May 14, 2009
A “Young and Restless” Response to a Fundamentalist Rant, Part Two
In Part One of my critique I said the one of the problems in Dan Sweatt’s message was that
There is a patently false claim that there is not one example in history of a ministry that survived one generation after the passing of its flamboyant Calvinistic leader. The purpose of this false statement, of course, was to show that the ministries of men such as John Piper and C.J. Mahaney and all other Calvinists are doomed to die a quick death. This claim was doubly ironic because the purpose of Sweatt’s rant was to give an answer for why so many young men are abandoning fundamentalism. He seems to consciously ignore the inconsistency of his claims: After opening up with a eulogy of the dynamic leaders in fundamentalism like Bob Jones, Sr. and John R. Rice who have passed on and declaring a dearth of leadership in subsequent generations, he proceeds to prove the evil of Calvinism by the same thing he claims is contemporary fundamentalism’s problem!
An expansion of this complaint.
First, an important point. My main contention is not that Dan Sweatt objects to Calvinism and wants to denounce it. I’m completely fine with that. What I strongly object to is the careless and intellectually dishonest way he deals with the subject. Thus, my response is not so much a defense of Calvinism, but an effort to show that his flippant treatment doesn’t stand against the facts.
In about the 36th minute of his address, Dan Sweatt dogmatically asserted this astonishing claim: “Calvinism has never in the history of the world survived the generation of charismatic leaders.” The in-your-face dogmatism of this so-called fact of history is all the more amazing when one considers that this claim barely makes it through the air to the ear gate before it has miserably failed two significant tests, the test of truth and the test of common sense.
It fails the truth test as will be demonstrated shortly, but it defies common sense to make such an argument when you are addressing the fact that so many young men are abandoning the movement since the demise of the strong leaders in an earlier fundamentalism. As I said before, he proceeds to prove the evil of Calvinism by the same thing he claims is contemporary fundamentalism’s problem!
Amazingly, Sweatt’s first illustration is Charles Haddon Spurgeon and the Metropolitan Tabernacle as proof of this astounding claim. His rhetoric was along these lines:
Preacher: Do you know who was the pastor after C.H. Spurgeon? (A rhetorical question that is making the safe gamble that most people do not know that A.T. Pierson was the pastor following C.H. Spurgeon.)Audience: Silence. (Either the crowd does not know or they are respectfully participating in the rhetorical play.)
Preacher: See, Calvinism has never in the history of the world survived the generation of charismatic leaders.
Thoughtful people everywhere: Huh?
He then drove his point home by challenging the crowd by asking if they knew who followed Martin Luther, John Knox, and John Calvin. Again, the respectful crowd was silent, playing along with his rhetorical questioning. The fact that I could have answered that question without hesitation had I been there would be irrelevant to Dan Sweatt because he seems used to taking advantage of ignorant people to prove his invalid opinions. And the few people that know the sheer unintelligence of such a claim are too respectful to stand up and walk out or have been for too long in the sub-culture of fundamentalism that they find themselves once again dutifully submitting to the nonsensical rant of “the man of God.”
However, even thoughtful older fundamentalists are wishing they were “young” so they could be “restless.”
Other thoughtful listeners, young men with a future in ministry, who have no dog in the race are asking themselves why they ought to hang around such “preaching.” They simply don’t like the internal conflict they face as thoughtful people who love peace whenever they hear this kind of drivel. The internal conflict is the necessary thought process of anyone who knows the facts and cares about Christian character. It is the process of being tossed between two uncomfortable options that confronts their sub-conscience (if it isn’t consciously deliberated): should they dismiss the man’s rant as harmless inanity on the part of an uneducated bumpkin or, if it is not his unintelligence, must they deal with the uncomfortable fact that such statements made despite the knowledge of the facts is a matter of bad character? And, if he is being unintelligent or unethical, what does it matter? Who really wants to follow that kind of leader?
Since a Christian man does not want to judge the motives of another man, he has no other alternative but to conclude that the man simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. In some cases, he can charitably stretch his imagination to conclude that the ranting preacher really didn’t mean exactly what he said and that he just got a little carried away while he was “shucking the corn” and “preaching to the choir.”
After awhile, however, the excuse-making wears thin. And when you don’t really have an emotional bond to the preachers in question you don’t feel a burden to hang around, nor do you feel any obligation to tiptoe around the issue with all undue respect. For too long the “fightin’ fundamentalists” have been able to “shuck the corn” and wreak havoc with the facts with impunity. Nobody dared stand up and say, “Enough is enough.” And the ones who have had enough, just leave.
That, my friends, is why so many in the younger generation are taking flight. There are others of us who say we aren’t going anywhere. Sorry. We’re too theologically grounded enough to know that other people besides fundamentalists are human too and flat out too cranky to put up with nonsense on turf that we consider to be just as much ours as the raving anti-calvinists.
