|
Thursday December 4, 2008 ~ 37 Comments
Over the years, we have learned a few things about research in SBC life. Research tends to get people in our denomination excited. Many people quote it, most like it, and some despise it. People will quote and misquote statistics regularly to prove or disprove whatever matters to them. Simply put, we are an enthusiastic, passionate, and often imprecise people when it comes to church research. As such, when we do research, it gets a lot of debate and discussion. We do not mind at all--and sometimes we read a comment and think, "Good point!" or "We should have thought of that." As such, we very infrequently respond to inappropriate uses or criticisms of our research. However, I do see a pattern developing. It appears that when one of the faculty members at one of our seminaries disagrees with the results of our research, they write a rebuttal or a criticism. We actually don't mind a (good) rebuttal and questioning the wording of questions is normal and expected. However, it does seem that some of the faculty at Southwestern are making a habit of taking time away from their important tasks to critique our research. I thought it would be wise for me to take this opportunity to respond in what I hope is a gracious way. Actually, our team debated whether to respond (and have not in the past). Since few people have read or commented on the critique, it is regrettable to bring attention to it. However, since these critiques seem to be a recurring (and public) pattern, it seems best to address it publicly. On to the specifics... Dr. David L. Allen of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary recently released a white paper entitled, "Calvinism: A Review" at baptisttheology.org. In his white paper, Allen reviews the book, Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue of which I contributed the chapter, "Calvinism, Evangelism, and SBC Leadership." In my chapter, I present results from two recently collected data sources, the North American Mission Board's 2007 New Minister's Study and LifeWay Research's 2006 Calvinism Study. In his review of the book, Allen presents a critical review of the data analysis done by the North American Mission Board and LifeWay Research. He raises a number of "weaknesses" surrounding the study. Actually, such comments are fine--no study is perfect and this study representing the NAMB and LifeWay surveys is far from flawless due to several factors I will list below. There are weaknesses to this study as in every study. And, we don't mind a good debate on the issues at hand. However, this is the best, current study on the topic of Calvinism trends in the Southern Baptist Convention. Moreover, the data analysis is sound and accurate. And, in light of the pattern of such critiques coming from the same sister entity, my colleagues and I decided to respond. The following response to Allen's review will take each of Dr. Allen's points one by one, providing further evidence and clarity for each issue raised by Allen. First, let me say that I believe Dr. Allen's concerns were not offered in malice. They are occasionally helpful and (I believe) delivered with good intentions, but they don't alter the findings. In essence, Allen's points are more distracting than clarifying to the topic at hand. First, Allen points to the data collection of the surveys. He states: "There is no statement whether any pastors who were in the first study might have been also in the second study, thus making direct comparison problematic." There are really two issues addressed in this sentence: the possibility of double counting or double sampling of the same individuals, and secondly the mistaken impression that the NAMB and LifeWay data sources are meant to be comparative. It is certainly possible that some individuals were surveyed twice between the two surveys; however, it is unlikely. Although the LifeWay survey did not ask for the graduation year from an SBC seminary, we can make an estimate as to the probability of selecting a seminary graduate from 1998-2004 within LifeWay's pastor survey. If we assume that of the estimate within the New Minister's Survey that 25% of newly graduated seminary students are now serving as senior or lead pastors of SBC congregations (527 lead SBC pastors out of 2,134 respondents), this would result in approximately 1,875 (25% X 7500 seminary graduates in 1998-2004) potential pastors of the 43,699 churches included in the sampling frame of the random sample conducted by LifeWay who would be eligible for duplicate invitations to both surveys. However, in reality, only 527 lead or senior pastors of SBC churches actually responded to the New Minister Survey, leaving about a 1% chance (527 pastors / 43699 churches) that a pastor surveyed in NAMB's New Minister's Survey also responded to LifeWay's survey. This is a level of duplication with which we are quite comfortable. We do not believe that any potential duplication would greatly alter the results. Richie Stanley was part of the team that surveyed the recent graduates and he is now Team Leader at NAMB's Research Department. Richie Stanley has been a denominational researcher for 20 years. He has also worked as a statistician for the federal government, taught college statistics, and served as a minister of education. He holds a master of science in statistics (from the University of Kentucky) and a master of divinity with religious education (from SEBTS). Richie explained: The idea that two surveys are better than one seems so logical to me. As you mentioned, two sources that point in the same direction are complementary even if not tied at the hip methodologically. And I think the small number of pastors who may have responded to both surveys would have no statistical impact. The reason I would try to avoid overlap in samples is to avoid annoying the invited respondents, more than concern about invalidating the results.
