27 April 2013

Baptists and Calvinism

Today it seems that the topic of Calvinism within Southern Baptist life stirs up a curious amount of passion among its proponents and opposers alike.  As I stand back and watch, I believe I perceive what must be a pervasive ignorance among many who engage in attempting to create fear over Calvinism as if it were a gospel-perverting heresy.  As a pastor, it is easy also to observe that most people in the pews of Southern Baptist churches are uninformed on the issue, making them extremely susceptible to reacting fearfully to misinformation and mischaracterization.

The primary purpose of this blog post is to inform.  I really don't mind if you are a Calvinist or non-Calvinist.  For me, it is not a test of fellowship.  However, as Baptists I think it is critically important for us to be informed of the place of Calvinism within the Baptist heritage.

The term Calvinism, for better or worse, is derived from the sixteenth-century French pastor/theologian John Calvin.  Calvin was a Reformer (meaning he broke with the dominate Roman Catholic tradition) and conducted the majority of his ministerial work in Geneva, Switzerland.  Like other Reformers Calvin led his congregation to implement significant changes in form and doctrine, guided by a return to the ultimate authority of Scripture.  Other Reformers, such as Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli were taking on the same challenge; however, Calvin emerged as the prominent systematic theologian of the bunch and distinguished himself with his work, Institutes of the Christian Religion - a work that has never been out of print.

At this point we still have no Baptists on the scene.  However, at the turn of the seventeenth century our first groups that became known as Baptists began to emerge.  By that time two theological streams of Protestantism had developed from which Baptists could be nourished.  A theology that emphasized God's sovereignty in salvation and human affairs had developed with the first generations of Reformers (we'll go ahead and call it Calvinism) stood in contrast to a theology that emphasized man as a free agent in regards to salvation and human affairs.  This second kind of Protestant theology was a reaction to the first kind that preceded it.  This theology came to be called Arminianism, deriving it's label from Jacob Arminius, a Dutch theologian who had taken Calvin to task on some of his theological views.  One should note that the disagreements then were as strong as they are now. 

As Baptists emerged, the first ones stepped into the Arminian stream.  These had much in common with our faith cousins, the Anabaptists.  These first identifiable Baptists, who were Arminian are historically observable around 1608-12, first in Holland, then England.  However, the other stream of English Baptist development that swelled into a river were those of the Calvinistic mindset.  These congregations of Baptists first emerge in the 1630s, becoming the more plentiful kind of Baptists.

Therefore, from the beginning Baptists have had this theological dichotomy in regards to the doctrine of salvation.  This was also the case in the American colonies and throughout the development and growth of Baptists in the United States.  Calvinism has surged and waned in popularity through 400 years of Baptist history.  In recent years Southern Baptists have been experiencing a resurgence, which implies it's always been there, but is now gaining a new generation of adherents.

This resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC has been completely and totally caused by the conservative resurgence within the SBC during the last two decades of the twentieth century.  Ironically, that resurgence was predominately led by non-Calvinists.  However, a return to the authority of Scripture inevitable backtracked to a more conservative Reformed theology.  It is a fact that liberalism sprung from the theological soil of Arminianism.  A liberal Calvinist is a contradiction in terms. (I'm speaking primarily in regards to views on the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible).  Also, even those who were non-Calvinists who led the conservative resurgence were not true Arminians.

So, are Southern Baptists more Arminian or Calvinistic in their collective theology?  Most, I believe are neither Arminian nor thoroughly Calvinistic.  The only Baptists that are thoroughly Arminian are Free Will Baptists.  They believe, unlike Southern Baptists, that a person can lose his or her salvation.  This is the true litmus test for Arminianism.  The theological understanding that true believers will persevere to the end (or in Baptistese, "once saved, always saved"), is a Reformed notion (i.e. Calvinism).  I've never met a Southern Baptist who didn't believe this.

Every Southern Baptist, whether they know it or not, has been theologically influenced by Calvinism, at least on the idea of perseverance.  I believe it's safe to say that even those who are anti-Calvinists are more indebted to and have been more influenced by Calvinism than Arminianism.  However, some Baptists today and always have found some tenets of Calvinism theologically unpalatable. 

Regrettably, I think that there is also a mischaracterization of Calvinism being spun from fear based on an ignorance of history and lack of respect and trust toward Calvinists themselves, which I think overall is unfounded. When you hear some say, "Well, I'm a John 3:16 whosoever will Baptist,"  the implication is that Calvinists dismiss or diminish the significance of Jesus' words.  When you hear someone say, "Calvinists don't believe Jesus died for everyone," the intent seems to be to stir up negative emotions based on our sense of fairness, rather than engaging the relevant biblical texts in a thoughtful manner and truly attempting to understand what the tradition means by the concept termed "limited atonement."  When you hear some say, "Calvinism will kill missions," he is projecting an extreme view (hyper-Calvinism) on the whole and is probably uninformed about Baptist history. 