Since the theme of the conference in question was about effective leadership for the next generation, I would make one very simple suggestion: when you get up to speak, know what you are talking about.
More Stuff
Benjamin Keach was a charismatic leader of men, prolific writer, and widely respected. He was also a Calvinist and he lived and died in the 1600s. The question we have to ask ourselves is if Calvinism survived in his ministry after he died.
In response to that question, I would love for every person in Dan Sweatt’s audience that day to get on an airplane and go with me to a rare sight in downtown London. It’s the sight of a church that uses old-fashioned hymns and preaches from the King James Version, is one of the most dynamic “fundamentalist” churches in the country, has an amazing international ministry of church-planting, and holds to the doctrine that it has preached for nearly three hundred years. The doctrine is Calvinism and the church is the Metropolitan Tabernacle.
There has been ebb and flow in the attendance at the church, of course, but the doctrine has remained steadfast for three hundred years.
This was the church that became the home of the one-of-a-kind C.H. Spurgeon. Spurgeon did not bring Calvinism to the church and when Spurgeon left he did not take it with him. The very next pastor was A.T. Pierson, a Calvinist. Now certainly the church had its struggles in the years following its amazing genius of a pastor, but what is equally amazing is that it has endured, maintaining a history that few churches in the world can boast of.
Some defenders of Dan Sweatt will say, “But, the crowds were smaller after Spurgeon left. And at one point it nearly shriveled down to nothing.”
This is obvious, but I have several responses to that.
1. Dan Sweatt said that Calvinism “has never in the history of the world survived the generation of charismatic leaders.” But the church thrived for thirty years under the Calvinist Benjamin Keach. It thrived again under the preaching of the exceptional C.H. Spurgeon who brought it back to its roots by unapologetically preaching Calvinistic doctrine. In 1970 it was revived again under the ministry of Peter Masters, a Calvinist. And all of the dynamic pastors that it had in the interim were Calvinists. One could make the argument that Calvinism helped the church thrive and, in fact, some have claimed that the oldest gospel preaching churches in England that are still consistent in worship and message to their roots of centuries past have this one thing in common, they preach a Calvinistic soteriology.
It is true that the church barely survived the long – very long – pastorate of the famous John Gill who is noted in Church History for his hyper-calvinistic theology. But even when one considers John Gill’s ministry at the “Tabernacle” (it wasn’t called the Tabernacle then), one can see many other factors that contributed to the decline of membership besides his doctrine. Gill was scholar that tended to spend too much time in the books and added to the church’s burden by remaining in his ministry for nearly fifty years. I know a rip-roaring, anti-Calvinistic, fundamental Baptist church that would make Dan Sweatt proud that is slowly losing its vim and vigor –no, it’s dying – while its die-hard membership respectfully waits for the long-tenured pastor of over fifty years to go to his heavenly reward. Even in the case of John Gill, then, there were a number of other factors that contributed to the near demise of the famous church.
2. However, if Dan Sweatt was indeed describing a smaller ministry, a ministry that stuggled after a dynamic leader passed on, or a ministry that was fighting for life after the glory days of dynamic leaders then on what grounds can he use that as evidence that Calvinism is flawed? This is exactly the problem of fundamentalism and he as much as says so in his April 7, 2009 address!
With his logic I could retort, “Brother Sweatt, your kind of anti-calvinistic, hyper-separatistic brand of fundamentalism thrived under the leadership of flamboyant charismatic leaders like Jack Hyles, Bob Jones, Sr., and John R. Rice but one generation later it is splintering up into tiny fragments and some of its most articulate people are wondering out loud if it is even worth saving. If you claim Calvinism is to be rejected for this reason, why should we not reject your brand of fundamentalism, a brand that in the scheme of history is relatively novel? Especially, when — unlike Calvinism — there is not much record in the last 500 years of sectarian separatism ever being effective in the revival of God’s people, unless, of course, it was combined with Calvinism.”
The Father of Modern Day Missions was a five-point Calvinist, Brother Sweatt.
The first American missionary, a Baptist, was also a Calvinist, Brother Sweatt.
The great Baptist church planter, the “Father of American Baptists, Isaac Backus, was a Calvinist, Brother Sweatt.
Most of the writers of “The Fundamentals” which we were all taught to cherish as part of our history were Calvinists, Brother Sweatt.
I could go on and on. It prompts the question: Who really has changed?
As far as I’m concerned I’m going back to our roots.
Posted by Bob Bixby at May 14, 2009 07:51 PM | eMail this entry! | 1898 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: Fundamentalism
I have been listening to Sweatte’s message and it seems like his vision for fundamentalism is survival.
