It’s likely that many of our mothers used a similar proverb to try and tame our tongues: “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” While a bit on the pragmatic side, it’s not a bad sentiment (even though, growing up, I would sometimes use my silence to speak in place of my words!). It seems to draw on several Scriptural sentiments while at the same time not taking them quite far enough. The Bible certainly has much to say about our words. For example, see James 3 in which James examines the destructive power of such a small member of the Body.

Yet, biblically, it doesn’t seem to be enough just to not speak evil of someone. In fact, Paul challenges us in Ephesians 4:29 to

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

It seems interesting to me that one of the areas in which we often forget this and similar admonitions is that of theological disagreement. Though we may not resort to Luther’s tendency of outright name-calling, we often leave charity at the door when it comes to theological disagreements. And, it seems, the “more important” the disagreement, the louder our voices become (or the more ALL CAPS sections appear if we happen to be typing). And yet, it’s Augustine who is credited with coining a phrase that ought to guide many of our theological pursuits: Unity in what is essential, Liberty in what is non-essential and in all things charity.

Don’t get me wrong. If you know me or if you’ve read here even for a short time, I hope that you know my dedication to theological precision and Biblical fidelity. I am passionate about the Truth of God and have dedicated my life to its study, presentation and application. Though by some standards I’m not an old man (it seems to depend on who you ask!), I’ve been a Christian long enough to be on both ends of some less than charitable doctrinal discussions, which now breaks my heart and I’d wish I had understood more of charity in many of those discussions.

I’ve also come to realize that a lack of charity is sometimes more subtle than an angry tone or outright name-calling. Theological study is often quite difficult. It requires the ability, not just to see “big-picture” ideas and how they relate to one another, it also necessitates attention to detail and the desire to wade through that muck many call “nuance,” grasping shades of detail and how those different shades color the “big picture” differently. And it also demands the willingness to understand the positions with which you differ. It’s generally a good rule that if you can’t explain an opposing viewpoint in such a way that someone who holds that position could say “Why, yes, you’ve said that well,” then you’re not fully prepared to present an opposing viewpoint. In most theological discussion, it would seem that we’re brothers and sisters in the faith, the least we could do is love one another enough to present the other’s position accurately.

And yet, this small modicum of Christian charity is far too often missing in theological discussion. I am the first to admit that I am often quite guilty, so I don’t pretend to point the finger with clean hands. But it’s out of guilt that I can also plead with my brothers and sisters not to make the same mistakes, which leads me to the issue at hand.

Some of you have read the recent Baptist Press article regarding “Calvinism” and Evangelism entitled “Evangelists Lament Calvinism, SBC Trends.” According to the piece, “A group of 15 evangelists meeting in Jackson, Tenn., Jan. 7-8 said they have concerns about the growth of Calvinism and the rise of a Willow Creek-style of non-confrontational evangelism within Southern Baptist churches.” I don’t think the meeting meant to equate Calvinism with “Willow Creek-style” evangelism, but I’m also not quite sure what the two had in common to the be major themes of this meeting. Regardless, the piece goes on to note that the meeting was initiated by Jerry Drace, “an evangelist from Humboldt, Tennessee: and that:

Drace told the group he currently is working with some young pastors who are “so leaning in this morphed Calvinism that they almost laugh at evangelism. It’s almost to the extent that they believe they don’t have to do it. So [Calvinism] gives them an excuse not to do evangelism.”

I do not know Jerry Drace, nor have I ever heard his name prior to reading this piece. But, what I take from these comments is that Drace is promoting the old rebuke that Calvinists don’t evangelize because they (we) believe that God has predestined those who will be saved, so why should I present the Gospel if God’s going to save who He’s going to save regardless (Mr. Drace, if I have misrepresented your concerns, please let me know and accept my apologies). Yet it’s interesting that, intentionally or not, the author of the piece, Michael Chute, Professor of Journalism at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee has already exposed the folly of Drace’s argument in the same piece.