Again, drawing conclusions from responses from two possibly different populations is problematic. Third, Stetzer concluded Calvinism is on the rise based on the percentages from the two groups that identified themselves as five-point Calvinists. Although this may be warranted from a common sense standpoint, direct comparisons from one group to another cannot be statistically interpreted in such a fashion.
In other words, we make it clear that this is not a technical comparative study. We run separate analysis on each data set, demonstrating a common directionality to the results. We do not believe that you can make a direct comparison and we stated such in the chapter. Instead, I made a general comment about comparing the two studies and add, "However, it is difficult to make a direct comparison between the two studies since the 2007 NAMB New Minister's Study includes any seminary graduate between 1998 and 2004 who is serving at any level of church staff leadership. The LifeWay Calvinism study only looked at SBC senior or lead pastors." Here, I am stating the obvious difficulty in comparing the two studies since each have a different set of population parameters and methodologies. Instead, this analysis seeks to identify common results in two different data sources, each with their own distinct sampling strategies. As in any scientific endeavor, repeated results denoting a common direction to results only strengthens theory. If our research had included only the LifeWay study (my current employer), the criticisms would be that only one study cannot detect any trends. However, in including the NAMB study (my former employer), the similarity in results in both studies only reinforces the results. Using multiple yet distinctly different data sources in demonstrating similar results is a common strategy in social science research and I believe the results are both more striking and responsible when we analyze both data sources. Allen goes on to question the sample size for early birth cohorts included in the New Minister's Survey. Essentially, his argument is that since this is a sample of recent seminary graduates, older cohorts would not have adequate numbers to have representative estimates for trends in Calvinistic beliefs over time. At first glance, Allen makes a good point. In many reports of popular level research we do not include the population size for each cohort. That was the case in the New Minister's study. For Dr. Allen's and your reference, the sample sizes for each cohort by each study are listed below.
As expected the number of respondents for each cohort in the new minister's study are higher in later cohorts; however, the number of respondents for earlier cohorts in the LifeWay study are not much higher than the New Minister's Study. In our analysis, we did not present the results for the 1976 or later cohort in the LifeWay study as we believed the sample size (n=18) to be too small. It was our best judgment to include the earliest cohort (1945 or before) in the New Minister's Study (n=21). In statistical terms, any cell size below 30 can be problematic, using 20 as a cutoff was a judgment call. Nonetheless, even with the removal of this earliest cohort in the New Minister's Study, the trend of a higher proportion of 5-point Calvinists for each younger cohort persists. Again from Richie Stanley: The age cohorts are what they are. The fact from the NAMB seminary graduate study is that seminary grads became more open to Calvinism from 1998 to 2004. Our goal was to invite all the graduates to respond, without controlling for age. The age cohorts we ended up with were the result of who chose to respond. Again two surveys, two methodologies, complementary results.
First, I would first like to make a sidebar comment as to how we conduct our statistical analysis at LifeWay Research. We are always cognizant of the fact that descriptive statistics (i.e. means, percentages, etc.) can be misrepresentative of actual characteristics within the population under study. Therefore, when comparing averages across groups, we are careful to run statistical tests behind the scenes in order to verify our findings. However, we also use restraint when presenting statistical results to lay audiences. Although appropriate in some contexts, statistical language is more often than not a stumbling block for the majority of our readers. It is for this reason that we often do not publish detailed methodology and statistical tests and when we do we place them at the end of a chapter. Most of our readers are pastors interested in the results, not the statistical or methodological details. Thus, we often put the details at the end of the chapter. And, we must confess that it seems a bit odd to criticize the placement of the methodology in the chapter. However, in response to Allen's remarks, I am happy to provide t-tests for the difference in means between Calvinists and non-Calvinists led congregations for annual baptism rates and weekly worship attendance. Unfortunately, Allen's suggestion for "chi-squared tests" is, to use Allen's terminology, "statistical-sounding language," but makes little sense as chi-squared tests are typically reserved for categorical not continuous or numeric variables like we have for worship attendance and baptism rates. To remind you of my overall conclusions: 1) worship attendance is generally lower in Calvinist congregations than non-Calvinist led congregations, and 2) baptism rates are not that different between Calvinist and non-Calvinist congregations. The two tables below (worship attendance and baptism rates) list the survey, the means for each group (Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist), the t-test statistic, and the corresponding probability that the two means are statistically similar in the true population.