As a young fundamentalist pastor, i’m not interested in following a movement that seeks nothing higher than survival and I think that’s what’s drawing us to the Reformed.
Posted by: William Dudding at May 14, 2009 08:17 PMBob,
You think Pastor Vaughn would set up a debate at the national meeting between you and Danny? I would be interested in seeing that! ;) (In other words, I appreciate your learned response in this matter.)
(BTW, I’m not sure if you are aware, but I believe there will be a “forum” on conservative evangelicalism at the national meeting with Bauder et. al, in attendance.)
Posted by: Matthew Olmstead at May 14, 2009 09:19 PMBob, what about the most obvious argument against Sweatte’s proposition? Calvinism, if one wants to say it started with Calvin, has stood the test of time for 500 yrs. If it fails so readily, then why does it continue and why is it stronger than ever?
And my other question for Sweatte is, Has he ever read the Institutes? It seems every guy who bashes Calvinism in our circles seems ignorant of the actual content. (http://www.ambassadors.edu/resources/Fruits_of_Calvinism.pdf) Will these guys please read what the guy wrote and be intellectually honest?
Finally, with the accusation of texts like John 3:16 that are supposedly changed to fit Reformed theology, what about the plethora of texts on the issue of sovereignty and election that they enjoy explaining away the plain sense?
Seriously, it’s one thing to disagree with one’s interpretation, it’s another to be dishonest about representing the position to push the agenda they want. I’m with you Bob. This is my problem with these hard-liners. I hope, Minnick, Doran, and Bauder weigh on this, because Sweatte lumped them into his category.
Thanks for your input, Bob. We need someone to be honest.
Bob, what I found almost hysterical is that just before he launched into that part of his message is that he drops names of all the good and godly men that he personally knew - and then proceeds to drop the names of famous fundamentalist preachers like Lester Roloff and BJ Sr. I even think that Jack Hyles made an unwelcome appearance in that list, which I believe starts about 13 minutes and 30 seconds in.
Do you catch the irony of railing on Fundamentalists leaving Fundamentalism for the personalities that he mentioned and then dropping names of all the great men of God that he knew personally?
Posted by: Jay C. at May 15, 2009 08:41 AMAnd the ones who have had enough, just leave.
Yup. And when we leave, we find more devotion to the Word and to the Gospel than we had ever known before!
Posted by: Camille at May 15, 2009 09:51 AMBob,
I just started reading your blog about three months ago. It has helped me to re-connect with what is going on in Fundamentalist circles. Having been raised in Fundamentalism, I have a deep appreciation for the strength of commitment to Christ and the Bible that was drilled into me, and exemplified before me.
Interestlingly, it was that same commitment to Scripture that caused me to slowly drift away from active participation with most, though not all, Fundamentalist causes. I was taught, “Whatever the Bible says is so!” I believed it then, and I believe it now. I was taught, “Do right ‘til the stars fall.” I still believe, and fervently endeavor to practice that today.
Serious study of Scripture slowly led me to embrace Calvinistic soteriiology. Not without much resistence, but the Bible kept chipping away at my objections, until none were left. That was more liberating than I can explain. I felt as though I now had the other half of the Bible, a half that was obscure until the light of the full truth of the Gospel shined into my soul. It was almost as if I had been born again—again.
I haven’t rejected Fundamentalism, because there is much to appreciate and admire. But in many ways, it has rejected me, because there has been such a strong anti-Calvinist element. I’m glad that is changing. May the change continue! I can understand why this is threatening to the “old guard” who are basically anti-Calvinist, and instinctively suspicious of anything that differs from that way things used to be. But in this world, nothing stays the same for long. Only God is always unchanging. Perhaps God will enable Fundamentalists to understand that the movement toward Calvinism is actually a move toward a stronger Biblical foundation, and is really the only thing that will enable the true, Biblical elements of Fundamentalism to continue. As for the rest, may they rest in peace.
In the bonds of Christ,
G. N. Barkman
I downloaded the mp3 and listened to it yesterday. I found myself puzzled by Pastor Sweatt’s seeming admiration for the ministries of men like Jack Hyles. And I confess, I was disturbed by his repeated desire to be someone young men would look up to and want to be like. I am disturbed by the idea of that being a pastor’s goal. God hasn’t called us to raise up followers to ourselves. I think that, were I a young man preparing for a life of ministry, I would be looking for mentors whose lives would point me toward being like Christ, not like them. His comment about sitting on a stage with a group of men, none of whom he wanted to be like - I couldn’t help but think it likely that none of the men on that stage would have wanted that kind of admiration, at least if my guess about the stage he’s referencing is correct.
