How Can a Calvinist Enjoy a Baseball Game?

One of my Arminian friends asked me a fun question. Noting the Calvinist view on foreordination and the meticulous sovereignty of God, this friend wondered why Calvinists even bother watching baseball. “If God has already ‘fixed’ the outcome why bother,” he asked.

The Calvinist faces a similar question concerning prayer and evangelism. Some ask, “If the outcome is already ‘fixed’ why do we even bother praying or sharing the gospel?” The answer to this one is a little more simple. We pray and share the gospel because God commands us. Spurgeon said something close to this:

"If God had painted a yellow stripe up the backs of the elect, I'd go through London lifting up coats and preaching only to them. As it is, He has not, so I preach the Gospel to all, and God brings his sheep."

But what about baseball? There is nothing in Scripture that commands us to watch baseball, so why bother? There are at least three reasons why I can still watch and enjoy baseball even though I believe that God has already “fixed” the outcome.

First, I watch to enjoy God’s history unfold. This is not to say that baseball history is anywhere near as important as salvation history. Yet that does not mean that salvation history has nothing to do with baseball history. Nor does it mean that God isn’t also writing the story of baseball.

Secondly, I enjoy baseball. I believe that when Alex Gordon makes an insanely good catch in left field that he is doing so as a gift of God. And I really do believe that it is through a very real human freedom that Alex Gordon makes that catch. I don’t fully understand how this intersects with the meticulous sovereignty of God, but I believe that Scripture teaches both. As I enjoy baseball I’m enjoying God’s story and I’m also enjoying humanity imaging God.

Lastly, I view baseball and history from a “field” view instead of from the “grandstands”. My friend noted that we Calvinists cannot rightly say, “That was a lucky catch”. I agree. So, I jokingly told him that I would from now on say, “Wow, that providentially ordained catch sure looked lucky from my finite human perspective”. And that’s the third reason why I can enjoy watching baseball as a Calvinist. If I had a view from the grandstands—where I already knew the outcome I’m not sure that I would get the same enjoyment. In fact I’m confident that I wouldn’t—because I get less enjoyment watching a game that has already been completed. But I don’t have that type of perspective. I view baseball as it is happening. Therefore, I’m still able to enjoy watching history unfold.

Whether Calvinist or Arminian you should watch baseball and enjoy it.

--

Here are a few other articles on baseball that I’ve enjoyed recently:

Our National Pastime by Kevin DeYoung

How Baseball is Like the Christian Walk by David Prince

Review of The Joy of Calvinism

Calvinism.

What comes to your mind when you hear that word? Some hear that word and start foaming at the mouth. For many this word elicits debate. Many think of a cold and stale religion. Others think of doctrines of grace that need to be vigorously defended. Some think of TULIP’s and formulas to be defended.

When Greg Forster think of Calvinism the first word that comes to his mind is “joy”. He believes that “real Calvinism is all about joy”. It is to prove this point that he has written The Joy of Calvinism.

It is not his intention to say that those that are not Calvinists have no joy. In fact Forster believes that “all the major traditions confess the same doctrines that are central to Calvinism”. The only difference is that Calvinists “preserve these doctrinal commitments more purely and follows them more consistently than other traditions do”.

After taking a brief detour to explain and defend Calvinism, Forster tackles some of those hard to swallow doctrines and shows how they are consistent with evangelical commitments and actually leads to further joy. The author attempts throughout to show how such sticky doctrines as limited atonement, unconditional election, and irresistible grace are actually just more consistent with the core of Christian belief.

First, he argues that Calvinists are more consistent in saying that God loves you personally. For every other tradition the “work of Jesus is creating a system of salvation. All it does is create the system…” but none can consistently say that Jesus died to save them personally. Save for those who hold to the Calvinistic tradition. Limited atonement teaches that Jesus actually died for actual people.

Secondly, Forster argues that adopting anything other than unconditional election leaves one in a difficult position of prioritizing systems over people. Only the Calvinist can consistently say that “God loves you so much that he will utterly demolish all obstacles in order to save you”.

He also compellingly argues that God’s love for us irresistible and unbreakable. In the new birth God completely transforms a sinners heart. Yes, contrary to their fallen wills, he gives us a new heart. As Forster explains:

God changes our natural systems of thinking, feeling, and willing not by working within the framework of our natural system, like a counselor, but by cutting out our natural system and transplanting a new one, like a surgeon.

In some ways his fourth chapter seems almost unnecessary. If God has went through such depths to save us isn’t it only logical that he would go through an equally great length to keep us. He concludes by restating his overall thesis that Calvinism does indeed help in our quest for joy in God. A lengthy appendix that attempts to answer various questions posed of Calvinism is also attached for the readers help.

My Take

I doubt I will hand this book to my non-Calvinist friends. I should restate that. I doubt I will hand this book to my settled non-Calvinistic friends. If someone is in a neutral position or wanting to learn more I believe they would benefit from this book. But if someone is a convinced non-Calvinist I doubt this book will change their minds. Not that it is isn’t good. It is. But I think his audience isn’t to a convinced non-Calvinist. His audience seems to be those of a Calvinistic persuasion that need a kick in their worship. And also to defend Calvinism to those that have only heard wrong stereotypes.

For me personally there were times when I had to put the book down and just marvel at the goodness of God. Forster is right, this doctrine ought to cause worship and profound joy. It even sparked my prayer life and gave me even more confidence that God can save anyone. Furthermore, it gave a boost in my evangelistic preaching. After reading Forster’s third chapter I put together a passionate sermon for our teenagers, opening up for them how much God actually overcomes in saving us. In it was an appeal to unbelievers as well. At least in my heart this book has done what it set out to do; give me more joy in Christ.

Should You Buy It?

It depends on what you are looking for. If you are genuinely curious about what Calvinist believe then I think this book might serve as a really helpful introduction. Or if you are a Calvinist looking to grow in your worship, at least in my experience this book will assist in that. It’s probably not a book for everybody but for those that it is written for you will be immensely blessed.

You can buy it here.

The Devotional Side of Calvinism

“Real Calvinism is all about joy”, says Greg Forster. In his book of The Joy of Calvinism he hopes to defend that statement. He believes that Calvinism is a wonderful path to rejoice in the Lord always. Calvinists have gotten a bad rap and a good amount of that is our fault. But at it’s heart Calvinism is about joy.

I’ll review the book on Friday, but in the meantime I want to give you a taste.

The trouble is that people outside the Calvinistic tradition only hear the formulas and technicalities. They don’t hear what we say ‘within’ Calvinism; they only hear what we say about Calvinism. So while Calvinists produce reams of positive, spontaneous, and devotional religious writings, the outside world never knows. If it hears our devotional voices at all, it never associates that devotion with our Calvinism; it thinks we’re pious in spite of our Calvinism, not because of it. “Calvinism” to the outside world means only the formulas, technicalities, and negations.

I pray along with Forster that this changes. A good place to start is by giving this book a read. It’s actually on sale this week for under 5 bucks.

5 Reasons a Calvinism Discussion Doesn’t Matter

Earlier today I explained why this discussion on Calvinism matters. Now I’m going to explain in what way this discussion doesn’t matter and why I wish we’d spend our efforts elsewhere. Apparently 5 points are really helpful for discussion…so in honor of all the problems those five points have caused…here are 5 reasons why this Calvinism discussion doesn’t matter.

Truth is the Spirit’s job

I don’t need to be the truth police. I cannot change someone’s heart and make them embrace the truth. All I can do is present the truth as I see it in Scripture and leave it up to the work of the Spirit. It’s not my job to beat truth into someone’s head. Besides there is a decent chance that I’m wrong myself. There are likely doctrines of which I hold (yes even important ones) of which I’ll need to repent of no more than 5 minutes after entering into heaven.