In terms of worship attendance, the difference in means for the LifeWay survey is not statistically significant (probability exceeds the conventional 0.05 alpha level); however, it is on the border of statistical significance in the NAMB survey. This was a difficult call to make given the high probability for the LifeWay survey, yet we decided there was at least partial evidence to present a difference in church size according to Calvinist leadership, especially given the common direction to the result. As for the mean annual baptism rate, the difference in means for both surveys is not statistically significant. This means that little difference in baptism rates exist between Calvinist and Non-Calvinist led churches. As I stated in my report: "The difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists within these surveys is small, always less than 1 percent. From this we can conclude that Calvinist-led and non-Calvinist-led churches evidence similar rates through their annual baptisms." The data is not perfect, but it is the best we have at this point. Phillip Connor was formerly at NAMB where he did the data analysis on the NAMB study. He is now a Fellow at the Princeton Center for the Study of Religion. I asked him to review my response and he put it simply, "All data has its limitations. However, I believe this is good analysis that works within these limitations and presents sound and reliable results to the questions under review." It is my hope that this response to Allen's review will be received in the spirit it is offered. Dr. Allen's concern about Calvinism is clearly known--one can just Google "David Allen and Calvinism" and it is quite clear. As stated in my introduction to this response, no study is perfect. However, this study is the best we have and the statistical analysis is sound. Let me close with one exhortation. I recently spoke at the Washington Post at the invitation of the Religion Newswriters Association. They asked me to speak on how to discern religious research--identifying the good from the bad. One of my points was that all researchers have a bias--this researcher included. However, ethical researchers report what they find even when such findings disagree with our presuppositions. To be honest, I am among those who are concerned about the lack of evangelistic passion, practical training, and leadership ability I see in some Calvinists graduating from seminary. Simply put, these are not the results I expected. However, in the world of research we report what the numbers are, not what we think they should be. We present the numbers and, yes, we can give our evaluation and opinion of the numbers. However, they are what they are. I can't change them to prove my point or make someone else happy. Facts are our friends, even when they show a different conclusion than we expected. In closing, let me make the same exhortation I made at the "Building Bridges" conference where our conclusions were presented. Our results demonstrate that neither the Calvinist camp nor the non-Calvinist camp can claim superiority in baptism rates. And worse yet, an average annual baptism rate of 8-9 persons per 100 attendees is nothing to be proud about, regardless if you are a Calvinist or not. I think we can all agree that the world is in desperate need of the redemption accomplished by Christ on the cross. It is in need of the Savior. So let us be about the business of preaching Christ crucified, calling men, women and children to repent and believe in the gospel. I will leave it at that. And, my hope is that all will read this in the spirit I offer it. Let's join hands and help all kinds of Southern Baptists to do their evangelism more faithfully. 37 CommentsComment PolicyComments are welcome on discussion posts. Comments are not moderated but do require a keyword to avoid spam. If this is your first time commenting, please review the comment policy. Leave a comment |
   
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Good job in explaining these issues. As a PhD student and "stats nerd" at NOBTS this was very insightful, not just for the reason the post was written, but as a reminder of how good research is done. Thanks again.
Very gracious response. Only one aside comment about your statement that 8 or 9 baptisms per 100 is not that good. Given the numbers of SBC members that will never share their faith with anyone during their life (this is off the top of my head so I may totally be wrong) is around 90%, I would suggest that in fact 8 or 9 per 100 is extordinarily good. That would suggest to me that about 5 to 10 percent of the church is leading 1 person to Christ a year. Yes is it not enough, yes we are really not even keeping up with population growth, etc. But it my suggestion is close, then what really needs to be done is encourage those that are sharing and kick the rest in the butt. (But I assume that was your point when you first made the comment.)
Thanks for your work.
Thanks for posting this....it's great to have a day-to-day view of where we are, where we were, and where we're potentially going as Southern Baptists.
