PROBLEMS!
Was I dishonest because I didn't speak to them in words that they were clueless of? I don't think so. Am I to blame because their former pastors we more worried about filling the pews than filling their hearts and minds with God's Word? I don't think so.
Am I to blame when they reject the straight-forward exposition of His Word?
When will we stop having to read about all of these calvinists who split the church?
I want some documentation on all of these instances!
ANYWAY...
Tom....
Thanks again... I am looking forward to meeting you in NC at the founders breakfast! I'll be the one with the
"I'm predestined to sleep through most of the denominational schpiel"
T-shirt on!
So am I forgiven? Can i comment now?
Great article Tom.
I think those who are hostile to the doctrines of grace ought to be honest themselves when they use such terms as "biblicist" to describe their theological position. Such equivocating, obscurantist language is a cheap attempt to dodge the issue while appearing to take the "high road" in this controversy. Who isn't a "biblicist" who takes the Scriptures as their point of departure for doctrine? The term just fogs the theological air, and provides high-sounding cover for people who never come to the rub of Paul's questions in Romans 9:14 & 19, for instance.
I don't see any way to avoid splits in the modern evangelical church world (and particularly the SBC) these days, because the majority of SBC churches have decades of deficient doctrine - doctrine which is actually opposed to such founding documents as the Abstract - that has become entrenched and unquestioned. Add to this the virtual death of biblical theology from the pulpit, and most church members don't even have the categories necessary to understand the progressive unfolding of the eternal purpose of God accomplished in Christ Jesus - and that before time began!
When dealing with some of these issues in a former SBC church, it was common to see eyes glaze over when one began to discuss Romans 9, for instance, or John 6. The necessary framework was just not there for most. Preachers and professors bear a large responsibility for such a situation in our churches.
And boy, are you ever right - "Calvinism tends to be the tail on which the donkey of controversy is pinned..." But my experience for long years in an Arminian church tells me that such a notion is almost purely driven by prejudice. How many non-Calvinist churches have split over who knows what? I would venture to say resistance to Calvinism is almost never the problem, but it is a symptom of more radical maladies. I've known disobedient Arminians, disobedient Calvinists, and disobedient "biblicists"! Theological systems usually aren't the culprit in one's disobedience, whether the issue is evangelism or church discipline.
Thanks for the discerning, level-headed post, Tom.
Timotheos Patterson
John Calvin RIP:
If you want to participate in the conversation in at least a civil, if not Christian, manner, then you are welcome to comment. If not, then I suggest you start your own blog where you can write what you want in any way you want.
I read the main post and some of the comments earlier today before work, and then the rest of the comments just now, so if I am repeating something, it is because I can't remember what I've read beyond a few hours. :-D
Anyway, regarding the Catch-22 issue for Calvinists, I think that it is difficult for Calvinists to find the right words to convey their beliefs in most modern day churches. What I mean is, if a pastor tells a search committee that he is a "Calvinist", chances are that they will suddenly think of something that he isn't. "Calvinism" is so misunderstood, that the word doesn't signify the same thing to all people. Here at this blog, where most of us are Calvinists, it is no problem for someone to come in and say, "I'm a Calvinist." We know what it means because we are Calvinists. But in most churches, well, I don't think I need to explain all the wrong ideas that exist concerning what calvinism is.
So what else does a pastor say? He could say, "I believe in the doctrines of grace." Well, to the average person, that doesn't mean what Calvinists intend it to mean. They think, "I believe in grace, so I guess I believe in the doctrines of grace, too." A pastor could say that he believes in the sovereignty of God, but very few people would claim to deny that. So again, the phrase's meaning is lost. For a pastor to say, "I'm an historic Baptist," well most people's idea of "historic" doesn't go any further back than the 1920s.
All that's left for a pastor to do is to spend several minutes (or hours) giving a summary of Calvinism, which most search committees probably aren't interested in sitting through.
Now I am not at all saying that a pastor should reveal his Calvinism, I'm just saying that it isn't easy to do.
And as a final thought, I'm kind of suprised that there are any Calvinists who aren't quick to let it be known. There seems to be something about Calvinism that makes one want to come running out of the doctrinal closet flying his banners high.
