March 10, 2009

Thespian Baptists Play With the Terms

Misleading attacks are part of politics. When you don’t have the facts on your side, play on people’s ignorance. This, of course, is done all the time with terms like Calvinist, Baptist, Arminian, Reformed, Dispensationalist, and — gasp! — Neo-evangelical!


One time when my own convictions were being discussed in a tense meeting one of the men accused me of being a “neo-evangelical.” Amazingly, in the same meeting he said, “I really don’t know what a neo-evangelical is, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.” Hmmm. So, you don’t know what a duck is, but you know when something walks and quacks like one, heh? Of course, I knew that once I was labeled with a scary-sounding word, I was finished with that group of men, even if they really didn’t know what it meant.

It’s the hot words that spark emotion among the ignorant, and it’s particularly embarrassing for fundamentalists when good words are “hot.” Some of the fundamentalists that influenced me early on in my ministry were men like Dr. Ernest Pickering who was a four-point Calvinist. He told me so. But most of those men bent over backwards avoiding the terrifying c-word because it had been overloaded with all sorts of evil connotations. Suddenly, within a short period of Baptist history, the connotation of the word became so explosive people were afraid to use it.

Then comes to the scene of a shriveling fundamentalist movement, fresh voices and flourishing churches, but they use the c-word, perhaps carelessly. Their jealous opponents fling that word in the face of the ignorant and pack it with unrestrained bad connotations, and people recoil in shock that they were almost taken by a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s a crying shame older fundamentalist leaders resort to such low tactics. But it happens. A lot.

I read the story once years ago about this kind of attack in politics. Playing purely on the ignorance of people, the politician used harmless words to undermine his opponent. The story goes as follows:

In 1950, when George Smathers ran against incumbent Democratic Senator Claude D. Pepper in the Florida primary, his victory was attributed in part, to the misleading attacks on Pepper which his campaign managers sponsored. “Are you aware,” went on of the Smather campaign pitches, “that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy.” ~ Paul Boller, Congressional Anecdotes, p. 131.

Another illustration of this kind of shoddy use of terms comes from John Howard Griffin’s Black Like Me in which he recounts the words of a wise black man in the New Orleans of the 1960’s.

“We need a conversion of morals,” the elderly man said. “Not just superficially, but profoundly. And in both races. We need a great saint — some enlightened common sense. Otherwise, we’ll never have the right answers when pressure groups — those racists, superpatriots, whatever you want to call them — tag every move toward racial justice as communist-inspired, Zionist-inspired, Illuminati-inspired, Satan-inspired . . .part of some secret conspiracy to overthrow the Christian civilization.”

“So, if you want to be a good Christian, you mustn’t act like one. That makes sense,” Mr. Gayle said. ~ p. 41

Some enlightened common sense. Or we’ll never have the right answers for the tags from pressure groups.

Wow!

One preacher in this city roared, “Calvinism comes from the pit of hell. I hate it so much I won’t even let my wife grow tulips.” Then he referred to C.H. Spurgeon as that great soul-winning preacher. When one of his more thoughtful members went home after the message and googled “Spurgeon” he found an article entitled “The Defense of Calvinism” by — guess! — C.H. Spurgeon! That’s when he decided his pastor was playing games with his mind. He left. His story has been repeated countless times.

One reason a huge segment of Baptist Fundamentalism is shriveling into non-existence is because with today’s vast amount of information at everybody’s fingertips even willfully ignorant people are struggling hard to stay as stupid as they once were. I want to be blindly loyal to you, Brother Man-of-God, but I accidently — I PROMISE —caved to my natural craving for knowledge and did a fact-check. And now I can’t get it — sniffle!! — out of my mind!……….. Does that make me a —muffled sobs and groans here —……a neo?

Posted by Bob Bixby at March 10, 2009 05:58 PM | eMail this entry! | 786 Words
This entry was posted in the following categories: Fundamentalism
Comments

It’s true.

It would be funny if it weren’t so completely heart breaking.

Posted by: Jason at March 10, 2009 07:11 PM

Well, Bob, the sword cuts both ways. I don’t think your “side” is any more righteous with respect to the political gamesmanship than you say the other “side” is.

However, let me point out that a 4 point Calvinist is not really a Calvinist at all. This I have on the authority of many Calvinists. My own experience with men of the 4 point persuasion is that they are far less interested in making a theological system their object of discipleship. Generally those who embrace the full 5 point position are much more inflexible and unwilling to allow some differences in these areas.

Which would be more divisive?

In any case, I think a few things can be said to be true about the current situation:

1. There has been an upsurge in a full 5-point Calvinist viewpoint.

2. There has been little public comment about it regarding this upsurge from the more prominent names, except for approving statements by some.

3. These latest statements are mildly negative, but look at the explosive reaction in some quarters! And they are the first opposing statements by any prominent leader.

Finally, I have a question about the whole thing: Why is it that somehow it is illegitimate for those who hold opposing views to express an opposing opinion? Are you advocating freedom of speech (or freedom of theology) only for those who agree with you?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Posted by: Don Johnson at March 10, 2009 08:03 PM

Don,

I agree that the knife cuts both ways. That’s why I said “Arminian” and “Dispensationalist,” etc.

The men that I refer to used the c-word for themselves all the time in private. DBTS guys use the c-word for themselves and they are, most of them, 4 pointers. The ones I know don’t like it when I call them Amyraldian. There are plenty of real Calvinists that will willingly refer to 4 point Calvinists as Calvinists and I think it would be quite easy to show you that Calvinists throughout history have embraced four-point Calvinists as Calvinists.

On your final statement, I never quite figure you out. Person A makes broad-sweeping innuendo about Person B. Person B responds vigorously. And then Don charges Person B for wanting to take away liberties of speech from Person A. Person B is only responding to what has already been freely stated by Person A.

Whenever I make a sharp criticism of somebody (remember the time I took on Grace Community?), I expect a retort, a strong rebuttal, and even impassioned argumentation. That’s all fine with me. However, if a Fundamentalist leader (who are they anyway?) — let’s say a figurehead in a prominent spot on a parachurch organization — makes a sharp criticism of what I believe, when I respond (or others) we are told by some like you that we want to be the only ones who have the right to talk. I don’t get it. Fundamentalist leaders don’t like rebuttal and fundamentalist culture cannot even bear it when their figureheads get responded to. They accuse the responders of being initiators.

And about your assessment that this is the first public statement of its kind. I don’t know where you’ve been, brother, but I’ve heard these kinds of things for years. Years.

But, back to your initial point about the knife cutting both ways: you are right. I’ve been guilty of it. Some think I was guilty of it when I referred to Phelps as “quasi-Arminian.” I don’t think so. I said “quasi.” But I was using a label to overstate a point.

But I said “quasi.” ;-)

Posted by: bob at March 10, 2009 09:53 PM

Hi Bob,

Well, I don’t understand myself at times, so there is that factor…

However, I do think you are over-reacting to a pretty mild statement. You seem to be saying “How dare he say such a thing.” I’m thinking, why shouldn’t he say such a thing? I mean, why can’t we say, if we believe it to be true, that the apparent upsurge in Calvinism is dangerous?

I don’t think that gets anywhere close to saying, “It is time to totally break fellowship with Calvinists.”

So with the accusations of playing politics, etc, and the “hear, hear” from the approving chorus, it seems rather that you are attacking the man rather than arguing the position.

Am I making more sense?

Maybe not.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Posted by: Donald Johnson at March 11, 2009 12:19 AM

Bob,

When I went to Maranatha, I remember Dr. Week’s Baptist History class, where we used John T. Christian’s History of Baptists. Dr. Weeks was notorious true and false quizzer.

True or False.

Baptists historically have been more Calvinistic than Arminian.

Answer: True.

I noticed the “quasi,” but I’m guessing that he doesn’t want to be referred to by the second half no matter what the prefix is.

I agree that if you are a Calvinist, then be one. Call yourself one and don’t worry about the results of that. If I use the term to label someone, it is because he calls himself one, not to disparage him.

Posted by: Kent at March 11, 2009 12:24 AM

Hi Bob [takes a swig of rootbeer for his first “Hi Bob”]
A couple of things:
- I appreciate your efforts to discuss some of these matters—and good men like Fred Moritz even dropped by. If you can write in such a fashion that men like him will continue to stop by here, then good on ya.
- Your anecdote re: the guy who went home and googled what his pastor had preached…if I met the guy, I would ask him if he would take the risk of bringing it up with his pastor, to see if something good could happen with such a conversation. Based on the “pit of hell” stuff, the odds seem low, but the Holy Spirit always works against the odds.
- Although you and I likely differ on some things as far as how & what change can/should occur in f’ism, I think we might both agree that in the group of men who heard the “duck” comments, there might be one or two (or many more) who would profit from someone talking straight. I’m not saying you didn’t try. I am finding that more often than not, I don’t have to be “finished” with all of them, and that even the most vocal malefactors often change their tune when someone can set them straight with fact or biblical truth. In more cases than I would have hoped for, I have seen God put impressionable men under the influence of a more godly, biblical approach—taking them away from extremism. These are men I might have written off, but the HS did not.
- I understand the language of “shriveling” and continued references to “shrinking” etc. as you discuss how you see the failure of f’ism. Given that even movements with good doctrine, honest men and biblical practices can still shrink (due to other factors), how wise is it to use contraction language? It almost seems to cede some ground to the revivalism that is plaguing so much of evangelicalism/fundamentalism, and is prevalent in the ‘camp’ you are addressing. IOW, when numbers are often the measure of choice for success among some fund’ists—esp. among the anticalvinists, is it better not to talk about numbers? Just asking.

Posted by: Sam Hendrickson at March 11, 2009 06:07 AM

So much to respond to. So little time!

Don,

I see where you’re coming from, but I’m just saying that I don’t agree. That’s all. I am not simply reacting to one statement. That (and several statements like it) are merely the impetus for my response.

Kent,

You’re one of my favorite hardcore fundamentalist blogger/commenter even though I don’t often agree with you. I’m perfectly fine with calling myself a Calvinist (I think that’s obvious), and I’m fine with being called a Calvinist. My problem is when there are slurs made against Calvinism to marginalize guys like me by statements that simply aren’t true. In other words, if it is true that Phelps really claimed to have been talking about HYPER-calvinists when he was questioned, he should own up to it. Publicly. Otherwise, he has a lot of explaining to do about the Calvinists that I know are right in his institution.

Sam,

Good points. On my anecdotes: the man did talk to his pastor and, like you guessed, nothing came of it. You’re right that we should be patient with people like the “duck” man, but you have also been in ministry long enough to know that once an ignorant man has an agenda, there is nothing more proud than an ignorant man with an agenda.

On my wording about shrinking and shriveling… That is not just me. Did you notice that Phelps himself said “increaingly rare.”? I don’t think the problem is because of Baptist Dispensationalism vs. Calvinism. I think the problem is spiritual powerlessness that will accompany intellectual dishonesty and gamesmanship.

Fundamental Baptists are weak and powerless because of their own spiritual anemia, an unbiblical leadership ethos, and an unholy devotion to high profile men that has morphed in the last 30 years into institutionalism. Thankfully, even that is changing.

Posted by: bob at March 11, 2009 08:40 AM

Am I the only one confused?

Am I the only one who is also a little disappointed and frustrated that any church that actually uses something called a “public invitation,” is disparaged as some sort of Elmer Gantryesqe, buffoonish, egotistictic “manipulator of emotions”? I’m disappointed that we are going too far and calling invitations foolish and manipulative. If you want to believe that, that’s your prerogative. Although, I’d rather someone be in a church that actually offered a public invitation for spiritual assistance than be in a church that never offered me assistance and claimed I was a good Christian because of some act my parents did for me when I was too young to remember anything. It seems to me that with the resurgance of Calvinism these days that there is too much of a mockery of public invitations. Yes, I understand that there have been abuses and people have tried to manipulate people instead of letting the Spirit do the convicting, but on the other hand, I wouldn’t write them off as “foolish” like some have.

Posted by: Jim R. at March 11, 2009 10:07 AM

Let me clarify, I have no idea if the author of this blog believes in invitations or not. That wasn’t meant as a comment specifically towards him. I was just reflecting on the debate in general, on both sides. There seems to be such sardonic views held about the “other” side that sometimes people take things too far. Just for the record, I know some Calvinists who actually do believe in public invitations, and I know others who hold them as Elmer Gantry sideshows. I really don’t know what the majority of Calvinists view of it. I hold that they are legitimate and are not foolish.