Roger Sharp
Confident Christianity
Ed,
Thank you for this response. Many times the results of surveys get blurred in the debate that ensues after the results are made public. Although I am not a statistician, I great appreciate the work done be those at NAMB and LifeWay. I am fortunate to have these results available to me and find them helpful as I continue in the ministry.
Sidebar, it was great seeing you at the Illinois Baptist State Convention. We are praying for you.
Martin Pitcher
Here is the greatest point you make that we must ALL keep in mind - "And worse yet, an average annual baptism rate of 8-9 persons per 100 members is nothing to be proud about, regardless if you are a Calvinist or not."
Thank you for the information and the reminder as to what our central responsiblity is and what our foremost duty remains as.. Could you imagine what would be accomplished for the Kingdom when all petty bickering is set aside?
Yes, Shane, that is my big concern. It is sad to see this become the next big thing. I was hoping the next big thing would be a focus on worldwide evangelization.
Upgrade test
Ed,
Worldwide evangelization would entail cooperation, whether Calvinist, non-Calvinist, or non-Southern Baptist. I have often wondered whether the defining legacy of the SBC will be controversy or cooperation. It is my hope and prayer that the latter, not the former, be found true.
Thanks for all your hard work in putting this together.
Good information here Ed, and a sound defense. However, I think that most church members when hearing of this discussion will see it as yet another example of denominational entities arguing over something that very few understand, and keeping them from focusing on their respective tasks for the Kingdom. To combat against this, I commend your statement: "Our results demonstrate that neither the Calvinist camp nor the non-Calvinist camp can claim superiority in baptism rates. And worse yet, an average annual baptism rate of 8-9 persons per 100 members is nothing to be proud about, regardless if you are a Calvinist or not. I think we can all agree that the world is in desperate need of the redemption accomplished by Christ on the cross. It is in need of the Savior. So let us be about the business of preaching Christ crucified, calling men, women and children to repent and believe in the gospel." Well said.
Ed,
Among other things, let me thank you for being such an excellent illustration of how disagreements/debate should take place in our convention. Plenty of grace and being careful to avoid shouting matches. We would be better off if more of our dialogue followed the pattern shown for us here.
Ed, I thank you for the research your group does on behalf of the God's kingdom.
As an alum of SWBTS('06) I am more than a little embarrassed about the political (in partisan denominational sense) involvement and discourse of some of the current staff there. This latest topic is typical. I respect Dr. Patterson immensely, but in my opinion his staff needs to be reigned in some.
I want to shout a hearty AMEN! to your statement, "let us be about the business of preaching Christ crucified, calling men, women and children to repent and believe in the gospel." Stop splitting the camp over that which is not sin, and let's reach the nations, together!
Speaking of surveys, there is one that any pastor (or individual) can do personally, that will shed a tremendous amount of light on one's own church body; its vitality or lack thereof.
Ask for a show of hands of those in your congregation (SS class, or small group) who did NOT attend church before the age of 21. Those not raising a hand are "homegrown" Christians...they were taken or sent to church, vacation Bible school, etc. as minors. They were "raised" to be Christians.
That small minority in every group that did NOT attend church as children, usually runs at less than 2%. (When I spoke at the evangelism segment of the New York State SBC Annual Conference, NOT ONE hand went up, of all those pastors and other leaders attending -- ALL were "homegrown".)
What that tells us is that we abandoned the harvest field at least two generations ago, and settled for swapping sheep and dunking kids to small to cross the street unattended. "Raising Christians" is not working the fields which remain white unto harvest. Of course, we are to raise our own offspring in the fear and admonition of the LORD, but that is not fulfilling the Great Commission. (Sadly, most of those so raised, "graduate" from church when they graduate from High School).
The number of saints actually sharing the gospel with lost friends, neighbors, co-workers and such, is more like 3-4%. That is a figure arrived at by an evangelist who for nearly 25 years asked everywhere he spoke for testimonies from those who had shared the gospel with a lost person.
"Harvested" Christians (not raised in church) usually make up the majority of functioning witnesses.
Having trained our congregations (from an early age) to be only spectators (and of course financial contributors) has led to the paralysis of the church today.
Calvinism, or any other "ism" is not nearly the stumbling block that avoidance of the biblical instruction in Ephesians 4:12 presents.
PASTORS:
How many of your congregation have you personally equipped, facilitated, and led in sharing the gospel with the lost world?
That passage in Ephesians is a mandate, not a suggestion.
Frank Fears
www.thedeadchurch.com
Nice. Good stuff Ed. My "stats-savvy" wife would enjoy reading the stuff in here that causes my eyes to glaze over...but the main points I understand and glad you addressed.
Thanks Ed.
My pastor, Jeff Noblit, also spoke at the Building Bridges conference. I did not attend the conference but read the book and was very edified by your impartial presentation.
Dr. Allen has no choice but to shoot the messenger because he has no response to your message. His only option is to repent of his tone towards Calvinists. I pray that will happen.
Our church (Grace Life Church) is certainly doctrines of grace- and truth-driven. We send out about 40% of our congregation every Wednesday night in door-to-door evangelism. I wish Dr. Allen could join us one night to experience it!
Keep up the good work!
Unfortunately the word CRITICISM seems to have replaced the word COOPERATIVE in our SBC. Here is how it works:
"Believe as I do and we can cooperate; if you don't or even if you cooperate with others who don't - I will deploy the Criticism Program of our SBC. That's how we got the power and that's how we intend to keep it!"
Ed,
Thanks for responding and explaining some of the issues more clearly. I also appreciated your presentations while at "Building Bridges."
Thomas Clay,
I really enjoyed hearing your pastor speak at "Building Bridges." When he was finished speaking he and his wife sat right behind me. :)
Mark
thanks for your work Ed! and thanks for making the choice to respond.
when critics are rarely if ever responded to directly (for whatever reason) the results can, over time, seem to give the impression that the criticisms are valid. just look talk with President Bush about it next time you see him!
Ed:
Thanks for this information. When I read Dr. Allen's criticism of your research, it didn't ring true. Your gracious rebuttal demonstrates why.
I appreciate LifeWay Research and the information that is regularly provided for us by their efforts. I look forward to more informative studies in the future.
Press on.
JohnMark,
Thanks for your kind words about Bro. Jeff. He is truly one of the wisest men I've ever met.
His chapter (presentation) certainly stood out from all the others as he was one of only two men at the conference (Tom Ascol the other) who actually senior pastor a church. There's something to be said about hearing from men who do.
I don't mean to denigrate seminarians or other non-pastors for I praise God for them. But such a posteriori knowledge is gained from men who do pastor.
Thank you for your excellent work and for taking heat for being honest.Now for an anecdotal, subjective addition to your work: When I was at Southwestern in the late 1980's I was one of a very small number of Calvinists, 5-6 of us that I knew, and there was only 1-2 professors that might fit that definition.Today, my younger Calvinist friends at SWBTS speak of dozens of like minded believers and 3-5 professors.
As for the low level of baptisms in both types of churches- the large number of false professions I witnessed growing up in a traditional SBC church was one thing that drove me to investigate the doctrines of grace more thoroughly.
Thank you for your service to the Kingdom.
Bryan
It seems to me that a weakness of the study is that you did not have any students from Southern. They are the students that are the Calvinists and, I assume, the ones you are referring to in your comments about Calvinist seminary graduates. Why are they not in the study?
Yes, Jay, I do believe that is a weakness to the study.
When Southern declined to participate in the study, we used other means to identify some Southern graduates and survey them. We found some, and they were definately more Calvinistic than the sample from the other schools. However, the study would have been much more robust if we had a comparable sample of SBTS grads.
Ed
Ed,
"I was hoping the next big thing would be a focus on worldwide evangelization."
I understand, but I personally hope that the SBC cleans up the mess it's made in its own nest, or I doubt there will be any need to focus on evangelization. We already focus on that, and it's not going all that great.
At least IMHO, from the cheap seats.
Ed
Let me just add my two cents (with adjustment for inflation, probably worth about 1/8th of a cent). First, thanks for all you do. I probably wouldn't have the stomach for all the criticism that comes with your assignments.
Secondly, as a pastor in the Northwest Baptist Convention for longer than I care to admit, I must plead and pray for cooperation to become our catchword. Our regional statistics, national statistics, and church statistics are evidence of a loss of passion and a lack of leadership towards collaborative efforts to share the gospel. Last year our church saw, through a variety of ministries, well over a dozen people come to Christ. I know that most of them are involved in kingdom efforts- (unfortunately not through our church, i.e. we weren't priviliged to baptize any of those- other churches [non-SBC] were).
Please keep on pressing towards cooperation and collaboration. An entire generation is passing into eternity while we wait!
Steve
Ed,
"I think we can all agree that the world is in desperate need of the redemption accomplished by Christ on the cross. It is in need of the Savior. . . . [M]y hope is that all will read this in the spirit I offer it. Let's join hands and help all kinds of Southern Baptists to do their evangelism more faithfully."
Your comments at the end are exactly what I think we need to hear, but unfortunately there appear to be some major roadblocks in the way.
Not only is SWBTS coming out awfully polemic on a lot of these issues, but when we have a prominent leader of another SBC seminary stand up and say that Calvinism is the reason for our current evangelistic crisis, I wonder just how far we can get without coming to blows.
I am broken over the (in my opinion, ignorant) division in our convention right now and pray that the more even-handed leaders such as yourself can rise up out of the milieu to guide us beyond this mess.
Thank you for your continued service to the SBC and more importantly to the Gospel of Christ.
Ed,
I appreciate the gracious response, along with with explanation.
Would it be possible to know the means, std. devs., and skews of the ages in each of the baptismal rate categories? Also, possibly, rebaptisms in each? I know that one can over-analyze a data set until the statistics are unreliable, but two of the themes that have been discussed in the whole "SBC evangelistic crisis" has been rebaptisms and child baptisms. Is there a difference in these between Cal. and non-Cal. led congregations?
All the Best,
Bill
Bill,
Good questions. I think a study needs to be done that addresses re-baptism (though I find that term "re-baptism" theologically problematic... but that is another story).
The age of baptism is another important issue-- the only consistently growing baptism category in SBC life is those under 5 years of age.
But, this study does not get at either of those questions and I don't know any that do. And, we are done with slicing and re-slicing this data.
However, we do hope to address some of the baptism issues in future studies.
Stay tuned.
Ed
Ed,
When you said,"However, in reality, only 527 lead or senior pastors of SBC churches actually responded to the New Minister Survey, leaving about a 1% chance (527 pastors / 43699 churches) that a pastor surveyed in NAMB's New Minister's Survey also responded to LifeWay's survey." However, could it be that five point Calvinists are more inclined to respond to surveys? Maybe they are more inclined to participate in such surveys? While non-Calvinists do not. Would that not skew the data a little bit towards the five point Calvinists way? Could that distort the data any?
Just wondering out loud.
David
Todd Burus,
So, when five point Calvinists have thier Founders conferences and T4G conferences that's ok? That's not dividing? That's not furthering the divide between five pointers and non-five pointers?
How about when they...five pointers...say that non-five pointers are not really preaching the Gospel if they dont preach Calvinism? Is that causing divide in your opinion? Or, how about the old arguement made my many five pointers that non-five pointers dont really exegete the Bible....they dont really hold to what the Scriptures teach on issues? Dont you think that that might be just a little bit divisive?
David
David,
I would be careful to just throw out claims and accusations of this nature without basis. Have you ever been to T4G? Yes, the presenters here are 95% likely to be 5-point Calvinists, but it is not a conference about 5-point Calvinism, or against non-Calvinists; it is about evangelism and proclaiming the glory of God in the Gospel. This is decidedly not what the John 3.16 Conference was about (despite the name).
I believe that your comments are an example of the unnecessary division that I am talking about. Whether you are intentionally doing it or not, what you have said steals straight from the misinformed talking points against SBC Calvinists. Are some SBC Calvinists out of line in the things they say? Sure. But by and large SBC Calvinists understand the distance between what they believe and the beliefs of the larger SBC body and, though they may wish their brothers were more Calvinistic, they are more interested in "Building Bridges" of understanding and cooperation.
How many Calvinist seminary professors do you see back-pedaling and defending their anti-non-Calvinist claims on the web? When is the last time you saw Al Mohler or Russell Moore embroiled in controversy over things they said against SBC non-Calvinists?
There may be a lot of anecdotal claims against SBC Calvinists, but if current actions are any indication, it is the Calvinists that seem to be the ones seeking unity in this conversation.
