The Silent Holocron

Man, it’s turning out to be a prolific morning.

Soon after reading Nathan Finn’s article in the previous post, I went over to the Tennessee Baptist & Reflector to browse the current articles and found this article.

I’m not even going to provide any commentary; instead I will reproduce it here in its entirety and let it speak for itself. What follows is the article so linked.

Regardless of position, it is time for a cease fire
By Reggie Weems

The discussion concerning Calvinism is as important for the Southern Baptist Convention as it is healthy. It certainly demands ongoing dialogue moderated by truthfulness, sincerity, respect, and charity. This is because the tone of the discussion is as important as the conversation itself. The convention “discussion among friends” (at the SBC annual meeting in June) between Paige Patterson and Al Mohler set an excellent precedent for knowledgeable interaction balanced with a display of spiritual candor (Galatians 5:22-23). Any future discussion of Calvinism in Southern Baptist life should also possess the same kind of humble and sincere respect for brothers, displaying a “walk worthy of the vocation” (Ephesians 4:1) to which Christian ministers and gentlemen are called. Sadly, this spirit is lacking in many public monologues (be they preaching or print), turned diatribes, about Calvinism; a model of which appeared as a recent editorial in the Baptist & Reflector.

Its very title, “Calvinists have no sense of urgency” possessed an argumentative tenor that immediately revealed a predisposed bias that clearly lacked documentation. A well acknowledged history of Calvinism reveals the missionary fervor and evangelistic urgency of such well known Calvinists as William Carey, the father of modern missions; David Brainerd, missionary to the American Indians; Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, a First Great Awakening pastor and evangelist respectively (Whitefield was a dear friend and co-laborer of the non-Calvinist John Wesley); Adoniram Judson, the first Baptist foreign missionary; and Charles Spurgeon, a 19th century paragon of evangelism who considered Calvinism “a nickname for Christianity.” Neither the Calvinistic founders of the Southern Baptist Convention or the Convention’s Calvinistic presidents for its first 50 years of existence lacked urgency, as the documented history of that missionary enterprise reveals.

Once past its egregiously erroneous title, the article begins with an unnecessarily sarcastic statement about predestination and is afterward replete with broad, sweeping, unsubstantiated accusations founded on the self-confessed ignorance of a subject chosen by the author. In short, the article should not have been written without more factual information or Christian charity for fellow-laborers in Christ. If Calvinistic pastors comprise no more than 10 percent of SBC pastors, it is statistically impossible for the former to be responsible for a decline of urgency in the convention. Complacency about evangelism in the SBC is a matter of disobedience in any church or pastor regardless of their position on Calvinism. As such, parties on both sides of the aisle are surely guilty of impotence in evangelism. Misleading statements about the effects of Calvinism do not address the real issue or solve the real problem.

Charles Spurgeon, arguably the most successful evangelist of his generation, never offered a public “come forward” invitation at the end of his sermons. The Lord Jesus certainly never expected that the fulfillment of the Great Commission would rest on one individual offering a single invitation one day a week. This is congregational disobedience to Matthew 28:18-20 and pastoral disobedience to Ephesians 4:11-12.

From the pulpit or in official papers it is all too easy to hit the Baptist hot buttons that are sure to evoke automatic “Amens” and immediate applause. These tactics only further polarize the already convinced. Such thinking by our own religious pundits is a short-term gain at best but detrimental to the convention in the long-term.

The very people who cry against Calvinism’s lack of evangelism use the pulpit to give unbelievers every reason not to become part of God’s family. Who wants to join a family that attempts to publicly embarrass its own? No one is going to knock down our doors to get in when the “C” in SBC stands for Cannibals. If evangelism is our common goal, genuine love for one another is a large part of Jesus’ answer to the problem.

It is much more difficult, though much more beneficial, to sit down and intelligently, objectively discuss matters of disagreement. Dialogue requires hard study, intellectual integrity, and Christian deportment. It is to the church’s shame that we often witness secular debaters treating their ideological opponents with the respect that requires each side to understand the other’s position while rationally, calmly, defending their own perspective.

Too many of our leading pastors resort to name-calling, branding, and innuendo. Further, easily influenced preachers reading a newspaper or magazine, perhaps returning to their churches from a state convention or pastor’s gathering not only articulate what they heard but also the manner in which it was spoken. Thus, we are teaching a new generation of pastors to resolve conflict from behind the sacred desk in ways that are not sacred. An ill demeanor may be temporarily forced upon a congregation or accepted by fellow pastors but such pastoral conduct will not advance the cause of Christ in the world. No one is going to bully a non-Christian into believing the gospel.

After enumerating the positive effects of the Spirit’s filling, Paul defined Spirit-filled believers as those who “crucify the flesh with its passions and desires” (Galatians 5:24). Those “passions and desires” are then identified as personal “conceit” and the “provocation” of brothers (Galatians 5:26) both of which are a “transgression” of the law of the Spirit (Galatians 6:1).

Regardless of one’s perspective on the issue of Calvinism in the SBC, everyone benefits from the honest appraisal of another’s view, the proper representation of all sides and generosity, kindness, and respect.

Calvinism should not be the immediate issue. Even before we begin to discuss Calvinism, the shouting should stop and we should understand that our very character is being tested and revealed before God and the world.

Our real beliefs are showing up in our behavior and it is not appealing to anyone, inside or outside of the Convention. Christian character and integrity are simply the adorning of doctrine (Titus 2:10) which is the application of what we believe. Thus, who we truly are and what we sincerely believe is best defined by how we behave. It is as important as what we say.

— Weems is senior pastor of Heritage Baptist Church, Johnson City.

One final word: for the letter I wrote to the Baptist & Reflector regarding the article addressed in this post, go here.

Or, “Mud never sticks to a man of integrity.”

I’ve reflected quite a bit tonight on the BP News article about the Late, Great Debate (see previous post), and I think that I have come out of this with a single conclusion. Tom Ascol is the “Teflon Don.” My respect for him has just increased at least tenfold.

In a debate that has been downright nasty, Tom Ascol has been the model of integrity, humility, and peacemaking. He has shown what a gracious spirit looks like. If you did not have a good level of respect for him before the events that brought about the debate fiasco, you ought to have it now.

Thank you, Tom Ascol, for modeling for a young pastor like me – and many others of my generation – what true biblical integrity looks like. You have been a concrete example of Proverbs 22:1 and Romans 8:31-39. No controversy, slander, or untruth can undermine us in the eyes of our Lord and others if we have committed ourselves to integrity in Christ. May we seek to imitate you, and in so doing, imitate Christ.

Baptist Press has an excellent article on the late great debate that would have taken place last night at Liberty University. The article can be found here.

The article is fair and balanced, but it does get several details wrong, namely the details about the debate itself. Be forewarned – neither the Caners nor James White come out squeaky clean. Only Tom Ascol comes out of this article in a gracious manner.

I read with great disgust and dismay Lonnie Wilkey’s article in the current issue of the Tennessee Baptist & Reflector concerning Calvinism.  The article in question can be found online here.  What follows in this post is the letter to the editor I have written concerning the article.

To the Editor:

As a Tennessee Baptist from birth and salvation (First Baptist Church Dayton, TN), a graduate of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary living and serving the Lord in Kentucky, it was with great surprise and interest that I read Lonnie Wilkey’s article ” Calvinists have no sense of urgency — Jesus did.”  I was disappointed greatly with this article.  And as someone who is not a Calvinist, such a negative endorsement should speak volumes.

Mr. Wilkey shows a great deal of ignorance about just what Calvinism actually is.  Calvinism – or Reformed theology, if you prefer – does not discourage evangelism.  On the contrary, those of a Reformed persuasion are just as motivated if not more so than their non-Calvinist brethren about evangelism.  Calvinists believe that God has commanded them to go out and preach the gospel to the whole world, that the elect of God (those who would place their faith in Christ) might come to Him.  Since no one but God can know just who the elect are, Calvinists believe it is a humbling thing to be the instrument by which the Lord Jesus draws all people to Himself.  Calvinists believe they are to call the elect – whoever they may be – to accept Christ, which in and of itself is an invitation!  Yes, indeed, Calvinsts believe evangelism is serious business!

Mr. Willkey also shows he at the very least has not read carefully the book of Romans, which clearly states in chapter nine that salvation has nothing to do with human endeavor, but is entirely the province of a God who chooses whom will be vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath.  Furthermore, those vessels of mercy and wrath are in 9:22-23 clearly ordained by God.  It is not about “who has been given the opportunity to accept Christ,” since it is quite obvious that many thousands of people perish every day without ever hearing the Gospel.  It is about God showing Himself in glory through both the witness of Christ and the punishment of sinners.

This article, some have said, could easily be debunked by a high school student with an internet connection.  Not only could it be, it is easily debunked by any thinking Christian willing to devote a few minutes of serious inquiry into Calvinism and what Scripture actually does teach about these issues.

I am disappointed in and embarrassed with Mr. Wilkey’s obvious lack of research into this issue before he wrote this article.  I would like to prayerfully and lovingly suggest that in the future Mr. Wilkey do his homework before writing a hatchet job against a theological position he does not understand.  Such hatchet jobs do not build up the body, but tear down in division.  I, and hopefully other Tennessee Baptists, expect better from the editor of our own state paper.

Grace to you and peace.

Rev. J. Stephen Newell, Jr.
Associate Pastor, Louisville Baptist Deaf Church
Salt and Light Ministries–Christian Counseling for the Deaf

This week I got sent a link to the Billy Graham article that’s got everyone up in arms by a church member who keeps up with “Christian news.” Knowing this person, she is wondering what I think about the whole deal. Well, I’ll tell her exactly what I said over at “Provocatin’ Panties.” (runs and hides before Timmy hurts him) Yes, I know it’s old news by now, but in a Deaf church “old news” has a way of becoming The Big Story until someone (usually the pastor) speaks on the issue and it dies.

To begin, I’m among the throng of those scratching their heads, saying “Huh?” Is Graham really denying biblical inerrancy? Is he embracing universalism? What in tarnation is going on?

My first reaction was simply, “He’s getting old and he’s less interested in fighting the good fight.”

My second reaction was, “They should have kept Joel Osteen a little futher away.”

My third reaction is the one I should have had first, to stop and pray for the man.

Too many of us in recent days have had the reaction of attack. Few have given well-nuanced reactions about this interview; I am blessed to have read several of them including a couple by my SBTS brethren. I don’t claim to have the ability of nuance, so I’ll try to take a couple of points and just simply react.

He is an evangelist still unequivocally committed to the Gospel, but increasingly thinks God’s ways and means are veiled from human eyes and wrapped in mystery. “There are many things that I don’t understand,” he says. He does not believe that Christians need to take every verse of the Bible literally; “sincere Christians,” he says, “can disagree about the details of Scripture and theology—absolutely.”

Okay. Nothing worth getting riled up about here, because it is true. Now, before anyone starts accusing me of not believing in inerrancy or whatever, let me ask you if the all of the prophetic parts of Daniel and Revelation are literal or not, or if they require us to think in a nuanced way. And before we start talking about heretics like Marcus Borg, stop and think for a minute. Only the silliest of you would say that I’m not a Christian (or even a “sincere Christian”) because I don’t agree with limited atonement. I disagree with many of my peers on Scripture and theology on this issue; yet I’m not branded a heretic (except in jest, of course). Hopefully you catch my drift.

Graham spends hours now with his Bible, at once savoring and reconsidering old stories and old lessons. While he believes Scripture is the inspired, authoritative word of God, he does not read the Bible as though it were a collection of Associated Press bulletins straightforwardly reporting on events in the ancient Middle East. “I’m not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord,” Graham says. “This is a little difference in my thinking through the years.” He has, then, moved from seeing every word of Scripture as literally accurate to believing that parts of the Bible are figurative—a journey that began in 1949, when a friend challenged his belief in inerrancy during a conference in southern California’s San Bernardino Mountains. Troubled, Graham wandered into the woods one night, put his Bible on a stump and said, “Lord, I don’t understand all that is in this book, I can’t explain it all, but I accept it by faith as your divine word.”

Now we can begin the head-scratching. On the surface, I think the interviewer has grossly misrepresented Graham on this point. The story referenced here is usually told in Graham biographies to show how Graham rejected the idea that the Bible is not inerrant.

As far as his “jot and tittle” remark, I am scratching my head on that one. It makes no sense, given his history. I’d really like to know the context of that remark and what Graham said prior to and after this remark. It is, indeed, troubling; however I would rather wait and hope Graham clarifies his remark.

But I do understand that some parts of the Bible can be read figuratively, given the examples the article uses. It never ceases to boggle me when people insist the days of Creation were six 24-hour days when we didn’t get a sun until the fourth day. It’s completely up in the air how long the first three days were! Was it a 1000 year day? A 1-hour day? We don’t know. It’s a matter of interpretation. Oh dear, break out the straightjacket, Stephen’s lost it! But anyone with a bit of common sense and a bit of study can get a good sense of what is literal and what is figurative. It’s my personal opinion that the Bible rarely deals in figuratives unless prophecy is involved; then we tend to have a lot of figurative language to describe what will literally happen. Of course, we do have the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, non-prophetic books all.

Three rules of interpreting prophecy and figurative language that I was taught in college and still use when reading prophecy: 1) Could this literally be that way? 2) Could the writer be trying to describe what he is literally seeing/hearing/etc.? 3) Could the writer simply be trying to make a point?

Asked about his son’s use of the phrase “evil and wicked” in reference to Islam, Graham says: “I would not say Islam is wicked and evil … I have a lot of friends who are Islamic. There are many wonderful people among them. I have a great love for them. I have spoken at Islamic meetings, in Nigeria and in different parts of the world.” The father’s view, then, is different from the son’s. “I’m sure there are many things that he and I are not in total agreement about,” Graham says. “I’m an old man, he’s a young man in the prime of life.” Anne Graham Lotz, after expressing her deep respect for her brother’s life and work, said: “When Daddy was my brother’s age, he was saying some pretty strong things, too, so you have to remember that experience and the living of a life can soften your perspective.”

This part of the article is what made me think his age is affecting him. I don’t think he really wants to open this can of worms; perhaps he does not see any inroads for the Gospel by engaging in debate over Islam. He stated before this quote that all he wanted to do was discuss the Gospel. And in his ministry, that has primarily consisted of telling people that Jesus saves, not that their religion is false. Yes, I know that debate itself can be an inroad, but for an old man, Graham may just want a little peace and quiet.

When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: “Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won’t … I don’t want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have.” Such an ecumenical spirit may upset some Christian hard-liners, but in Graham’s view, only God knows who is going to be saved: “As an evangelist for more than six decades, Mr. Graham has faithfully proclaimed the Bible’s Gospel message that Jesus is the only way to Heaven,” says Graham spokesman A. Larry Ross. “However, salvation is the work of Almighty God, and only he knows what is in each human heart.”

This is the biggest head-scratcher of all of them. But Graham is exactly right–who gets into heaven is a decision only the Lord will make. I really do wish he’d clarify this comment by reiterating his belief that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. I do think he is right to say that God loves all of us regardless of what “label” we have. If He didn’t, He would not have sent Jesus as the ultimate expression of His love. But we know that God’s love does not act in a saving manner to everyone. Graham does not here say that it does act in such a way, he simply says it is none of his business. It is God’s business alone. And that’s true–only God gets to decide who is saved. All we can do is preach the Gospel and let the Lord do His work. Again, I would like to know the context of this quote before passing judgment on Graham as a universalist.

If he had his life to live over again, Graham says he would spend more time immersed in Scripture and theology. He never went to seminary, and his lack of a graduate education is something that still gives him a twinge. “The greatest regret that I have is that I didn’t study more and read more,” he says. “I regret it, because now I feel at times I am empty of what I would like to have been. I have friends that have memorized great portions of the Bible. They can quote [so much], and that would mean a lot to me now.”

This is the best quote in the entire article. All of us can give a hearty “amen.”

Well, I hope said church member is now satisfied. I’m going to bed.

Bruce Prescott of the Mainstream Baptist blog claims I’ve been cultivated by Albert Mohler to blog.

Now, my interaction with this particular blog by brother Bruce has been decidedly sporadic. However, I’ve witnessed over the past year his incessant, unreasonable, borderline hate-filled attacks on conservative Southern Baptists. There are continual unfounded accusations on his blog towards certain individuals in our convention. Now he has touched upon me and others in the SBTS blogosphere.

I find his assertion that I and others on this bloglisting are “fundamentalists” to be knee-slapping funny. Especially when one can find jestful statements I’ve written about “not giving fundamentalists time of day.”

Even funnier is his assertion that I, and we, have been cultivated by Al Mohler to blog. After the Band of Bloggers fellowship and Russell Moore’s tongue-in-cheek characterization of bloggers as “guys sitting around in their underwear,” I wonder just where Prescott is getting his information.

For the record, I got into blogging only after observing my buds Ryan and Nick start their own blogs. I still don’t remember how I happened upon the “Christ-bloggers,” as Mr. Frank Turk has labelled us. I do know that I finally found the SBTS blogroll after getting a nod from a fellow student (who will remain nameless until he updates his blog–the last update is nearly a year old) and following the links on his blog. I blog for God’s glory, my own enjoyment and for fellowship with distant brothers and sisters, not for Al Mohler.

If being a guy who actually believes what the Bible says makes me a fundamentalist, I’d be scared to see Prescott’s definition of a conservative.

Former SBC President Bobby Welch continues to suffer “foot-in-mouth” disease. See the story here.

This is just another in a line of “Dumb and Dumber” comments Welch has made over the past few months. It really grieves me to see a good man stoop so low, whether unintentional or not.

Richard Land does a much better job of writing on the alcohol issue than Jerry Vines. Read the article here. Since I’m tired of the issue, I’ll let others deconstruct it.