If I really believe that leading brothers and sisters into all truth is the Spirit’s job it changes the way that I interact with them. John Newton is instructive here. When explaining his position on election and perseverance he said, “If you should accede to my opinions upon my persuasion only, you would be little benefited by the exchange”. Newton knew that what really mattered was the Spirit’s work upon the man to whom he was speaking. And it made him humbly present his position, love the man, and leave the results of the discussion up to the Lord.

Unity and love are more important

I love doctrine as much as the next guy. But I’m becoming increasingly convinced that love and unity are more important. Yes I believe that the fuel for love is doctrine. But I also believe that when Jesus was praying for us his central concern was that we be united and show love for one another. And this not merely in talk but in actually loving sinners like ourselves.

These discussions serve as a great barometer of our hearts. I agree with Newton that there is a “principle of self, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a becoming zeal in the cause of God”. If in the midst of our differences love and unity flow out, then we know that gospel is gaining ground over self.

Lengthy debates are seldom helpful

Seldom do lengthy debates lead to the fruit that we desire. Even if a few people are won to a right position a good number of people are slain in the crossfire. I do see Jesus and Paul reasoning with people and even engaging in debate. Yet I never see them drawn out. (Perhaps because they entrusted the work to the Spirit).

Again I turn to Newton:

We may become wise in notions, and so far masters of a system, or scheme of doctrine, as to be able to argue, object, and fight, in favor of our own hypothesis, by dint of application, and natural abilities; but we rightly understand what we say, and whereof we affirm, no farther than we have a spiritual perception of it wrought in our hearts by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is not, therefore, by noisy disputation, but by humble waiting upon God in prayer, and a careful persual of his holy word, that we are to expect a satisfactory, experimental, and efficacious knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus.

I like to share my position from Scripture and maybe stick around for a few questions. But I’ve never found great fruit come from lengthy debates on an issue. If it gets overly heated I can’t just chalk it up to a “I’m just really passionate about this”. I know that it’s the flesh that’s warring (no matter what side of the aisle) and I know that this zeal isn’t from the Lord.

Implications matter but aren’t central

I like what Charles Simeon said to John Wesley. After outlining the things of which they agreed Simeon said this to Wesley:

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.

Yes, Calvinism will have certain implications for ministry and living the Christian life that those of a different persuasion will not approve of. The same is true vice versa. These matter. See my post on why Calvinism discussions matter. Yet at the end of the day the implications are not central.

Usually after a couple salient points these conversations degenerate into ridiculous but/if scenarios. Most of the discussion is on implications. “If we embrace this, then…” While some of these might even be true they aren’t central nor is it helpful to any sort of discussion.

Points of which we contend aren’t what the church needs

As I see it the major points of contention are not central to the gospel. Yes there are HUGE implications that come from what you believe on these issues. But they aren’t central and in many instances they aren’t even secondary matters.

Here are some of the major issues that I see:

• Can I tell a lost person that Jesus died for them? While I understand this question and what is behind it, I don’t see why it matters. The scriptural accounts of someone sharing the good news of the risen Christ are pretty simple. They share the claims of Jesus and then say therefore, repent and believe the gospel. “For whom did Christ die?” doesn’t matter when it comes to sharing the gospel.
• What did we inherit from Adam? Again this has quite a few implications. But allow me to ask a couple of questions. Are all men guilty now? So why does it matter so much to debate this? What about babies? Let’s be honest at the end of the day anything that we construct is exegetically flimsy. The best we have is that the judge of the earth will do what is right. That leaves a ton of comfort for me because I know that God is good. 
• Which came first regeneration or faith? Once again several implications from this. But does it really matter? Are there scores of people walking out there that aren’t regenerate but who have faith? Nope. Are there scores of people that don’t have faith but might be regenerate? Even if a Calvinist says yes, won’t this person then have faith? So, why does it matter? Aren’t these really inseparable graces? Are we really going to divide or debate over which inseparable grace came first?
• Are people saved because God foreknew them or because God foreknew they would choose God? Several implications to this one. But at the end of the day do you say that God saves sinners? If you do then perhaps we’re just debating about an eternal decree.

Even if we solved each of these issues and came to an agreement on them I’m not certain that all of our churches would be transformed. What we really need are passionate worshippers of Jesus that obediently live out the truth that they do know. By and large we have an obedience problem far more than we have a doctrinal unity problem. And I believe the sinful way that this discussion is often carried out is evidence of that.

What will transform our churches is a robust gospel of a holy God that is wholly other that has purposed to save sinners. Obedience to that gospel will revolutionize our churches. Falling in love with this Jesus will cause us to boldly proclaim the gospel in the dark places of our world. This same thing will create in believers a heart that treasures Christ more than the lures of the world. And we’ll be about the business of making disciples as the Great Commission compels us AND loving God and others as the Great Commandment exhorts us. 

This is what we need. Not another lengthy argument.

Why the Calvinism Discussion Matters

Last week Dave Miller posted a great article with the hopes of outlining what a productive discussion of Calvinism would require. For the most part I’m in agreement with David Rogers who said in a comment, “Calvinism schmalvinism. I never have understood why we get so hung on this one…I like your suggestions, Dave, but I will probably check out of any new round of Calvinism debate marathons.”

Entering into another season of Calvinism discussions is about as appealing as repeatedly whacking myself in the head with a hammer.

I’m fatigued by unhelpful debates about all things Calvinism/Traditionalism etc. I’m not clear of guilt myself. Though I hit “cancel reply” far more than I actually post a comment, even still I’m not immune to leaving a comment I wish I hadn’t. I’d say that my fatigue has even shown in some posts that I’ve written.

A good part of me wants to only write an article that shows why this Calvinism discussion doesn’t matter and we all ought to just move on. (That article will be posted later today). Yet I do believe that Calvinism matters. I don’t think it’s just some tertiary issue that has no bearing on the Christian life.

I don’t want to surrender the truth of Calvinism. I say that not for the sake of some “ism” but because I believe that it best describes how God saves sinners. You can call it Billy-Bobism for all I care. The name means little. What matters to me is a theology that unblushingly proclaims that God saves sinners. At its core I believe that God revealing how He has saved us is for our joy and comfort and His glory.

If God has revealed Himself to us in this fashion for our comfort far be it from me to say that it doesn’t matter. So in one sense Calvinism does matter. I believe it leads to greater joy and comfort for us and greater glory for the Lord. I believe it is the truth of Scripture and as such it needs to be embraced.

But at the end of the day you can’t make someone swallow it. God can change affections, I cannot. God can mold us to truth, I cannot. Therefore, I want to pursue this balance that John Newton spoke of:

I allow that every branch of gospel truth is precious, that errors are abounding, and that it is our duty to bear an honest testimony to what the Lord has enabled us to find comfort in, and to instruct with meekness such as are willing to be instructed; but I cannot set it my duty, nay, I believe it would be my sin, to attempt to beat notions into other people’s heads.

Later today I’ll show in what way this discussion doesn’t matter…

--

If you dig this article you may also like this one: What Should a Newtonian Calvinist Say in a Pastoral Interview?

Why I Wouldn’t Want to Attend the John 3:16 Conference Even If I Weren’t Reformed

On March 21-22 the second John 3:16 Conference will be held. The purpose of this conference will be to inform local churches of the viewpoints of New Calvinism. It is to be part of the continued discussion on the Calvinist Resurgence within the SBC and broader evangelicalism. Those speaking will defend a non-Calvinistic (or a self-dubbed Tradiontalist viewpoint).

They will be discussing topics like limited atonement, inherited guilt, regeneration and faith, historical views of salvation, election, and the sinners prayer among other things. It looks like it could be an interesting conference. And I appreciate that Jerry Vines’ intention is that all the speakers be “irenic in tone, theologically well versed and evangelistic and missions minded.” Yet…

I have no desire to attend

And that has nothing to do with the fact that I am Calvinistic. I’m not up in arms that these men will be promoting a theology that is not my own. In fact if this were a conference led by Calvinists that had the same topics I would also not have a burning desire to attend. Why? I’m very similar to John Newton in that I like my Calvinism as I do my sugar:

‘I am more of a Calvinist than anything else; but I use my Calvinism in my writings and my preaching as I use this sugar’—taking a lump, and putting it into his tea-cup, and stirring it, adding, ‘I do not give it alone, and whole; but mixed and diluted.’

