***This was originally under a different title, but I think I misconstrued a term used in it.***
SBC.net has on its webpage today the Executive Committee’s Presidential report (see here) presented by Morris Chapman on 6/23 at the SBC Convention. This is the first time I had the chance to read the entire transcript (I was unable to be present for the presentation, as my eldest daughter had swimming lessons). I appreciate the opening tone Chapman took when addressing the convention, calling for Baptists to flee the temptation for cultural relevance at the sacrifice of the Gospel and to flee the temptation of comparing one self to another other than Christ.
What particularly stood out to me in his presentation were his words warning against vain-ambition:
To those of us who are always pressing for a higher profile in convention life or climbing the ladder of ambition, the LORD would tell us that the greatest place is the place of service. It is the lowly floor of the basin and the towel, not the throne of power and authority. We must prefer to kneel at another’s feet in service, than to stand in the synagogues and street corners. And when God chooses to bless one of his servants for their faithfulness, we must avoid watching with benign interest – and often a critical spirit. We must follow the example of Christ himself, and seek to be the servant of all.
Wise words to all, especially to us young ministers getting started in the ministry. Am I seeking to make myself known – to gain recognition and respect of others - or am I seeking to move up the ministerial ladder, or am I seeking to serve the Lord through humble service of His people. Sadly, I believe I find myself too often desiring to make a name of myself rather than seeking to minister to God’s people and reaching out to the lost.
Chapman recognizes the sense of change sweeping our convention and encourages Baptists to abstain from a critical spirit and to cooperate for the furtherance of the Gospel.
Oddly, Chapman’s address moves from encouraging to what seems a critical (spirited) treatise against Calvinism. Per Chapman:
The Southern Baptist Convention is experiencing a resurgence in the belief that divine sovereignty alone is at work in salvation without a faith response on the part of man.
Some are given to explain away the “whosoever will” of John 3:16. How can a Christian come to such a place when Ephesians says, “For by grace are you saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8)? I do not rise to become argumentative, or to change minds already convinced of one perspective or the other. But I do rise to state the obvious. Man is often tempted to design a theological theory in light of a biblical antinomy in order to clarify what God is trying to say.
Man’s system will be inferior to God’s system now and forever. Why is it so difficult to accept from God what we cannot fully explain? After all, He didn’t begin to tell us everything He knows, but what we need to know to be redeemed and live righteously. The belief that sovereignty alone is at work in salvation is not what has emboldened our witness and elevated our concern for evangelism and missions through the ages. This is not the doctrine that Southern Baptists have embraced in their desire to reach the world for Christ.
If there is any doctrine of grace that drives men to argue and debate more than it drives them to pursue lost souls and persuade ALL MEN to be reconciled to God – then it is no doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man both are taught in the Bible. Both are necessary elements in the salvation experience. A healthy tension (an antinomy) exists in the Bible with regard to these two important biblical truths. Both are present in the salvation experience.
As Alan Cross at Downshore Drift asks:
So, why Dr. Chapman? Why do this here and now? I am wondering if he was trying to illustrate that many of the proponents of the GCR are Calvinists and he was trying to show that Calvinists are not really Great Commission people so a GCR supported by Calvinists was an oxymoron. I know that Dr. Chapman disagrees with the GCR on the basis of Article IX which calls for a reorganization of the SBC, but could he have brought up the Calvinism issue to try and create a wedge in people’s minds before the vote tonight?
My question, though, is whether Calvinism is the real issue at hand? I understand that many hold to Calvinism in the SBC, but how does Chapman define Calvinism here? There are Calvinists who hold to the idea that because God elects some to salvation, then believers have little to no reason to evangelize. This view, however, is not representative of all Calvinists, and probably not even to a majority of Calvinists. Some hold to only parts of Calvinism, while some hold to all five points of Calvinism all the while holding the belief in the biblical mandate to evangelize the lost with the Gospel. Complaints and arguments made against Calvinism within SBC circles seem to have failed defining what exactly is meant by “Calvinism.”
Back to my original question, though (is Calvinism the real issue?) … I believe what some are reacting to is hyper-Calvinism (an unbiblical view). This, I believe, is a legitimate concern for the church. Anyone who sees evangelism as unnecessary is treading in very dangerous theological waters. However, to use the term “Calvinist” in this way and to paint all Calvinist in this light is to commit a hasty generalization. In addition, non-Calvinists are using the charge of “Calvinism” in the sense of “hyper-Calvinism,” then why is it that “Calvinist” institutions like Southern are heavily involved in missions – the very act of going out to evangelize the lost? Why are “Calvinist” believers (see Timmy Brister, one that comes immediately to mind) very passionate to see the lost won to Christ and carrying out this passion by actually evangelizing the lost?