Drs. Albert Mohler and Paige Patterson, SBC seminary presidents both, have just made my day. Reading this report of what initially was characterized as “Clash of the Theologians” nearly a year ago has warmed my pre-marital heart and set it aflame with fresh fire. They discussed their differences over the system of Calvinism the way true Christian brethren are supposed to. Somebody finally gets it right. It’s days like this that make me glad to be a theology hooligan.

In other news, Mr. Frank Page has been elected president of the SBC. You may recall that I supported this guy (see this post), despite his obvious theological flaws. It’s difficult to withhold support from someone who seems to genuinely want to work with those brethren with whom he disagrees theologically.

On the blogging front, I’ve been lax. I fully intended to have the doctrines of grace finished this week; instead it has taken a back burner due to the massive wedding preparations I have been doing. Is it really only 4 days left? I may try to get at least irresistible grace done, but I’m not making promises this time.

I am currently in the process of getting moved out of Fuller Hall on campus and into our apartment. Pray for this time, as I absolutely despise moving. But this move is for a better blessing than I could ever hope for!

With that, I take my leave to go finish my laundry and pack up a few more boxes. May God richly bless you!

Outgoing Southern Baptist Convention president Bobby Welch, in this BP News article, is calling for every church in the SBC to have more revivals. Specifically, to have two annual revivals. From the article:

“I would urge you: If every church in this convention attempted to have two revivals in one year, it would change everything,” Welch said during the annual meeting in Nashville.

“You say, ‘But we don’t do any revivals anymore.’ I say to you: If you had two of them, it would do you better,” Welch continued.

“You say, “Well, if I said revival, nobody would know what we were talking about.’ Well, talk about something they know about, but you give them a revival. Spend a few days trying to visit people, spend a few days trying to share the Gospel, spend a few days preaching the Gospel and watch what God will do,” Welch said.

What is the purpose of a revival?

The word revive means:
1. To bring back to life or consciousness; resuscitate.
2. To impart new health, vigor, or spirit to.
3. To restore to use, currency, activity, or notice.
4. To restore the validity or effectiveness of.
5. To renew in the mind; recall.

So it would seem that revivals are important. But why are revivals so ineffective these days?

I would venture to guess because we have forgotten what a revival is for. A revival seems to be a time when we refresh or recharge our spiritual batteries; to reaffirm our mission and ministry; or perhaps to receive a fresh vision of what the Lord is doing. Oftentimes, however, we view a revival as a time “to get right with the Lord” instead. Granted, we must seek to repent of our sins and be forgiven, but that is not the sole purpose of revival. Further from the article:

Mathis, who is in his seventh year of vocational evangelism, said the revivals he leads, even in smaller membership churches, usually reap 10-12 professions of faith, and in larger churches many more. But the interesting thing to Mathis is that two-thirds of the converts are adults.

“I’m discovering that adults in the 40 to 60 age range are especially receptive to the Gospel,” Mathis said. “And it’s therefore a mistake to regard the traditional revival as ineffective. In many cases, churches are baptizing more people as a result of revivals than they baptize throughout the rest of the year.”

Now, let’s ignore the age-issue of this quote and focus on the principle. Revival is a time for the saints to be encouraged and uplifted by one another and through the preaching of the Word. It is not a time for people to get saved. It is not a time for evangelism. That’s right, a revival is not a time for evangelism! Look at that first definition. To revive something is to bring it back to life. The lost are not alive, they are dead; furthermore, they were never alive to begin with. A revival is not for a non-Christian. Since only believers were alive to start with, a revival is for Christians.

And Christians, when revival time rolls around, what do they do? They start acting a little holier; they start reading their Bibles a little more; they start coming to church a little more regularly; they start trying to figure out if they need to rededicate their lives; they start acting more evangelistically through inviting their non-Christian friends to the revival; and so on. In other words, they do, for that one or two times a year, what they ought to be doing every week, or even better, every day! And because this is a once- or twice- a year event, their pre-revival behavior continues for a few weeks to a couple of months after the revival, and then tapers off until the next revival; at which time they realize they failed to live up to their pronouncements from the previous revival and need to “rededicate” their lives.

How horrendous. Our current view of revivals says that revivals are for weak Christians. It may even go so far as to view all the faithful as weak. We are seeking the lost and those Christians with weak faith, instead of seeking to lift up and encourage the saints by the power of God’s Word.

What we really need is not two revivals a year. We need to reform revival! What we need is a commitment from our churches to discipleship. What we need is the preaching of the Gospel year-round. What we need is to raise up believers who are strong in the Lord and in the power of His might in-season and out-of-season. Revivals, as we currently practice them, don’t do that. They are band-aids attempting to cover a gaping wound.