Earlier in the piece, before he quotes Drace regarding evangelism, Chute references recent research conducted by LifeWay. The study, released in November, found that “10 percent of Southern Baptist pastors identified themselves as Calvinists. However, 29 percent of recent SBC seminary graduates espoused Calvinist doctrine.” Chute then expounds on some of the report’s other findings:

The study concluded that a minority of SBC churches are led by Calvinist-leaning pastors, but that number is increasing. Also, Calvinist-led churches are generally smaller in worship attendance and baptisms than non-Calvinist churches. However, the study said the baptism rates between Calvinist and non-Calvinist led churches are virtually identical. Additionally, the study found that Calvinistic recent graduates report that they conduct personal evangelism at a slightly higher rate than their non-Calvinistic peers.

In case you missed it, let me repeat the last line for you: Calvinistic recent graduates report that they conduct personal evangelism at a slightly higher rate than their non-Calvinistic peers. So, what LifeWay found actually contradicts what Southern Baptists at nearly every level are saying. Jerry Drace says that Calvinists use their theology as an excuse “not to do evangelism” while Christianity Today, in a recent piece called “TULIP Blooming,” references Frank Page, saying that he “worries that extremists could undermine the SBC’s emphasis on outreach.”

Just as I do not know Drace, I do not know, nor have I ever met Frank Page. But I do know that these sentiments are not new nor rare in the Southern Baptist Convention. This is all the more true with the new that Al Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, will be nominated as President of the Southern Baptist Convention itself. Calvinism has found itself as the center-piece of controversy in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.

Yet, I would argue that it’s not Calvinism per se that is the controversy, but the misunderstanding of doctrine by Calvinism’s opponents, as demonstrated by the denomination’s research unit itself. While LifeWay is saying that recent seminary graduates who identify themselves as Calvinistic (that’s another can of worms of what exactly that means, but it’s not a can to be opened today) actually engage in personal evangelism at a “slightly higher rate than their non-Calvinistic peers,” many Southern Baptist leaders are saying that Calvinists don’t evangelize.

You can biblically disagree with the theological understanding known as Calvinism. That’s fine, but in the name of charity, I would beg these Southern Baptist leaders to stay clear of mis-representation. Let’s just publicly say we disagree and say why, but let’s at least be fair to one another’s positions. The charge that Calvinists don’t evangelize is not true to history or current experience. Nor is it consistent with the theology of mainstream Calvinism in any of its presentations.

It’s interesting that Drace attacks “morphed Calvinism” and Page worries about “extremists.” Yet neither define (at least in this context) what they mean by those terms. Yes, there has historically been an approach known as Hyper-Calvinism which has, in practice, not evangelized (see some of the historical debates over missions and even some Primitive Baptist churches today for examples). However, this has been condemned by the larger Reformed community and is not the belief nor practice of most “Calvinists.” Yet, the two, Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism are more than not equated in attacks like the ones we see here. This is neither intellectually honest nor loving.

Imagine the uproar that would swell if I accused my Arminian brothers of Open Theism, saying that it was the logical end of the teaching that salvation is up to the individual? If it’s up to the individual, then God is not in control over that situation and if He’s not in control of that situation, then maybe He doesn’t know the future, because it hasn’t been decided and maybe Open Theism isn’t so far off after all (Just for the record, I am not accusing Arminians as most understand and practice the theology of being Open Theists). Such arguments would not be tolerated, nor should they be. Yet, this seems to be exactly what is happening when many leaders condemn all Calvinists as Hyper-Calvinists.

In the name of charity, for the pursuit of “building up” and giving grace to those who hear,” I must again beg these and other Southern Baptists to please be fair. I am deeply troubled by these recent trends and it is through the lens of my own mistakes that I can beg my brothers and sisters to remember charity, even for the Calvinists.

• Read the Baptist Press piece “Evangelists Lament Calvinism, SBC Trends”
• Read Christianity Today’s piece “TULIP Blooming”
• Read Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer
• Read Let The Nations Be Glad by John Piper
• Read Chosen By God by R.C. Sproul

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed