Yesterday we briefly discussed the recent Christianity Today article about Calvinism and the fact that they have short-sightedly called the recent upsurge a “comeback.” All in all, the article was pretty fair and included talks with people like Mark Dever and John Piper as well as theological critiques. While I understand many sincere theological disagreements with Calvinism, one of the things that continually surprises is in fact just how weak many of these arguments are. This was certainly highlighted in the Christianity Today article.
Listen as Wikipedia provides some of the most popular definitions to that proverbial notion known as the “red herring:”

• A type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one’s point by means of irrelevant arguments.
• In politics, a minor or even phony issue trumped up as being of great importance, in order to influence voters to vote for one party or candidate and against the other, or distract from more important issues that might help the opposing party.
• In literature, a plot device intended to distract the reader from a more important event in the plot, usually a twist ending.
• In detective work, mystery fiction and puzzle solving, a false clue which leads investigators, readers, or solvers towards an incorrect solution.

Providing a foreshadow of things to come, early in the article, the author makes the following comment:

“Already, this latest surge of Reformed theology has divided Southern Baptist churches and raised questions about the future of missions. Its exuberant young advocates reject generic evangelism and tout the benefits of in-depth doctrine. They have once again brought the perennial debate about God’s sovereignty and humans’ free will to the forefront.”

Really? The last I heard it was the issue of speaking in tongues that was dividing Southern Baptist churches specifically in the area of missions. And just what questions “about the future of missions” are being raised? I don’t know a single Calvinist who wants to replace evangelism with a systematic theology course and simply because many believers ignore the sovereignty/responsibility tension certainly doesn’t mean they don’t face it. But I’m getting ahead of myself. The truth of the matter is that the major arguments used here against Calvinism are nothing more than red herrings.
The article highlights two particular opponents of the upsurge in Reformed Theology and its interesting that both are Southern Baptist. Malcom Yarnell, associate professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Steve Lemke, provost of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary both offer concerns. Yarnell says:

“The greatest tragedy is when adherence to TULIP leads to division in churches and prevents them from cooperation in, and urgency for, a passion toward fulfilling the Great Commision.”

He concludes: “Southern Baptists are first, last, and always followers of Jesus Christ, not John Calvin. No, Southern Baptists have their own cults of personality, but that’s not really the point. Throughout the article itself are numerous references to “Calvinists” who have never read Calvin and the article also points out that the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism” were not drafted by Calvin himself. Surely Yarnell knows that this argument carries little weight and is little more than a straw man. It’s actually his other comments that I want to consider in a bit more detail, but I want to first consider Lemke who argues that

“the Calvinist churches of the SBC’s Founders Ministries lack commitment to evangelism. For many people, if they’re convinved that God has already elected those who will be elect . . . I don’t see how humanly speaking that can’t temper your passion because you know you’re not that crucial to the process.”

There’s a common thread between the comments of Yarnell and Lemke and that seems to be a concern over evangelism. While neither in this context throws the charge of hyper-Calvinism, the idea looms large in the concerns of both and frankly, is nothing more than a red herring. Have there been Calvinistic churches that don’t evangelize, certainly, but if you want the cold hard truth, I could point to many more “free will” churches that don’t evangelize so the problem is not one of doctrine. In fact, as the article notes J.I. Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God not only demonstrates that Calvinism does not preclude missions, Piper’s own Let the Nations Be Glad further defies these stereotypes.

Whereas Lemke can’t see how election “humanly speaking can’t temper your passion,” many others have the exact opposite reaction. The argument that Calvinists don’t evangelize or engage in missions is simply theologically irresponsible. Many of the great missionaries of the past (and present) have been fueled by the strength of God’s sovereignty and been freed from feeling as though they had to convince anyone. Instead, we are to faithfully proclaim God’s message, which we have unquestionably been called to do as a “crucial” part of the process.

Within the SBC it is entirely possible that Calvinistic churches have fewer baptisms. But then again, when there is a call for one million baptisms in a single year, churches that take the ordinance more seriously will by necessity have fewer numbers. Calvinists reject the notion that a pragmatic count of numbers is an appropriate guage of our success or failure in making disciples (Matthew 28:18-20).

While I recognize that any theological system will have deficiencies, I find it interesting that the most common arguments raised against reformed theology are so often entirely unmerited and in fact false. Folk wisdom has some insight when we’re told not to eat the yellow snow. Maybe it’s time we expanded that to reject red herring as well.

• Read Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer
• Read Let the Nations Be Glad by John Piper