Conferences like this hold very little appeal to me because I think they are largely distracting. And if I had any counsel to give to the non-Calvinists among us I would say that it would be to their benefit to make their non-Calvinism like their sugar.

If your position is true then proclaim it as truth and stop spending so much time battling this New Calvinism. If it’s of the Lord then you’re battling Him. If it’s not of the Lord then it’ll eventually die and fizzle. Just keep proclaiming the truth as faithfully as you can. God’s is faithful to His gospel and He’ll lead His church into all truth.

Honestly I think this is part of the reason why Calvinism has seen a resurgence…

T4G

Fundamentally, I would argue that Calvinism is surging for God-ordained reasons. But even if you don’t care to agree with that, consider with me the practical reasons. You have to admit that there is a great movement among younger generations to focus on Christ and His gospel and not be tied down by a ton of controversy. I believe that is part of the appeal of Together for the Gospel for my generation.

Look at the 2006 conference. Yes, all the speakers were Calvinists. But that’s not the driving force in the conference. That year it was preaching. Their Calvinism was used like sugar; mixed and diluted. In 2008 the only message that was overtly Calvinistic was John MacArthur’s on the doctrine of absolute inability.

2010 and 2012 were the two that I have been able to attend. And I left those conferences without one thought about Calvinism. I left those conferences reinvigorated with a love for Jesus and a new drive to engage in Christ-honoring ministry. Why? Because though all the speakers are Calvinists and their Calvinism shapes everything it is “mixed and diluted”**.

And this is the way it ought to be. That’s why when I hear conferences like T4G being advertised I get excited and hope that I can attend. Sure it makes me comfortable knowing that these guys largely have the same theological leanings that I do. But at the end of the day what really drives me is a passion to see Jesus Christ the only boast of this generation.

This is also why I wouldn’t attend the John 3:16 Conference even if I weren’t Reformed. I’d likely stay away from a John 6:44 Conference as well. For me it depends on what the driving force is behind the conference. If it’s a get together to discuss theology and you hope that everybody leaves being informed about New Calvinism, Old Calvinism, Good Calvinism, Bad Calvinism, Ugly Calvinism, or anything of the sort I’ll stay home. As much as I like to discuss theology, I’ll save my limited conference money to go to some place where I’m going to walk away enthralled by the risen Savior.

I want to attend a conference whose aim is in some fashion to enjoy God and extend His glory.

----

**Now those with an idea that we Calvinists are involved in some sort of vast conspiracy will turn that “mixed and diluted” phrase and say that they are hiding their Calvinism and that people are swallowing errant theology without even knowing it. I guess theoretically that could be what is happening. But as one being shaped by the Spirit’s use of this movement I believe it is something much different. These men aren’t obsessed with Calvinism. They are Calvinists and yes it impacts the way they see everything, but it’s not the driving force behind these conferences.

How Our “But” Keeps Us From Obedience

“If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all”
Romans 12:18

Yesterday, I posted an article that was mostly a quote from John Newton on the necessity of living at peace with our brothers and sisters in Christ though we have theological differences.  It’s a really tremendous article that you should read.  I can say that because my words are only those of introduction, Newton is the one that drops the gospel bombs. 

As I was reflecting on Newton’s words, and even more the words of the apostle, my “but” voice reared its ugly head.

But certainly there is a place for intense debate and dialogue. 

But isn’t orthodoxy just as important as orthopraxy? 

But doesn’t Jesus say that He did not come to bring peace but a sword?  How can I live peaceably with all if I am proclaiming an offensive gospel?  Ahhh, yes that is why Paul said, “so far as it depends on you”.  The gospel is offensive.  Sinners don’t like the gospel.  Therefore, you can chalk their charges of abrasiveness to their hatred for the gospel. 

But Arminians are in error and an Arminian view of the gospel will inevitably harm the church.  (There, I said it).  If I believe something is in error am I not just being a good pastor to fight those that are ignorantly feeding the sheep something that will harm them?  Isn’t there a time to stand up and fight?  Even if it’s those within our own ranks. 

But those on the other side of the aisle are lobbing stink grenades at us.  They are hoisting up straw-men, torching them, and then mocking our theology.  Doesn’t truth matter anymore? 

And those of you that are more of the Arminian stripe can woundedly look at the example two paragraphs up and say But I’m offended.  How can we do NOT do battle when you say things like my theology is in error?  How can we really love one another when you think I’m wrong?

Each of those “but’s” has some legitimacy.  Truth does matter.  But just because truth matters it does not mean that our charge to live at peace with one another and not to devour each other is somehow negated.  Just because we have a “but” that we may rightly need to obey it does not let us off the hook of obeying the other truthful proposition. 

Some of us are wired to latch onto the “peace” type of verses and every time we hear a “fight” verse we throw out our “But…peace”.  Others are more geared to latch onto the “fight” verses and every time we hear a “peace” verse we throw out our “But…fight”.  Though our “but” might be true we cannot neglect the truthfulness of the other side. 

May we not let our “but” keep us from diligently pursuing obedience.

---

Given the pattern of my blog, I doubt anyone will comment on the Newton article. I  pray it will be read and digested, but I seriously doubt anyone will leave a “but” type of comment.  However, because Scripture tells me to live at peace with everyone I want all readers to know that though this article will post a day or more after the previous article, it is NOT in response to any comments.  Because at present there are not any. 

My Biggest Problem With the SBCToday Critique of The Gospel Project

It could easily be argued that the Conservative Resurgence was a battle for the Bible.  We fought hard to ensure that Southern Baptists would continue to be a “people of the book”. Through those tumultuous years Baptists displayed that we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture. 

Fast forward to the year 2012. 

Calvinism and Traditionalism is all the talk within the SBC.  The Gospel Project curriculum from Lifeway has been one prominent locale for this battle to wage.  And that is my biggest problem with the SBCToday critiques, thus far, concerning The Gospel Project; it’s more about whether or not it’s written by those with Calvinistic convictions than if its biblical. 

As noted in an article yesterday the first substantive critique from Pastor Ralph Green is filled with logical fallacies.  What bothers me most about that is not the existence of logical fallacies but the prominence of the genetic fallacy.  The genetic fallacy is “committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.” 

The center of the argument so far has been that more non-Southern Baptist theologians (often Reformed) have been quoted instead of Southern Baptist theologians that are not Reformed.  Therefore, the material is Calvinistic and ought to be rejected by Southern Baptists that are not Calvinist. 

It has yet to be considered whether or not what John Piper says in a quote is biblically correct.  Or whether Matt Chandler is proclaiming the gospel and biblical truth.  Or if at this point Francis Schaeffer absolutely nails it.  No, what has been considered is whether or not they are Reformed.  And that bothers  me because it means that we are no longer “a people of the book” because our criteria for accepting or rejecting an argument appears to no longer be the Scriptures but a particular theological leaning.

If you go through the Gospel Project and honestly find that it is not biblically accurate or biblically dangerous then by all means lets reject it.  But if it proclaims biblical truth, exalts Christ, and promotes a solid biblical theology let us embrace it even if we don’t agree with every jot and tittle of the theology of every contributor and person quoted. 

Are we a “people of the book” or a people that are more concerned about someone being Baptist than biblical?   

7 Questions with Greg Dutcher: Author of Killing Calvinism (Part 2 of 2)

On Saturday I posted the first part to my interview with Greg Dutcher, author of Killing Calvinism.  Below is part 2

5. You mention in the book that some things about our theology make you uncomfortable. You also, and I love this point, encourage us to be real and acknowledge those difficulties. What is the biggest thing about Calvinist theology that makes you uncomfortable?

