Pensees: A Challenge to Sweatt’s Believers

Not a comment but a question.

At a FBFI regional meeting (which as I understand the April FBFI mtg at the Wilds was), does FBFI central (home office) approve the speakers?

If so, then FBFI would need in my mind to disavow the message and the messenger.

If not, the perhaps the FBFI would NOT need to disavow the message and messenger.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Perhaps you will be commenting on this in the next segment of your post, but should we be so dogmatic that the Wilds comes out with some kind of retraction? Would we hold other non-church venues responsible for the content of what was said by someone who was using their facility? While I agree that the FBF should say something more in the future, I am not as concerned about the WIlds. Maybe I am wrong. It certainly would not be the first time.

I’ve been told that each independent venue gets to choose who speaks at the FBFI meetings. Thus, the choice of speakers was not something done by the “home office.” For some, this makes the FBFI not responsible. I disagree. It is still under their name and auspices.

Andrew, I’m not saying the Wilds needs to do anything. I’m just saying that people in that orb need to ask themselves some hard questions. The Wilds invited him and I’m assuming the Wilds agrees with him.

Bob,

So does that mean the Wilds was the host? As in, Ken Hay or Ken Collier selected the speakers? I’ve received FBFI flyers in the past and it seems like a conference host was always identified. I didn’t see this one on the Wilds’ flyer, so that implies to me that the camp leadership was ultimately responsible.

On the other hand, the brochure is/was hosted on the website of Tabernacle Baptist Church in Wilson, NC. But then Mike Yarborough in Raleigh is the South regional directory. Maybe ambiguity fosters plausible deniability.

Re: BJU. I recently heard that Steve Hankins recently taught in a SS class at Calvary Baptist in Simpsonville about the “dangers” of Calvinism.

For the umpteenth time, I don’t have a problem that anybody, BJU included, would be against Calvinsim. What I find problematic is unethical misrepresentation. I seriously doubt that Dr. Hankins would make his point unethically — even though, if it is true, I disagree with his conclusion.

Oh, great, now we are hearing rumors about what people are teaching in Sunday School . . . Why do we even have Sunday School in the first place?

I jest.

There really are some dangers of Calvinism and there really are some dangers of Arminianism. I, for one, just want the ability to talk about the pros and cons without fearing that I might lose my IFB card.

Bob:

Did you check out the “scholarly work”? It is a self-published book by some no-name that I could not find anything about on the internet. I browsed through it for about 15 minutes and it is the usual anti-Calvinist drivel that has been produced for the last 400 years. Like KJVO propaganda it only convinces the true believers.

I’ve heard Calvinists talk about the dangers of Calvinists. For example, Mark Dever labels young Calvinists who have just heard about Calvinism as the “Cage Stage.” It would be better if they were just locked up in a cage for a few years until they worked out the real impact of the doctrine towards a confident evangelism.

Calvinists, like me, should be aware that we will have different temptations than our Arminian brothers. We may be tempted towards fatalism, but it’s not a logically necessary conclusion just like self-dependence might be a temptation for Arminians.

Indeed, Shayne. In fact, I am chomping at the bit to write about the dangers of the “New Calvinism” and the Driscoll wave, but one thing at a time!

Jon Bell,

Be careful in how you refer to a fellow brother in Christ. No matter who Huston Smelley is or what his credentials are, he is a soul for whom Christ died trying to work out the Doctrines of Grace and not coming to the right conclusions yet. Please be careful. I speak as someone who has been corresponding with him for a little while and he’s no slouch. And I speak as someone who knows, from personal experience, how long and crushing the road to Calvinism can be. Give your brothers space to write their “drivel.” Patiently explain its errors. Correct where you see deliberate misrepresentation. Rejoice in what God has enabled you to see. But, by all means, win the person, not the argument. (Thank you Francis Schaeffer!)

To everyone,
I want to add this for any being harshly critical of Dan Sweatt. I disagree with him, too. And I wish he hadn’t said some of the things he said or posted the address and PDF on his website. (I’ve written to him more than once about it, and this situation’s had me in such fits of grief recently that I’ve been just broken.) But remember that he is a fellow brother in Christ. And if your approach to confronting Sweatt about his errors comes across as being personally offended rather than offended for the sake of our long-suffering Savior, then I do think it’d be good to beg God for the heart to weep over Pastor Sweatt rather than fume. Does the name “Dan Sweatt” conjure, in your minds, prayers and grief and longing for him to see what you see (whether about Calvinism or about his logic or exegetical methods)? Or does his name evoke anger and disgust?

And Bob, lest you think that last paragraph was pointed squarely at you, it wasn’t. I do think you’ve had very valid points to make about Pastor Sweatt’s address not being entirely factual/logical/exegetical. But I think your tone (especially to those who don’t know you) comes across, often, as angry with the people involved for not seeing what you see. I’m just not sure we have the right to take offense. If we’re supposed to bless those who curse us, and pray for those who abuse us, then how much more patient should we be with a brother? I’m not saying don’t point out problems (if the problems are important enough to deserve correction), but that the tone should match up with the seriousness of the damage being done to the name of Christ. And unless anyone here knows that Dan Sweatt is being knowingly dishonest about his brothers in Christ (rather than just genuinely not seeing the arguments), then no one has grounds for full-blown anger. Or even half-blown anger. Maybe even anger at all.

Are we praying that God would strengthen Pastor Sweatt’s spirit in humility and give him eyes to see what he does not see? Or are we desperately wishing that someone would give him an official kick so that none of us would have to put up with a person treating us unfairly?

I know the need for correction is partially about the coming generation… If they see that kind of message being met with approval then they’ll turn from us (understandably)… But I think I’d turn from us if I were younger and was seeing how fundamentalists have been tearing into one of their own. Are we entreating Sweatt as a father? Or are we just rebuking him?

I’m sorry, Bob… Your comments area is serving as my emotional vent for all the stuff I’ve seen flying over the past few weeks. I just wanted to speak up on behalf of loving Dan Sweatt in other ways than just criticism, however valid.

-Jeff

What interests me, as a complete outsider to the IFB (I’d never even heard of it until I started following the links from Pyromaniacs), is how amazingly important it is to everyone to define who does or doesn’t “belong”. It comes off as a variation of True Church-ism, which is a plague here in central Kentucky.

The Christian Churches all claim to be the One True Church, but the Pentecostals all claim to have the Holy Spirit in a way that none of the rest of us do. Missouri-Synod Lutherans will excommunicate you if you take the Lord’s Table with anybody else but them. Implied in the Southern Baptist’s prohibition of their people to take communion with anyone else is One True Church-ism as well. Strict Baptists, implied in their seamless welding together of immersion, true discipleship, and church membership, lay the groundwork for One True Churchism, in my opinion; and of course the Baptist Briders go all the way. I’d never heard of them till I moved here, either.

One of your commenters talked as if considering the possibility of attending an indy church pastored by a Master’s Seminary guy is some sort of momentous thing. As if he was doing some really daring thing by considering this.

I don’t get it. All churches are impure, including all the ‘Fundamentalist’ churches, though some churches clearly cross Biblical lines of doctrinal orthodoxy or ethical rectitude. When they do that, I agree that one should confront, and if rebuked, disassociate. But I’ve never been a Baptist, so I guess I don’t resonate with this preoccupation with who’s ‘real”. I never understood it when I attended a Baptist Bible college up in NJ. The Plymouth Brethren I was involved with as a youth were fanatically preoccupied with this whole “We’re more 1st century than you.” So is that what this is all about?