This is a good article. I think it reinforces my belief that pulpit committees are God's curse on those who refuse to follow His Word in choosing elders. All the qualifications for elders can only be discerned by choosing someone in the church whom God has placed there and who know and are known by the church through daily living. This practice of "fruit baskets turnover" to get our elders has produced the problems noted on this posting. Cap Pooser
Dr. Ascol,
First, please forgive any incoherent thoughts or misspelled words, it is 5:37am, and I have not slept all night because I have been helping my wife take care of our 4 month old.
Your article is timely. The church that I pastor has just met as of Wednesday night and agreed to hold a vote to remove me from the pulpit because what I preach is "too calvinistic." (Three weeks ago they gave my wife, son, and myself groceries as a way to say "We love you.")
There are too many sorrowful circumstances to go over for now, but the worst of them is that they think and said this Wednesday, "The calvinism in his preaching is becoming worse." And, they are convinced that they are doing the "loving" thing by voting me out, since they don't agree with me. (They have never once confronted me on this issue, nor expressed any concerns over my preaching prior to Tuesday of this week.)
Needless to say the entire situation is a shock. I would love to speak with you, I need help and some objective thinking - and your prayers.
Glad to be at His mercy,
Eric
Eric:
I am very sorry to hear of your situation. Your experience is, sadly, all too common in our day. So many of our churches do not know how to operate according to biblical principles, especially when dealing with conflict and controversies.
I tried to figure out how to contact you, but was unsucesseful. Please feel free to email me at editor at founders dot org and send me your phone number.
Good for you for helping your wife through the night with your baby. Try to remember that this painful trial is more difficult on her than it is on you.
This is a great discussion; maybe it will make the hall of fame over there at the right of the main page! :)
I found this particularly noteworthy in the latest batch of comments I read:
"If they have it in their minds that Calvinists are hard, cold, anti-evangelistic, authoritarian theological bullies then how would we ever communicate anything differently?"
Chances are, we wouldn't. The issue of a catch 22 holds true for sure, so much so (and with the above quote in mind) that I really think it would be dishonest in many situations to introduce oneself as a Calvinist. The reason is that the well has been soo poisoned against the term that people have no idea what it means, and often believe it to mean something that has nothing at all to do with it.
So then, if we are aware of this, and we tell people we are "Calvinists" then are we honestly communicating to them what we believe, or are we getting them to believe something false about us since they have a wrong definition of the term?
I really think the latter of the two is the correct answer.
I think all of us ("Calvinists") here believe what Spurgeon said about it (who was, by the way, extremely evangelistic and an adherent to all "5 points"):
"Calvinism is nothing more than a nickname for Biblical Christianity."
He was right! What we need to do then is exegete the Scriptures, preach expository sermons, using proper context, and we'll expose these doctrines to the congregation as we go through the Bible. The Gospel of John contains them all, and when I get a pastorate, I do indeed plan to preach through that Gospel. :)
The truth is, if Calvin had never lived, these doctrines would exist. The reason is that they are BIBLICAL.
I think I'll start asking a question if and when people ask that I'm a "Calvinist." I'll simply ask them, "Well, what do you mean by that?" and see where it goes.
I'll have some more of this over at my blog eventually, but this thread has been a great blessing.
Thanks again, Dr. Tom.
SDG,
David Hewitt
Of late, I have determined not to try and defend my beliefs about "Calvinism" and here's why. What is Calvinism? To the like minded folks on this blog it has one meaning yet to the average person in the pew, I fear it has another meaning. My point is that the generic term "Calvinist" means so many different things to so many different people that I do not find it helpful.
On the other hand, I will gladly discuss any particular point of doctrine to which I adhere. For instance, I was recently asked my thoughts on "double pre-destination" to which I gladly answered.
Another unhelpful term is a derivative; hyper-Calvinism. I'm being short here but I venture to guess that a vast majority of the people who embrace reformed theology including those labeled "Calvinist" have a distinct dislike for true hyper-Calvinism. Much like the mother term though, this one is much abused and has come to mean 'any view of Calvinism that doesn't line up with mine.'
I do believe that reformed theology is Biblical and I heartily embrace it. My prayer is that it continues to be studied and embraced within the SBC and that it would be accepted or rejected based on Biblical reasoning and not on innuendo.