Todd,
Brother, I have dealt with aggressive, obsessed five point Calvinists for the last 24 years. I first encountered them in Seminary. I had about 9 of them, plus a Seminary Prof., try to convert me. I nearly became one. But, I saw the shortcomings of such a system and declined.
I have been to a Founders Conference...which I noticed that you didnt mention...opting instead for the T4G conference. How many non-five pointers do you reckon spoke at the T4G conference? at the last Founders conference?
So, why do you require five pointers to speak at a John 3:16 conference? Do you hold standards for one group in the SBC, and not the other?
And, about being divisive, Brother, I love five pointers. I dont like the aggressive types that are out to convert the SBC, but I love them, too. I dont like the way they go about things, but I do love them in the Lord.
Also, I have seen first hand...many, many, many times some aggressive five pointer trying to convert Christians and Churches and causing all kinds of strife and division. It's not something that I heard in a conference.... I have seen it, and I've had many people that I know and love have to deal with it in their Churches.
I tell you what...why dont you get some non-five pointers to speak at the next Founders Conference? why dont you ask the Founders fellas to get Dr. Ergun Caner and Dr. Jerry Vines and Bob Ross to speak at the next Founders Conference? Then, let's see how much of a bridge that they(Founders crowd) wants to build.
David
Todd and David,
Let's move on or move it elsewhere.
This thread is heading the wrong direction and needs to close.
Thanks,
Ed
Ed,
Sorry.
Ed- I'd be happy to speak at a T4G, or a Piper Conference...I might even be convinced to wear a tie. Would I have to shave the beard?
Heading out of country for a few weeks- Hope to see you when I return.
Sirs: I couldn't stand to make a calvinist or sovereign grace believer out of any one. For if I can make one, some one else can unmake him. I do believe these were the founding doctrines, and I have a lot of good company among the founders (I mean those folks at the beginning of Baptist work in America and in the South in particular). I believe in doing my home work, research that is. I had hope to do a D.Th. with UNISA on the theology of the Great Awakenings, but, alas, I didn't have the finances for it. The point I want to make is this THE THEOLOGY OF THE GREAT AWAKENINGS AND OF THE GREAT CENTURY OF MISSIONS WAS AND IS SOVEREIGN GRACE. THESE DOCTRINES ARE INVITATIONS. I REPEAT, INVITATIONS, AND THEY ARE IRRESISTIBLE IN THEIR COMPULSION BY THE FREEST MEANS POSSIBLE. HERE WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF ANOTHER GREAT AWAKENING (THE THIRD) WHICH MIGHT WELL TAKE THE WHOLE EARTH. THESE TRUTHS ARE LIBERAL, BALANCED, FLEXIBLE, AND CREATIVE, WINSOME. TAKE FOR EXAMPLE THE CHURCH OUT OF WHICH CAME MATTHEW YATES, OUR FIRST MISSIONARY TO CHINA, THE MT. PISGAH CHURCH. THE ORIGINAL MINUTES SHOW THAT THEY KNEW CHRIST DIED FOR THE CHURCH..AND NOTHING ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD. AND THE EARLY MISSIONARIES STARTED OUT TO WIN THE WORLD WITH SUCH TEACHINGS, EVEN UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION, IRRESISTIBLE GRACE, ETC. THEY KNEW THERE WERE ASKING PEOPLE TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE. THE PARADOX IS THAT JESUS ASKED MAN TO DO WHAT HE (THE FALLEN SINNER) WAS UNABLE TO DO, NAMELY, REPENT AND BELIEVE, OR LIVE. TO A HELPLESS SINNER HIS WORDS ARE LIKE LIFE FROM THE DEAD. TO AN ATHEIST LIKE MYSELF (AS I ONCE WAS) WHO REFUSED TO OPEN THE DOOR (WHICH I DID), THE FACT THAT GOD OPENED MY HEART LIKE HE DID LYDIA'S WAS INDEED, LIFE FROM THE DEAD. GENTLEMEN, I MIGHT BE WRONG (I HAVE BEEN SO MANY TIMES IN MY LIFE), BUT I BELIEVE WE ARE NEARING ANOTHER GREAT AWAKENING. NOW, IF WHITEFIELD AND WESLEY COULD AGREE TO DISAGREE AND YET WORK TOGETHER WHILE MAINTAINING THEIR POSITIONS, I SUGGEST THAT STEARNS AND GANO SET A SIMILAR PATTERN THOUGH THEY WERE CLOSER TO SEARCH OTHER THAN WERE THE ANGLICAN EVANGELISTS. LET US TAKE THE WHOLE EARTH FOR CHRIST SAKE, IF HE PLEASE. MR. SPURGEON IN HIS EVENING DEVOTION FOR DECEMBER 24 DECLARED, "WE ANTICIPATE THE HAPPY DAY WHEN THE WHOLE EARTH SHALL BE CONVERTED TO CHRIST." NOT BAD FOR ONE WHO BELIEVED CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR THE ELECT AND WHO SAW THAT THE POWER IS IN THE BLOOD.