I try to show that every Christian, regardless of his theological stripe, has some emotional discomfort with at least something. I've never met a Christian who did not emotionally balk at the concept of an everlasting hell, for instance. Of course having some emotional reticence does not threaten the existence of a doctrine so there really is no danger in admitting that we may struggle with certain aspects of our theology. Has it EVER bothered me in some way that God does not choose everybody to be saved? At the risk of having my Calvinist card revoked, I would say have to say "yes- sometimes it has bothered me." A non-Calvinist friend of mine was very appreciative of me admitting that. He told me that too often Calvinists come across as "Stepford" wives who seem robotically at peace with emotionally difficult doctrines.

Of course it is difficult to come to terms with our inability to choose God on our own. We live in a culture where choice is king. We have already made countless free-will decision before our car keys are in the ignition. There is no reason we need to fear admitting that it can be hard to accept the fact that sin has wrecked our will beyond our worst nightmares.

6. How could this book benefit a non-Calvinist?

My hope is that non-Calvinists might scratch their heads and think, "Huh- maybe it's not as much the theology of Calvinists but the attitude of Calvinists that has bothered me so much." Once a distinction is made, maybe they won't throw the baby out with the bath water. Of course I'm not so naive to believe that our non-reformed friends will simply come to embrace Calvinism after one of its advocates admits a bunch of his blunders. But I do hope that they will sense genuine love and respect from a dude just trying to handle his Calvinism well.

7. All of Christendom has decided that the issue of Calvinism will be settled by a wheel-barrow race. You've been chosen to select the two racers for Team Calvin. Team Not-Calvin is championed by John Wesley and Billy Graham. Who do you pick to lead us to victory? And why?

Wow- that's a tough one. To be consistent with Team Non-Calvin, I'll pick a dead Calvinist and a live one too.

I hate doing this, but Spurgeon edges out Calvin to me. Even though I'm bypassing the guy my theology is actually named after, I just can't think of anyone who can beat Spurgeon in eloquence or passion.

Then I'd have to go with Piper as the modern Calvinist. Why? Because he's the 21st century Spurgeon in my opinion. Eloquence, passion- I just can't think of anyone else who can match him in today's pulpit.

GO TEAM!

---

Thanks for doing the interview Greg.  And I pray that the Lord blesses your ministry and your writing.  Thanks for this helpful little book.  It’s my prayer that many will read it and that the Lord will use it to expand His Kingdom. 

You can get the book here. 

7 Questions with Greg Dutcher, Author of Killing Calvinism (Part 1 of 2)

One of the best books that I have read in 2012 is Greg Dutcher’s, Killing Calvinism.  I was very happy that Greg agreed to answer 7 questions about his book and his ministry. 

1. What means did God use to make you a more humble Calvinist?

Like many fresh-from-the-factory Calvinists, I never considered that there could be any deficiency in me. The problem was in other people's inability to embrace what I had discovered. When some of these folks got their feelings hurt or found me distasteful it all simply confirmed my belief that I was being attacked for standing up for the truth. Sadly (and I remember saying as much to reformed friends) I considered their negative reactions a badge of honor that I wore with pride. Of course, had I thought about that word "pride" just a little bit longer perhaps I would have been humbled a little bit sooner.

Like many Calvinists I learned in the school of hard knocks. There was not one stand-out experience per se but the aggregate effect of many experiences eventually caught up with me. At some point my heart changed, and I started seeing myself as the least common denominator in all of these unpleasant interactions. And at the risk of attributing too much to one man, John Piper and the long-term effect of his preaching powerfully effected me. He combined two things that I had rarely seen fused, unashamed Calvinism with uncommon humility. As I devoured his books and sermons, the Lord gradually showed me that true Calvinism leads to humility not pride.

2. Tell us a little about your church, some of the things the Lord is doing.  Also, what are you most excited about seeing God do there?

I absolutely love Christ Fellowship Church! By God's grace I planted it in the summer of 2003, so at 9-years-old it is really beginning to build some history. It is an independent, non-denominational church, and that has to do a lot with my own eclectic make up. We are probably most similar to an Acts 29  church, but when I planted it, we knew nothing of the Seattle-based movement. We average about 300 people each week, and we are really beginning to understand the implications of the gospel for missional living. Our community groups are increasingly becoming a more central part of our congregational life. My own goal (although I know that no church ever reaches it) is that each person would be intimately involved in a spiritual family where he is growing as a learner, servant and missionary. 

The majority of the attenders probably don't even know that the preaching/teaching they get each Sunday is "reformed." I rarely use any of the buzzwords (Calvinism, doctrines of grace, T.U.L.I.P.) from the pulpit. Those who are looking for it, can always tell (the running joke is "he must be getting a chunk of the royalties from those Piper quotes"), but I have been very intentional in teaching authoritatively from the text of Scripture itself.  The only "ist" label mentioned at CFC is "Biblicist." That is what I'm hoping my people become in increasing measure.

In the last year we have had several lost people come to saving faith in Jesus. In almost every case it has been in the context of suffering and death. Just last week I baptized a couple in their 70's who just came to faith in the past year. The doctrine of God's sovereignty (especially in difficult circumstances) has become especially precious to me.

3. How do you typically respond to an aggressive non-Calvinist?  Do you respond?

I do not always respond if the emotion is reaching fever-pitch level. I tell about a few such examples in the book. But if emotions are somewhat under control then I usually try to diffuse any negative emotion by talking about my respect for non-Calvinists like Billy Graham, John Wesley or D.L. Moody. I then ask if they knew of the friendship between Wesley and Whitefield and how they had a gentleman's agreement to not let their differences in soteriology keep them from partnering in the preaching of the gospel. I find that once the non-Calvinist knows that he is respected (as he should be!) as a fellow brother in Christ, then genuine conversation can begin. 

At that point I usually start from a total depravity angle. I find that most Bible-believing Christians readily accept the portrait of mankind's sinful state. What they often need help with is thinking through the implications of this portrait. When a Christian accepts that mankind does not submit to God's law because he cannot (Romans 8:7), then sovereign election and irresistible grace are almost necessary to make sense out of the salvation of any sinner. From there the issues of God's eternal decree, fairness, etc... become easier to discuss.

4. How would you disciple a young-Calvinist that is blowing all 8 of your points?

Easy. I would just invite him to learn from my mistakes! Seriously! I can easily furnish ample illustrations of how I killed my Calvinism. Of course all of that is a negative approach (don't do this), and I would seek to balance that with a (do this instead) positive approach.

I wish every Christian had the privilege of knowing Roscoe Adams. He was a fellow elder, equal to me on a leadership level but a father to me on a spiritual level.  He died on April 22 of this year, and he never got to see that the book was dedicated to him. It will take me a long time to move past my grief at his loss. He was a humble, gentle and joyful Calvinist.  I would suggest that each person find his own "Roscoe" and learn from his example.

----

Be sure to check back in on Monday for part 2 of our interview.  In the meantime you may want to check out my review and the TweetNotes for Killing Calvinism.  If the book seems interesting to you then you can get it on your Kindle for around $5. 

TweetNotes for Killing Calvinism by Greg Dutcher

Killing Calvinism is a tremendous book by Greg Dutcher.  In the book Dutcher gives eight ways that Calvinists can throw on the brakes to the resurgence of Calvinism and kill a perfectly good theology.  I would encourage you to also check out my review of the book as well as the TweetNotes. 

#1 Calvinism isn’t the goal, it’s the windshield.  #leadstoGod?#promotesholiness? 

#2 Being like Christ is the goal not being like Calvin.  Good theology w/cold affections=garbage theology.