Likewise, I think pastors and staff persons should be straightforward and candid about their doctrine and churches should call or pass candidates based on those doctrinal beliefs. I say this as opposed to accepting or rejecting a candidate based on whether he wears the ambiguous label “Calvinist.”
David:
What you are thinking about doing has been my standard response for a while. When I respond to the question, "Are you a Calvinist?" with "What do you mean by that?" the answers often run along the stereotypical lines of one who doesn't believe in evangelism or missions, etc. Once that is made clear, I respond, "Then, no, I am not a Calvinist; at least not one like you just described." I have had some fruitful discussions as a result.
Eric,
I have prayed for you this mornning dear brother. I too would be honored to help you in any way that I can. I am sure this is a scary time for you, and your young family, but God will take care of you.
Please feel free to contact me @ aaronlturner@mac.com
Tom
thank for lettinf me back in. i will behave myself. i just wish your calvinists had a sense of humor...
the story of the pastor being let go is sad. nad for what its worth, i am very sorry to. no pastor deserves to be kicked out with nohwere to go unless he is immoral or heretical. though i dont like calvinist or dont agree it is not hersy.
there should be some type of arrangement or neogotion between them like we will give you 3 or 4 mos to find something else. the churhc needs to love everyone not just people like them
you do this--set up a fund on you're website or a bank account at your church. do it so persons can remain anonymous. i will give the first $250 for this man and his family and others like him who are treated wrongly for what they believe.
If a division or a split is a sign of something under-handed taking place, what will our critics accuse Jesus of in the sampling of verses listed below?
1)The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? John 6:52
2)From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. John 6:66
3)And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. John 7:12
4)Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?...So there was a division among the people because of him. John 7:40,41,43
A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to hear Dr. Patterson preach on the subject of predestination in chapel at Southeastern. Basically, the quote taken from BaptistFire that was made at NOBTS was made at SEBTS. Being a Calvinist, I specifically made the trip to Wake Forest when I saw his topic on the chapel schedule, and I must say that I was baffled. Dr. Patterson who fought the war for the Bible and literal truth failed to exegete Romans 8:28-9:16. He basically read the text, departed from the text, and never returned to the text. He made statements like, "How do we reconcile 2 Pet. 3:9 with Ephesians 1?" After 45 minutes of confusion from Scripture, he basically stated that we can't reconcile free will and predestination, and anyone who says they can is an arrogant, know it all Calvinist (not a quote, just an inference). He claimed that Calvinists were deceiving pulpit committees across the country and splitting churches everywhere they went.
I said all of that to say this. After chapel, I audited a class with a friend of mine who was a student. We were discussing the theological and exegetical fallacies of Dr. Patterson's sermon when we were accosted by an 18 year old kid who said that we epitomized what Dr. Patterson had just said. So with this type of attitude that is propagated and fueled from our anti-Calvinist leaders, how are we to explain to anyone, much less a theological inadequate pulpit committee what Calvinism is in 10 minutes.
This type of rhetoric is not being delivered out of a sincere care for the poor churches who happened to call a Calvinist and didn't know it. Rather, it seems that the purpose behind is to undermine true Biblical doctrine because it is seen to be a threat to the establishment of the SBC.
Oh, and by the way, thank you Dr. Patterson. After hearing that message my convictions were strengthened that God is sovereign over all things, especially salvation.
I was sitting in a church in Fayetteville, AR when Tom was speaking and asked about this very issue years before it happened to me. How do you respond to a search committee that asks if you are a Calvinist and they don't know the meaning of the word? Tom's response was to ask them "What do you mean by Calvinist?"
Years later, a church never even asked me any theological questions until after I had been there over a year. One deacon confronted me and asked me if I was a Calvinist. He called me a liar for not telling the search committee, he said that my preacing was sending people to hell. He had the deacons of the church call a "special meeting" to discuss the issue with me and they demanded that I never preach on any scripture that talks about election, predestination, or the Soverignty of God again. My preaching method was expostional so it wasn't like I was trying to shove my theology down anyone's throat. My approach was to introduce the doctrines of grace gradually as they came up in the texts I preached from.
I refused to allow them to dictate what I said from the pulpit and 3 months later I was out of the church. I resigned hoping to avoid a split, but some of the church members (even some who didn't agree with me theologically) left when they heard how I had been treated.
To the brother who is going through th