Baptist history is pregnant with Calvinists.  Here are a few examples.  The author of The Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan - Calvinist. The most prominent eighteenth-century English Baptist theologian, John Gill - Calvinist. The father of modern Protestant missions, William Carey - Calvinist.  The prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon - Calvinist.  The founder of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, James Petigru Boyce - Calvinist.  And there are many, many others.     

Baptists in general and Southern Baptists in particular have always been either consistent Calvinists or had Calvinistic theology to some degree embedded in them.  This is just the historical fact.  With the rise of liberalism Calvinism became a marginalized minority voice within Baptist life, but with the conservative resurgence in the SBC Calvinism is naturally finding the right soil for new growth.  This is not a surprise.

With all this said, now let me clearly say this:  Calvinism is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Calvinism is an interpretation and explanation of the Gospel.  The Gospel is what God did in His Son, Jesus, and what that means to humanity.  Calvinism is an understanding of the Gospel.  It is Augustine's famous, "faith seeking understanding." 

My appeal to Southern Baptists is to understand the history of Calvinism within Baptist life and avoid the hysteria.  My hope is that all our theology, including Calvinism, will be measured by its faithfulness to the clear teachings of Scripture, not by our emotions, traditions, or the company we keep.  Southern Baptist life has been and ought to continue to be informed and gracious enough to be welcoming of Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.  Our cooperation with one another is about the Gospel and fulfilling our Master's command to take it to the nations. 

18 April 2013

The Painful Truth about Small Churches

A friend forwarded to my email a short article by Joe McKeever entitled "10 Reasons Small Churches Tend to Stay Small."  My ministry field is a smaller one.  My town of Hazard is small.  The churches in the community overwhelmingly tend to be small.  However, like everywhere their are many unchurched people who could be reached.  The title of his essay got my attention because it is self evident that many churches do remain small and go years without reaching new people.  I was curious about this guy's take on the reasons for that fact.  He has good experience and he's a good thinker.

Before I read through the article, I decided I would evaluate First Baptist Hazard with his "reasons."  Our church, like many churches all around our Southern Baptist Convention, has been in a trajectory of decline for 50 years.  Most of it has been gradual, punctuated by a couple steep drop offs due to conflict.  Right now we are at the beginning of a long-range strategic planning process, and I am greatly encouraged.  It may be the first time this has been done in a long, long time or ever.  I'm not really sure.  Possibly, I'll blog about that at a later date.  For now, back to the McKeever article.

Here are the reasons Joe McKeever believes tend to keep smaller churches stuck and ineffective in reaching new people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I'll list them and then note how I think First Baptist Hazard relates to each one.

1. Wanting to stay small - FBC: not true
2. A quick turnover of pastors - FBC: has been true of the 2 before me (hopefully not now!)
3. Domination by a few strong members - FBC: if true in the past, not true now
4. Not trusting leaders - FBC: not true (of the vast majority as far as I can tell)
5. Inferiority complex- FBC: definitely not true! 
6. No plan - FBC: TRUE (hence, long-range strategic planning)
7. Bad [spiritual] health - FBC: not true as a whole
8. Lousy fellowship - FBC: not true (but could be better)
9. A state of neglect permeates the church - FBC: TRUE
10. No prayer - FBC: not true (but could be much stronger

There it is; the painful truth as I see it. I will have been at First Baptist this August for 5 years.  I think I've had enough time to figure out where we stand.  Of these 10 items I think we are guilty of two big time - no plan for ministry and neglect.  I think both of these specifics have emerged from an overall general apathy, which we can no longer afford.  The good news is that I believe 8 of the 10 are not reasons for First Baptist to stay small in it's thinking, dreaming, ministry, or attendance.

First Baptist Hazard is at a crossroads.  We can continue the slide and reap the pain it will inevitably bring, or we can pray, learn, talk, plan, seek, and act now.  God has called me to lead this church.  Fellow pastors, God has called you to lead your churches.  I challenge you to take this list as a prompt to consider what might be blocking the congregation God has given you to lead from being effective for the Gospel. 

Most of you out there are at small churches and some of those churches have been small for a long time.  Pray, seek, think - let God reveal to you the symptoms of your sickness.  That's the first step.  Then let God guide you to reinvigorate the church for the purpose of making disciples for the glory of God. 

Be prayerful, patient, wise, humble and kind.  Lead with the gentle nudge of a shepherd's staff, not with the swats and jabs of a cattle prod.  God provides the resources, saves the soul, and grows His children according to His own purposes and plan.  But don't underestimate your role as leader in His church in His plan.  What an awesome responsibility we pastors have! Own it and make a positive difference.            


The Two Sides of a Church's Reputation

There are at least two things that are true about reputations.  First, a good reputation is a source of blessing and favor.  Second, a bad...

More Recent Popular Posts