#3 God is more than sovereign.  #allHisperfections #allHisexcellencies

#4 God’s Sovereignty should compel life and lips of mission not laziness

#5 God uses and speaks through non-Calvinists, don’t read and listen like He doesn’t

#6 Every verse matters.  God doesn’t need spin-doctors.  #letthetextspeak

#7 A prideful Calvinists, though all too common, is an oxymoron #andamoron

#8 Be honest with your discomfort and empathetic with the discomfort of others #lovethosethatdiffer

This book is very helpful and I recommend it for Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.  You can purchase it on your Kindle for about 5 bucks or get the hard copy for under 10. 

Review of Killing Calvinism by Greg Dutcher

Calvinism is on the upswing.  So much so that it made Time Magazines list of 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now.  Calvinism has become a great point of discussion—and even concern—for those within the SBC.  Calvinism is a big deal in the current climate of evangelicalism, whether you are for it or against it.

Greg Dutcher, is for it.  Yet, he also warns that Calvinists could easily destroy this good theology from the inside.  In his book, Killing Calvinism, Dutcher gives eight ways that Calvinists can throw on the brakes to this resurgence and kill a perfectly good theology.  Here are his eight ways that Calvinists can destroy Calvinism

1. By loving Calvinism as an end in itself
2. By becoming theologians instead of disciples
3. By loving God’s sovereignty more than God himself
4. By losing an urgency in evangelism
5. By refusing to learn from non-Calvinists
6. By tidying up the Bible’s “loose ends”
7. By being a bunch of arrogant know-it-alls
8. By scoffing at the emotional hang-ups others have with Calvinism

These eight points serve as the eight chapters and fill the 120 pages of this little book.  Dutcher argues each point forcefully and yet graciously.  He writes as a former “caged-Calvinists” that has been re-captured by the sovereign grace that he adopted theologically. 

My Take:

Honestly, I did not anticipate being deeply challenged by this book.  Not that I’m not a Calvinist and not that I did not expect to agree with the book.  Problem is I assumed that I would just nod my head with everything Dutcher said, promote it to a few newer Calvinists I know, and move on. 

You see I too was once a caged-Calvinist but the Lord has mightily worked in my heart to humble me and help me to live and proclaim the sovereign grace that I theologically affirm.  So, I’ve already been through the fire and I don’t struggle with being a bad Calvinist anymore. 

At least I thought I didn’t. 

Reading through Dutcher’s work exposed a few vestiges of both pride and inconsistency in my walk with Christ.  There were a few moments in the book where I found myself soundly rebuked.  Funny thing is I think I had even taught some of these points myself, but the way that Dutcher worded them and proclaimed them brought conviction to my soul. 

Here is a helpful sample for you to see how Dutcher is passionate, forceful, and yet very gracious:

A disciple is a student of Christ—someone who spends time with the Savior in order to come to know him better and resemble him more closely.  As a pastor, I have found that many Christians simply assume that learning more and more about the Bible and theology—Reformed theology in particular—is the same thing as growing as a disciple.  It isn’t.  Robust theology can be a powerful catalyst in this process, but like anything else, we can turn it into an idol.  The danger is that, while we may begin with Reformed theology as the framework by which we more coherently understand and appreciate our faith, over time it can become the substance of our faith.  At that point, daily living is more about mastering Reformed doctrine than being mastered by Jesus and his total claim over every area of life. 

Should You Buy It?

Every Calvinist needs to read this book, whether you’re a new member to club Calvin or you’ve been a Calvinist longer than Charlton Heston has been Moses.  Even those that are non-Calvinist ought to read this book and see the heart of many within the Reformed/Calvinistic movement.  We truly do want to live out the doctrines of grace as Greg Dutcher describes in this book.  When we don’t it’s not a fault of the “system” but of our own hearts. 

You can pick up this book for your Kindle or a hard copy. 

THE Statement and My Solution

Yesterday, I promised a solution to the entire fiasco over Calvinism in the SBC. 

Here it is… 

One word…

Festivus. 

In case you are unfamiliar with Festivus it is a made-up holiday from Seinfeld* that is celebrated around the time of Christmas.  During Festivus family members sit around a table and “air their grievances”.  According to Frank Costanza, “at the Festivus dinner, you gather your family around, and tell them all the ways they have disappointed you over the past year!” 

That may be what the SBC needs. 

At this years family get-together (the SBC Annual Meeting) let’s block out about 4 hours and have our own little Festivus.  We will have the Tradionalists take to the mic and let us Calvinists know exactly what their grievances are.  Is it our theology?  Tell us.  Is it some hybrid form called New Calvinism and the real problem isn’t theology but it’s an attitude?  Tell us. 

During this “Airing of Grievances” Calvinists must remain silent, stroke their beards and listen.  (If any Calvinists is not bearded or any Traditionalist is, then that can be covered during the “airing of grievances”).  No blogging.  No tweeting.  No coughing.  No reading the Institutes.  No putting together a ready defense.  Just listen.

Then the Calvinists get a turn.  Do you feel that a few straw-men have been erected and then torched?  Tell them.  Do you want to discuss what appears to you to be Semi-Pelagian?  Tell them. 

And just as it was for the Calvinists, during this “Airing of Grievances” the Traditionalists must remain silent and use their Libertarian free wills to simply listen.  No blogging.  No tweeting.  No giving of altar calls.  No cutting up the Institutes.  No putting together a ready defense.  Just listen. 

Once we have aired our grievances and we know what we are really dealing with and we know areas that need to be repented of, perhaps we can forge ahead and then decide whether we want to amicably part ways or whether or not we want to use some sort of document (like maybe the BF&M) as our guideline for cooperation. 

Is Festivus the Only Option?

At this point Festivus seems like our only answer…

That is apart from humility, repentance, and a painful gaze at our own soteriological camp.  But I think the airing of grievances may actually be more fun to watch.  Perhaps we could sell tickets and support local missions.  We may need another Festivus to decide how the money should be spent, but it could be wise to schedule these every year from here on out. 

In all seriousness, I do believe that it would be helpful for us to actually agree about what we are disagreeing about.  Perhaps some sort of “Airing of Grievances” would be beneficial.  But until we are in a spot to suspect ourselves more than our soteriological counter-parts I doubt it’d do more than generate blog traffic.  It may be better to save the more pointed critiques for your own camp and leave playing defense up to the Lord.  

That’s my solution.  Do with it what you will, SBC. 

P.S. Those of you that get to attend NOLA can decide whether or not you want to challenge the newly elected President to a “Feats of Strength” in order to adjourn. 

---

*By the way “The Statement” would make a great name for this particular Seinfeld episode we seem to be living through in the SBC.

If you like Seinfeld here you go:

THE Statement and My Confusion

On May 30th a shot was fired across the SBC Blogosphere in the form of a document entitled A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.  (Actually prior to its hitting the blog world, Tom Ascol had posted an article alerting some that such a statement was forthcoming). 

Since that initial article there have been numerous statements for and against.  SBC Today has put forth several articles defending the document and there have been a few at SBC Voices defending it as well.  There have been over 500 signatures to the document.  A good number of Southern Baptists appear to be supportive and generally backing this statement. 

Yet, it is not without its controversy.  There are several that have responded negatively to the statement.  The charge of semi-Pelagianism (or at least appearing to be Semi-Pelagian) has been leveled; and this even by those outside of the SBC.  Dr. Mohler has weighed in.  Dr. Jerry Vines has responded.  It’s a big deal and will certainly spill over into the SBC’s Annual Meeting next week. 

My Take

You probably know that my soteriological leanings tend towards being Calvinistic.  Or to put that another way I prefer TULIP’s over ROSES.  But you also know that I’m like John Newton:

‘I am more of a Calvinist than anything else; but I use my Calvinism in my writings and my preaching as I use this sugar’—taking a lump, and putting it into his tea-cup, and stirring it, adding, ‘I do not give it alone, and whole; but mixed and diluted.’