I believe some are also operating from the idea (or fear?) that Calvinists (in whatever sense used) will soon require the doctrine of Calvinism as a measuring stick for membership in the SBC. This, however, is unfounded. What evidence is there to back this claim up? Instead of facing Calvinists with arguments supporting one’s view against Calvinism (and for whatever soteriology they hold to), some instead argue from generalizations and unsupported opinions. So, if Calvinism is truly the issue at hand – the issue of concern for our denomination for the lack of drive in reaching the lost – then I am unclear as to exactly why it is other than a reaction from fear of a “Calvinist takeover” on the part of some or a misunderstanding of what Calvinism is in the context of the SBC.
Chapman is somewhat correct in stating: “If there is any doctrine of grace that drives men to argue and debate more than it drives them to pursue lost souls and persuade ALL MEN to be reconciled to God – then it is no doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ.” But, in the case of the SBC, is it the doctrine that is driving believers to debate more than seeking the lost, or is it our pride and our own doctrinal stances?
The real issue, then, is the seemingly lack of drive to reach the lost on the part of SBC churches (in general), and this a result not of Calvinism in our midst. Rather, the lack of drive for evangelism is a result of our pride and self-service. To regain our evangelistic fervor that once defined the SBC, we must repent and seek the Lord’s face, seeking to serve others in humility. This repentance and renewed evangelistic drive, I believe, is now happening in our denomination; may the Lord’s Spirit sustain within us a broken and contrite heart.
Filed under: SBC | Tagged: calvinism, Morris Chapman, SBC, SBC Executive Counsel, Timmy Brister
Danny,
You write:
“The real issue, then, is the seemingly lack of drive to reach the lost on the part of SBC churches (in general), and this a result not of Calvinism in our midst.”
The issue of the rise of a passionate missionary form of Calvinism in the SBC and the long term apathy of many Non-Calvinist in the SBC toward evangelism and missions is one that I believe will occupy volumes in the future history books of the SBC.
In one very real sense the rise of this passionate missionary form of Calvinism in the SBC that has lead to us now seeing a vastly disproportionate number of young Calvinist in the SBC becoming missionaries and Church Planters is due to the fact that for many years these young Baptist Calvinist have suffered a constant barrage of criticism from the Non-Calvinist of the SBC (especially from the older generation) that Calvinism kills evangelism and missions. This criticism appears to have had an unintended effect on these young Calvinist. Instead of turning them from Calvinism, as the Non-Calvinist critics had hoped, it spurred these young Calvinist to become the most passionate and dedicated missionaries and church planters the SBC has seen in many generations.
So while many of the Non-Calvinist in the SBC have become apathetic toward evangelism and missions, the Calvinist are on fire for evangelism and missions. This is absolutely fascinating!
I do not want to take up too much more of your comment space, but I would like to add that the Calvinist emphasis on regenerate church membership, and the Non-Calvinist lack of emphasis on regenerate church membership, has played a fundamental role in what we see going on in this generation of passionate missionary Calvinist in the SBC. Simply put, those who are not regenerate have not passion for either evangelism or missions. And if the Calvinist are gathering more regenerate (though less numbers of) members there will be more passion for evangelism and missions these Calvinist than we see in some of the larger mega-churches that we often hear so much about.
Anyway… thanks for letting me share.
Grace Always,
To borrow a thought from Philip Ryken – All men are Calvinists when on their knees in prayer. For what would be the point of praying for the salvation of the lost if it was up to man to choose? Chapman quotes Eph. 2:8 but didn’t finish the passage because it’s clear that even faith is a gift of God and not a work of man.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The debate comes when either side begins to pridefully hold to their doctrinal stance out of a sort of intellectualism. The proud calvinist is more the oxymoron than the missional calvinist, for the doctrines of grace leave no room for pride.
Thanks for the comment, and I like the quote you provide. I can understand Chapman’s frustration with those who hold to God’s sovereignty so much that they neglect our missional call; however, I believe the non-Calvinists in our party who rant against Calvinism paint all Calvinists as such, which I really don’t think is the case.