There was a seeming lack of humility in Pastor Sweatt’s presentaion, and a definite lack of charity toward Christian brothers. In so strongly speaking against men like Piper and others, he gives the impression of having never met them or read anything they’ve written. These men have an obvious passion and love for Christ, as well as a clearly stated understanding of the foundation of the gospel. Certainly there are areas we might legitimately disagree with them, but to accuse them of drawing “our” young men away from the fundamentals of the faith is disingenuous, to say the least.
For whatever it’s worth, I’m familiar with the young man Pastor Sweatt references in his message. Everyone who knows him is just THRILLED that he has trusted Christ and turned his life around. However, I couldn’t help but feel uneasy at his situation being used as an illustration in this - of all messages. I hope he never has to know about it. I would hope that most pastors would have the courtesy to allow a little time to pass before using their flock’s individual spiritual journeys as their personal point-hammers.
I don’t know what the five points are. I don’t think of myself as Calvinist or Arminian. I know that the Bible teaches both God’s election and man’s responsibility in salvation. I know that salvation is all of grace, and that the fault of sin is all mine. I know both that God is in complete control and that my choices are my responsibility. And I know that this in no way makes God the “creator of evil.”
The doctrines of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility defy man’s ability to completely reconcile logically. It’s a demonstration of God’s infinite superiority that His plan for the universe will not fit into our rational little boxes. I am learning that whenever a person insists on his own favorite box, he finds himself reshaping or pruning scriptural truths in order to fit it all into that box. And more often than not, the desire to be right, to prove others wrong, leads men to speak unkindly - without regard for the effect their words will have on others who in good conscience believe differently, and without regard for their own personal fallibility.
I can completely see why you, Pastor Bixby, had serious problems with this message. Frankly, I found it less frustrating and more just disappointing. Pastor Sweatt has broad influence over a lot of people. I hope most of them don’t feel this way.
Posted by: Angela at May 15, 2009 10:42 AM@Jamie Bickel
Why did you post that link on the “Fruits of Calvinism”? I have to eat Mexican food in just a few minutes.
I just read it and discovered that St. Augustine was the “founder of the Roman Catholic Church.” In what possible way could that be true? Rome itself would never accept that. St. Augustine would never have accepted that. History shows nothing to support that. Among a thousand points that could be brought up, one is that the Bishop of Hippo, North Africa, openly opposed the bishop of Rome more than once.
I’m afraid that arguing with such is like boxing a tar baby. Kyrie eleison!
Posted by: Aaron D. Wolf at May 15, 2009 06:09 PMBob,
I have enjoyed reading your blog. I was a student at Tennessee Temple back in the “glory days” (1977-1981) when Dr. Lee was in his final years as active leader. Pastor Sweatt did touch on something that was very evident in the personality of Dr. Roberson and apparently others like him in the Fund. movement during that time. It concerned me in my days there that there were students who treasured anything Dr. Lee Roberson said whether it agreed with the Scriptures or not. By their actions, they revered him and exalted him to a position higher than any man should be lifted. He obviously knew that there were students on campus who revered him more than a man should have been revered. Despite the fact that he was a mere mortal and fallen like everyone else, I never heard him in my four years on campus seek to dissuade anyone from this sort of leader-worship that so often characterizes young followers. I would have had so much more respect for him if he had spoken even once to direct the gaze of those folks to the Son of God and away from his own fallen self.
In addition, the leaders Sweatt speaks of were fervent antiCalvinists. I am currently choosing colleges with/for my college age children. The TTU’s, BJU’s, etc., both now and then, were/are either antiCalvinists or prevented/ prevent its discussion on campus for fear of its “disruptive” influence. The Fund. approach to music and modesty I think is God honoring (if only BJU was reformed!). However, I personally had to defend my reformed beliefs before Dr. Roberson. The Scriptures teach that “Salvation is of the Lord” and I plan to help my children choose a school that will not make them feel they are wrong to believe that fact.
J. Whitley
What seems to be lost on everyone is the fact that most of those ‘giants’ that were mentioned in Sweatt’s message were also leaders of some kind of educational institution. The link is, in my mind, the fact that when you try to institutionalize a conviction you hold personally, you either get a bunch of people mad, a bunch of ‘followers’ of the personality, or both. I saw it growing up in one of the mentioned giants churches, and nearby another. Personally held convictions put into a rulebook for institutional purposes, and taught as though from Scripture itself. Unfortunately by the time my generation came around, we had a bunch of people that adhered to rule books and their authors and forgot to be devoted to the Scripture and the God of Scripture. This turned off a number of my contemporaries to the point that some have turned reprobate. Is that listed in the footnotes of those ministries as results?
Posted by: D W at May 20, 2009 01:49 PMDW,
That is an interesting take. I think it is important to remember that there will be apostasy from Christ’s church no matter what. However, it is also important for us to seek to minister in a way that those who leave and apostatize, leave in spite of us, not because of us.