As such I am, honestly, a tad disappointed at the way some of responded to the statement.  That’s not to say that I’m not equally befuddled by some of the responses to those responses.  For the most part I think that there are significant theological differences but for the most part we are just talking past one another. 

Without getting into any of the theological issues at this point, my major contention with “The Statement” deals with the way the entire discussion has been framed.  And I believe that this is really why we are doing nothing more than talking past one another, arguing about terms, and really only looking like a dumb dog chasing it’s tail for every passerby to laugh at. 

Confusion

“What is the issue?”  That is the foundational question that I want to ask to those that framed and signed the document. 

If the issue is doctrine then let’s respond with statements of belief and disagreement.  Let’s discuss the issues, determine if it’s a second-tier or third tier issue, and decide how to either cooperate or sadly decide how to amicably part ways.  If the theology of Calvinism is the issue and we are discussing whether or not we need to rid the SBC of Calvinists then let’s discuss that. 

However, from the document itself it seems like they are saying something different.  It sounds as if they are saying something similar to this, “While, we disagree with Calvinist theology it is not the theology itself that has really caused us to write this statement.  What has necessitated this document is the rise of a new form of militant and aggressive Calvinists that are wreaking havoc on our beloved SBC”. 

And that just confuses me.  It confuses me because whenever I deal with any angry and aggressive Calvinist, Arminian, Semi-Pelagian, Steeler-fan, or country music fan I don’t typically engage them with a confessional statement.  It may do us a little good to argue about the merits of hating country music--and I would be sure to win that argument--but at the end of the day you aren’t going to “win” a battle with an angry and aggressive adherent to any doctrine (heresy or orthodox).  Anger and militancy is a heart issue that won’t be changed by a confessional statement.  Such a statement will only make angry and aggressive types foam at the mouth quicker than a seeker-sensitive youth group popping Alka Seltzers. 

So, if the Statement was meant to get a group of people together to stop militant and aggressive Calvinists then sign me up.  They won’t get them to sign the confessional statement but I bet they could get a whole host of SBC Calvinist to put an end to an angry and aggressive posture.  Again, I’m not sure who they are, specifically, but if I find ‘em I’ll do my best to calm them down.

As it stands you have a group of people saying we believe Calvinists and non-Calvinists have worked together for centuries (so the theology itself is not the biggest problem) but we Traditionalists have to fight against this “new Calvinism”, and here is a document showing why Calvinism is in error.  Meanwhile we are left to debate terms, the growing influence of nameless people, and somewhere along the way ask what the Bible says about how we come to faith in Christ. 

Tomorrow I’ll give my idea for a way forward…

Interacting with @AlbertMohler’s Response to the “Traditional” Statement of Faith

If you have not yet had the chance to read Dr. Mohler’s response to A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation then take go here and take peek and then come back.

As I read through this response I was nodding my head in agreement.  I appreciate his posture of not wanting to shut down dialogue but continue this discussion.  I further appreciate his reminder that lost people and future generations are observing not only what we discuss but how we discuss it. 

I appreciate Dr. Mohler’s response and I am in agreement with him.  That probably does not come as a surprise to any of my readers that know me.  I’m not a Mohler-bot but I do appreciate the man and his ministry and I’m probably going to read things with less suspicion than others. 

Having said that there are two things in this document that I believe those that read Dr. Mohler with suspicion will latch on to. 

First, will be this statement:

The more Calvinistic Southern Baptists, and here I include myself, are deeply theological and passionately concerned to get the Gospel right. The Calvinists I know are transforming their beliefs into an absolute renaissance of missionary commissionings and Gospel church planting. At times, however, Calvinists can be tribal and elitist, more concerned with counting points of doctrine and less concerned with pointing us all to the mission of the Gospel. Such a tribalism is inconsistent with the very beliefs we cherish. This goes to show that we, too, can be inconsistent in faith and practice. Of such tribalism we must all repent.

Perhaps because of feeling burned by Dr. Mohler’s prior statements some will read this as if he is saying that “Calvinistic Southern Baptists are more theological and passionate than non-Calvinists”.  Yet a careful reading will show that he is merely comparing Calvinistic passion and missions with it’s opposite of tribalism.  Non-Calvinists are not even on his mind here.

He is saying something similar to this.  I love giraffes.  I love watching them eat with their huge necks.  I am amazed that a single kick from a giraffe could decapitate a lion.  I could sit and watch them for hours.  Unfortunately, because I love giraffes so much I can be prone to neglect some of the other exhibits at the zoo.  Monkeys are pretty cool too but sometimes I’m too busy watching the giraffes to notice what the monkeys do. 

There is nothing in the above that should imply that the reader does not love giraffes as much as he does.  Your passion for giraffes or monkeys is not the issue.  The point being made here is that a passion for giraffes can lead to a neglect of monkeys.  The former is brought up to give emphasis to the latter.  And that is all Dr. Mohler is doing in his statement about Calvinistic passion for missions.  It is no statement about non-Calvinists.

Second, will be Mohler’s statement directly after stating that it “appear(s) to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings of sin, human nature, and the human will — understandings that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied.”  Mohler then qualifies his statement by saying:

I do not believe that those most problematic statements truly reflect the beliefs of many who signed this document. I know many of these men very well, and I know them to be doctrinally careful and theologically discerning. Some of these very men have served most boldly in the defense of the faith, and they have taught me much. We should be honored by the privilege of a serious theological conversation with one another, and we will all speak more carefully when we are respectfully questioned by those with whom we disagree.

Some will read that and be offended because Dr. Mohler is charging those that signed it as not being careful nor discerning in this particular statement.  As a whole he believes that they are those things—but this document (whether writing it or signing it) betrays what normally describes them.  Once pressed he believes they will back down from this statement and hopefully clarify it’s meaning because as it sounds it appears Semi-Pelagian. 

Now, some will accuse Mohler of arrogance here.  But I want to consider his options.  If after reading the document he believes that Article 2 “appears semi-Pelagian” he has two options.  1) To believe that the signers and writers knew that it was semi-Pelagian.  Didn’t care that it was semi-Pelagian and continued down that path.  2) To believe that the signers and writers of the document were simply mistaken or were not careful in the way that it was worded.  Perhaps they are meaning something different by terms that are usually used by semi-Pelagians.  In this case with further discussion they will show that they are in fact NOT semi-Pelagians. 

Given those two options I am glad that he chose the second one.  Article 2 appears very semi-Pelagian.  There is no way around that.  What has to happen now is an explanation of the article.  Are you semi-Pelagian and okay with that?  Do you deny semi-Pelagianism but need to perhaps reword it for the sake of clarity? 

Conclusion:

I appreciate Dr. Mohler’s response and stand with him and many others that believe the Baptist Faith and Message is a sufficient document for us to partner together for the sake of taking the gospel to the nations.  While going out to reach the lost we can debate in the car how God works behind the scenes to bring about salvation.  But when our feet hit the pavement we will stand shoulder to shoulder declaring Jesus Christ the only hope of the nations. 

Magic Always Comes with a Price: The Conservative Resurgence and Calvinism

I’ll need to know where to go to forfeit my man card once I reveal this confession.  Last winter my wife introduced me to a new series on ABC called Once Upon a Time.  I don’t merely endure this show.  I actually look forward to it coming on and my wife and I have made it a Sunday evening tradition.  Fellas, as soon as your laughter and disdain dies down a little try to stomach this video:

I would have liked to have gotten a little better quality video without editing but this was the best that I could find.  The main thing for you to take away from this is what Rumpelstiltskin about magic.  “Magic always comes with a price”.  In each case the person desiring to use “magic” gets what they want for a season but inevitably pays a price much steeper than they desired to pay. 