Posted by: Jim R. at March 11, 2009 10:15 AM

Jim,
before the advent of Charles Finney, Baptists, or anyone else, did not utilize what we understand today as “the invitation.” Its birth is in Finney’s phenomenally faulty fidgeting with the Holy Spirit’s work [who says calvinists can’t alliterate!]. He implemented it in part because he believed men could “convert themselves.”
He was dissatisfied with the ways his peers preached—they made the ENTIRETY of their message the invitation—with no more human pressure than their words and biblical arguments. Many eschew the invitation today because of its misuse/abuse, and because of its lack of historicity. After all, men were saved before anxious benches, and the like—why risk tampering with someone’s heart through improper pressure, and instead why not trust the Holy Spirit to move people to respond to the Message preached? Read the messages of Archibald Alexander, and others during the Awakenings, and compare to Finney’s or to many of the revivalist speakers today—the difference in the level of Holy-Spirit-trust is astounding, IMHO.

Posted by: Sam Hendrickson at March 11, 2009 11:36 AM

Sam, I see what you are saying and I think that some of those are valid points. But here’s where I’m coming from: I know many people who have been in church for about 80 years and the ONLY “invitation” if you will, that was ever publically given was an invitation to help out next Tuesday to paint a home for the poor or to help the new gay couple feel at home in the church community by giving them a rainbow blanket to show your support. But there was never such a blatant public invitation given to help out your eternal soul if you are in need of help. The reason being because it was assumed that that matter was already taken care of by what your parents did for you when you were a few days or weeks old. I know of many people who have come to Christ when they were given an invitation to do so. Or maybe they went and talked to the pastor afterwards, because that offer was given. I guess I just don’t see the need to mock the public invitation as a wasteful, egotistic, manipulative, and whatever other perjorative comment you want to make of it. Yes, I agree that they can be man-centered and manipulative, but certainly not always! In my opinion this is just a very extreme example of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” I sometimes get the sense that Calvinists are so nonchalant about everything that even any hint of offering someone a “decision” or a “choice” that they need to make is made fun of.

Just repeating a bunch of words with no heart or meaning like when you say the Pledge Of Allegiance from rote while looking out the window and thinking of your bad golf swing and not even paying attention to what you are saying is not good either. I’m not saying the other extreme is the right way either.

Posted by: Jim R. at March 11, 2009 01:43 PM

Jim, there are many directions to go on this . . . if someone hears the Word of God in your church and then does not know where to go for further instruction, aren’t there bigger problems in play?

Don’t be too committed to a contrivance of man that seeks to supplement or aid the work of the Holy Spirit.

IMHO the reasons for invitations are numerous:

- to pad the ego of the speaker
- to intimidate others who are not physically moving forward
- to assuage the conscience of those who move
- to increase the pride of those who are not moving
- so that a preacher can keep track of “stats”
- to manipulate others into making decisions
- so that one who is resisting the pull of the Holy Spirit only has to outlast the invitation. Once that is over, he is relieved because the conviction is gone.

We need to biblically evaluate all aspects of the invitations with all of the various techniques: eyes closed, eyes open, heads bowed, singing, humming, piano only, songleader only, just one more verse, no music, mass invites, etc.

Posted by: Coach C at March 11, 2009 04:37 PM

Hi Bob. Been a while since I’ve done anything in the blog world besides read, and my brief foray back in the other day did nothing to make me confident I wanted to be back.

However, I have been reading with interest some of the recent goings on and have an opinion/perception question. I get (i think) that your point in this post is the misleading stamp of words and titles designed to squelch and not foster realistic analysis and discussion. It seems that you’re saying that increasingly Calvinism is being equated with neo-evangelicalism or some sort of non-fundamentalism.

Is that an accurate read and if so, do you think that trend is widespread or confined to Maranatha circles? Is Calvinism really becoming a new, or at least newly stressed, line in the sand of Fundamentalism? Or is this just the same old discussions and doctrinal divide that has existed for a long time with the added blessing/curse of widespread communication?

Just curious what your take is.

Posted by: david morris at March 12, 2009 02:59 PM