There definitely seems to be a resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC. This surprises many, but I believe they would be even more surprised to find out how many of our founding fathers in the SBC were Calvinists. As far as the dangers of Calvinistic missions: it is no more dangerous to be a Calvinist in missions than it is for our churches to be Arminian or Synergistic and never do missions or never witness to anyone. Which is better?
Yes, Calvinists will have to balance their soteriology to keep from going off the theological deep end. My own church will be doing a conference in Feb. 2010 on the "Quagmire of Hyper-Calvinism". Teaching against that type of idea towards missions keeps Calvinists churches out of the ditches.
No one is crying to take Spurgeon or Bunyan out of our schools. Missionaries like Lottie Moon, Andrew Fuller, William Carey, and Adoniram Judson make allegations that Calvinism kills evangelism totally ridiculous. I believe that it is provable that Synergistic Baptists do have a consistent record of unbiblical missions methodology because of their belief that it is their job to manipulate the "free-will" of carnal man. This seems to be the more grievous error.
If we get to heaven and the Synergists are right, then I must repent for giving God credit for what man has done in salvation. This gives God, in their estimation, more credit than He is due. If I am right, then Synergists must repent for giving man credit for what God has done. I kind of like my end of the deal.
Hyper-calvinism is no more a quagmire than is hyper-arminianism. My ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell was a supralapsarian, a hyper calvnist, a he stated from the pulpit and person to person. He was also a soul-winner. He once pleaded with one of my family members to come to Christ until tears ran down the person's face. Dr. Campbell was the founder of the American Race Track Chaplaincy. cf. Who's Who in Religion, 2nd edn. Chicago: Marquis, 1977. Dr. Robert G. Lee thought so much of Dr. Campbell (who had once served as Dr. Lee's associate pastor at Bellevue) that he put it in his will for Dr. Campbell to preach his funeral. In North Carolina in the 1700s the General Baptists who believed Christ died for everyone were neither very evangelistic of missionary. The Regular Baptists who held to Particular Redemption persuaded some General Baptists to the Particular view, and they became evangelistic and missionary. They also experienced the Second Great Awakening in 1801. The Separates and Regulars united, agreeing that the preaching that Christ tasted death for every one would be no barrier to communion. The dominant doctrine was particular redemption, but the Sovereign Grace folks were more liberal. Strange doings is it not? O yes, their views then made them balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic. How could that be? And how could some folks take the same views an ride them off into the sunset of one-sided practices and forget all about those Great Awakenings and the origins of the the Great Century of Missions? There is much more to the whole affair than meets the eye. There are depths to the Sovereign Grace foundations of the SBC still to be fathomed, if at all possible. And these truths will come back, if history is any indication, and produce along with the other two prerequisites another Great Awakening (the Third which might win the whole earth in one generation and then for thousand more generations after that). This might well be the most exciting generation that has ever been up until this time. The other two prerequisites in addition to the Theology (Sovereign Grace) are a heavenly Presence (C.S. Lewis spoke of pulling Deep Heaven down upon their heads in his sci/fi thriller, That Hideous Strength, which is about as good a definition of what happened in the first two awakenings) and Humility. All three can be found in the most popular hymn of all times, John Newton's AMAZING GRACE. O yes, I forgot to add that a 4th element in an Awakening is prayer. Jonathan Edwards' Humble Attempt lists about a 100 Bible promises that were pleaded by people like William Carey and others in the beginning of the the Great Century of Missions. I dare say there were also pleaded by those who hadthe dlight of experiencing the Second Great Awakening. Can it be? Do I hear a sound of a going in the tops of the Mulberry trees?