My Experience with the CR

In the late 70’s and early 80’s the Southern Baptist Convention found itself embroiled in a controversy between liberals and conservatives.  By mentioning the Conservative Resurgence (CR) I just opened up a big emotional can of worms for everyone that lived through it.  Opinions abound on every side. 

Personally, I did not live through it.  Well, I technically did live through some of the CR but I was more concerned with greater things like controlling bowel movements and making sure that I got to watch ALF.  In others words I was but a wee lad that new about as much concerning SBC life as Al Mohler knows about the KC Royals starting lineup. 

However, for one of my classes I read through A Hill On Which To Die and write a review.  Not only did I read through that book but there were various others with snippets about the CR that I needed to know for my class on Baptist History.  All of this to say that I know about the CR only from a distance and what I have read as an interested historical observer.  I didn’t have front row seats. 

Yet I do remain a beneficiary of the Conservative Resurgence.  I am very conservative in theology and I thank God for the conservative resurgence. I am ecstatic that I can attend the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and know that it is a bastion for truth and is dedicated to the glory of God. One could not have said that for many years prior to the Conservative Resurgence.  So I remain indebted to the CR.  Yet I’m not sure it wasn’t without it’s price…

“Magic” Comes with a Price

What happened in the CR is that a majority of the SBC were not liberals.  Yet, they were being increasingly led by liberals.  The seminaries were churning out students and staffed by those far more liberal than most SBC churches were comfortable with.  Yet, the Cooperative Program dollars that each church sent into the SBC was being used—it seemed—to further the cause of liberalism. 

In the Conservative Resurgence a group of people gathered together to “take back the Convention”.  By mastering the political structure of the SBC these leaders discovered how to slowly but surely elect conservatives to outweigh liberals on every vital board.  They came to realize that the Convention President held the key that would eventually trickle down to a conservative leaning Board of Trustees for all entities that would then elect conservative seminary presidents (like Albert Mohler) as well as literature, missions, and seminary professors. 

For the next several years a battle within the SBC for control and power was lived out at every annual convention.  Again, I am thankful in many regards for this battle.  I am happy that a powerful liberal minority did not win the day (especially given the trajectory of some of those now outside the Convention).  I am glad that the conservatives won the battle.  Yet, I am left to wonder what was the cost of the battle.  You don’t engage in war without having a few battle wounds.

The Calvinism Question

As I somewhat reluctantly scan through the recent articles and discussions about the place of Calvinism within the SBC I cannot help but hear some of same verbiage that took place in the CR.  It appears—at least to me—that one of the battle wounds coming from the CR is that conservatives have become jaded and some seem to have one eye open for any that might again try to take over the convention.  In part that is good and I am thankful for this. 

Yet, Calvinism is not liberalism.  There is no need for a Calvinist “takeover” or “taking back the convention” from Calvinists because we are largely on the exact same team.  Calvinists and Non-Calvinists happily linked arms to fight against liberalism.  And now we seem to be fighting one another.

It appears to me that the “magic” that was used was a firm understanding of how to “have power” within the SBC.  And now it seems that some are weary that Calvinists might be using this “magic” to wrest control of the SBC.  I cannot help but wonder if there is not a movement similar to what took place at the Cafe du Monde to put in place a plan to take back the convention from any Calvinistic leaders. 

Could there be a Calvinistic Conspiracy to gain control of the SBC.  I assume so.  But it could also be possible that the resurgence of Reformed theology is not some sinister plot to take back the SBC.  In fact I think by the somewhat ecumenical nature of the movement such a thing could be easily disproven.  Together for the Gospel may benefit the SBC but at the end of the day it has little do with it politically.  The same thing goes for the The Gospel Coalition and John Piper. 

I guess it is possible that some within the SBC are using Piper, TGC, T4G, and Acts 29 as pawns in their scheme of SBC world dominance.  But Piper, TGC, Acts 29 and many within T4G seem to have little concern about the SBC.  Can I be really honest with you for a second?  As a young pastor within the SBC I have to confess that when I dream about things very seldom is it the expansion of of the SBC.  My dreams are centered around the gospel.  I love the SBC.  I believe it is a wonderfully useful tool for missions and for the most part a great fellowship of mostly like-minded believers.  But I, and many of those like me, have very little concern about controlling the SBC.  We just want to see the gospel thrive. 

My point in all of this is to say that just as magic comes with a price so did the CR.  And one of those things is looking at one another with an heir of suspicion as well as a real or perceived battle to see who is pulling the magical strings that were unlocked by the CR. 

It is my prayer that our greatest concern is not of what stripe the leaders in the SBC are when it comes to Calvinism or whatever, but that our greatest concern is whether or not we as a whole are promoting the gospel, exalting the name of Jesus, and taking His powerful gospel to the ends of the earth.  Are we discipling people within our local churches to love Jesus more and to live our live sin such a way as to express the greatness of His worth?  If those “pulling the strings” in the SBC are doing these things then I don’t care if they have pictures of John Calvin above their bed-frame or Adrian Rogers. 

I fear that we may have bought some magic that carries a price a little steeper than we wanted to pay.  Thankfully, my fear is overcome by the truth that Christ is greater and deeper.  He can unite what others divide.  May He heal not only the SBC but also continue to use her to further His kingdom. 

The Root of Angry and Divisive Calvinists: Summary

Part One: What Happened to Mark?
Part Two: Is Seminary the Problem?
Part Three: The Root
Part Four: Knowledge that Puffs Up
Part Five: Letting Disputes Die, A Sign of Healing
Part Six: Epilogue, Or What Continued Happening to Mark
Part Seven: How to Help an Angry and Divisive Calvinist
Part Eight: Why the Title?

I pray that this series was beneficial.  It may also be helpful to check out this series at SBC Voices and the comment threads, especially on the first two parts.  (Note: That Part 5 at Borrowed Light is missing at SBC Voices, so parts 6-8 are 5-7 at SBC Voices). 

In response to some of the kickback from post 1 at SBC Voices I penned this article that you may also find helpful:  Brothers, We Must Do Better.

The Root of Angry and Divisive Calvinists: Part Seven

You probably have a “Mark” in your life.  We want to be living in the epilogue and not in the beginning of the story.  Here is how to help the “Marks” in your life.  If “Mark” is not a Calvinist but is carrying some other doctrine in an angry and divisive manner I think the advice could still pertain. 

Also keep in mind that I’m a Calvinist who sadly used to be a little too close to Mark.  These are some of the things the Lord used in my life—both from Calvinists and non-Calvinists to help me walk more faithfully in step with the Spirit and not be “Mark”. 

Calvinists helping “Mark”

1. Love him.  If God has given you the grace to be a humble Calvinist then rather than dismissing angry and divisive young Calvinists you need to love them and do the difficult thing of entering into their lives.
2. Model humility when discussing doctrine (any doctrine) with those who differ.  Differ and teach others with gentleness and respect.
3. Call him out on his arrogance, pride, and divisiveness (after #1 has been firmly established).
4. Minister with Arminians.  I say Arminians but I really mean any that aren’t hardcore Calvinists like Mark.  He wants to make everything about Calvinism.  Put people in his life who really don’t care much about the issue but just want to see Jesus glorified.  This will season him and help him see there are more important issues than whether or not a man’s favorite flower is a Tulip.
5. Be a consistent Calvinist and push Mark in the same way.
6. Have him read fiction, biographies, and practical books just as much as doctrine. 
7. Have him teach children.  (Or better yet have him get married and have his own children—though I wouldn’t suggest you being in control of this).
8. Hang out with dead guys (John Newton, Charles Simeon, Robert Murray McCheyne, etc.)  These guys will agree with him doctrinally but their humble hearts will be contagious
9. Be Trinitarian.  We Calvinists love to give lip service to this but we can easily become doctrine centered and not fixated on the beauty and majesty of the Trinity.  The only thing that can really help Mark is a better grasp of the gospel—or perhaps the gospel having a better grasp on Mark.  Keep the gospel central not his Calvinism.
10. Entrust “Mark” to the work of the Spirit.  He’s not an unbeliever he’s just acting like one at times.  The Spirit wants Mark to be a humble and consistent believer more than you do.  He’s in charge of Mark.  Entrust the Spirit to mold and shape Mark’s heart. 

Non-Calvinists Helping “Mark”

If Mark is like many angry and divisive Calvinists then he is sinning by making Calvinism the issue instead of love.  He will probably have less respect for you and your walk with Christ simply because you are not a Calvinist.  He will try to convert you to Calvinism so that you finally get ministry correct.  He will not be quick to listen to you or even to fellowship with you.  This is sad.  This is sin.  But this is a painful reality (though not as pervasive as some would have us believe).  Still you are called to help Mark…

1. Love Him.  It will be hard because Mark is going to insult you. 
2. Don’t argue theology with him.  This is what he wants.  A Calvinist will never win this argument with an angry and divisive Arminian.  Same goes for someone trying to win this debate with an angry and divisive Calvinist.  Even if you win who cares—you’ve both lost because “Mark’s” heart hasn’t been addressed.
3. Have him hang out with dead guys.  Your chance of “softening” Mark is pretty negligent.  But you can certainly put a few of these men in his life that are Calvinists who will season him.  Have him read a healthy dose of Newton or Charles Simeon. 
4. Make the Gospel Central.  If you have a high view of God’s sovereignty, you love Jesus, you care about doctrine, you share the gospel with people, etc. then hopefully Mark will begin to see past his silly idea that Calvinism is the most important question you can ask of somebody.  Help him see his (and your) identity is in Jesus and not adherence to TULIP.
5. Entrust “Mark” to the work of the Spirit.  He’s not an unbeliever he’s just acting like one at times.  The Spirit wants Mark to be a humble and consistent believer more than you do.  He’s in charge of Mark.  Entrust the Spirit to mold and shape Mark’s heart. 

Many of those in the Calvinists helping “Mark” could be applied here as well but I have intentionally kept this list more short and to the point.  The biggest thing you can do is to love “Mark” and point him to people that he will naturally trust and respect (just because they were the Scarlet C).  Keep plodding along, keep preaching the gospel, keep growing yourself, and keep loving Mark and entrusting Him to the Spirit.  Your goal isn’t to get him “un-Reformed” your goal is to get him to love Jesus more and to trust the Spirit.  If Calvinism is false don’t worry—the Spirit will work on Mark’s heart and fine tune his theology as well. 

The Root of Angry and Divisive Calvinists: Part Eight

This will be the last installment in this series.  Hopefully it has been helpful. 

One of the greatest critiques that has come to this series is the title.  Why in the world would I have titled this Angry and Divisive Calvinists if the real issue is not about Calvinism?  Why bother with the potential vitriol that could come from people on either side of the issue?  There were three main reasons why I wrote this series and titled it the way that I did:

First, I wrote this series for angry and divisive Calvinists.  There really are angry and divisive Calvinists.  Yes, there are those that are angry and divisive in other theological camps as well.  But right now Calvinists are in the minority.  Sometimes when you are in the minority there can be seeds of anger and pride crop up.  I want to see consistent Calvinists.  I want to see Calvinists be known for their grace as much as their doctrine.  So, in one sense I did write this post about Calvinism and to angry and divisive Calvinists.  Calvinism is not the problem angry and divisive hearts are.  But there is a certain way that anger and divisiveness can hi-jack Calvinism and I want to address that.

Secondly, I wrote this series for those who view Calvinism as the problem with angry and divisive Calvinists.  I hope that this series has made the point that the way to help “Mark” is not to change his doctrine but to be a means that the Spirit uses to change his heart.  We can continue to discuss the merits of Calvinism or non-Calvinism and compare them against Scripture.  We can even have very strong opinions and truly believe that the other person is in error and really hope that they embrace the doctrine we hold.  We can faithfully teach what we believe.  But at the end of the day it is the Spirit’s work to mold and shape His children—not ours.  The world doesn’t need to be filled with Calvinists or Arminians.  The world needs to be filled with the glory of God shown through the passionate and single-minded worship of His redeemed. 

Thirdly, I wrote this series for those that have a “Mark” in their life.  Regardless of the doctrine that “Mark” holds so dearly I want to give you encouragement and a few pointers on being a means for his help.  The “Mark” in your life needs the gospel just as you do.  Love him and shepherd him towards the Good Shepherd. 

Conclusion:

Perhaps the title was simply stupid.  It is possible that it undercut my entire point.  I don’t think it did—I think it was necessary.  I just don’t see a title like The Root of Anger and Division being something that would hook us and startle us to pay attention.  I told the story of Mark the way that I did because I want angry and divisive Calvinists to see that there are Mark’s and he is a problem.  I also want non-Calvinists to know that Mark’s problem isn’t his theology it’s his heart. 

Hopefully this was helpful…

The Root of Angry and Divisive Calvinists: Part Six

Epilogue: What Continued Happening to Mark

Angry and divisive Mark is no more.  Next month Mark will be returning to Podunk Baptist Church.  This time as a new man.  He still has his beard, he still hold to much the same doctrine, but he holds it differently. 

It had been eight years since his disaster of a revival service.  Mark left the people wounded…and truth be told Mark left wounded as well.  His desire to “set his old church straight” came from a mostly good desire—though Mark will admit that it was mixed with a good deal of pride and bitterness. 

A good part of Mark thought that his former church would embrace the doctrines which have led to much growth in his own Christian walk.  He was shocked and dismayed to be met with rejection and to have caused somewhat of a division within the ranks of Podunk. 

Now Mark is a different man.  After much repentance on the part of Mark and healing of broken relationships he is being invited back to Podunk Baptist.  His doctrine hasn’t changed but his heart has.  This time Mark will be lovingly and passionately preaching on the excellencies of Christ. 

What happened to Mark? 

Shortly after his disaster of a revival service Mark went back to his seminary community.  He called upon one of his favorite professors—a faithful defender of all things Calvinism.  He figured that if he could have about 15 minutes of venting to this professor he would feel better.  Even more so he probably would be given a few tips about how to defend his doctrine even better and help those that differ to come to grips with what the Bible says about God and His sovereignty in salvation.

Mark was shocked when instead of a “go get those rank heretics” he was met with a gentle and loving rebuke.  This wise professor was every bit the Calvinists that Mark is in doctrine.  But something this professor had that Mark didn’t was that he was a  Calvinist in his heart.  He held the doctrines of grace quite graciously.  He trusted the sovereign Lord even in theological differences.  Through years of ministry, study, and life with the Spirit he had come to grips with the importance of love. 

Thankfully for Mark and for the Podunk Baptist’s of the world this dear man took Mark under his wrinkled wing.  He modeled for him the love and grace that every believer (nobody his stripes) should live.  He loved Mark and taught Mark to love.  They still chatted Reformed theology, they still even debated some texts, and at times disagreed with non-Calvinists but the way this dear man “debated” was contagious.  You see this old man was much like John Newton.

As Newton once said:

'I am more of a Calvinist than anything else; but I use my Calvinism in my writings and my preaching as I use this sugar'—taking a lump, and putting it into his tea-cup, and stirring it, adding, 'I do not give it alone, and whole; but mixed and diluted.'

His Calvinism was superseded by something more important—the gospel.  Yes, men like Spurgeon and even Newton could believe in one sense that “Calvinism is the gospel”.  (You can debate for yourself the wisdom of such a statement).  But at the end of the day we see with men like Spurgeon and Newton that fellowship, love, and advancement of the gospel trumped Calvinism.  Not that it was insignificant.  Their Calvinism permeated their fellowship, their love, and their advancement of the gospel, but it wasn’t the whole or end of any of those things—God and His glory were. 

Next time I will offer a few basic tips if God places an angry and divisive Calvinist in your life…