If you're SBC & not a Calvinist...

I think you need to read the verse after the one you quoted.

Acts 16:31-32(NASB)
31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

I imagine that something similar to the article you cite is what Paul and Silas conveyed to the Philippian jailer and his household.

[ March 28, 2003, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Ken H ]

 

If you could set that up I'd be glad to debate with Al.

But notice I didn't say that Calvinists were ignorant, I was saying that the resurgence is due to Arminian ignorance. </font>[/QUOTE]If you'll tell us your Real Name I'll try to set it up!

 

How many would you like?

Here's the first one with the word "Resurging" in the Article's Title!

Article in Christianity Today entitled - Calvinism Resurging Among SBC's Young Elites

 

Here's another one - www.abpnews.com/abpnews/story.cfm?newsid=1824&srch=1 - "Baptist historian describes the 'fuss' over Calvinism"

 

Here's another one by an opponent of the doctrines of God's amazing grace from www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?ID=14985 -

Noting some of his colleagues would "vehemently disagree," Kelley, who referred to himself as "the evangelist of the group," said he also had a personal concern "about the effects of the resurgence of Calvinism in Southern Baptist life in terms of how it will affect, long-term, the effectiveness of our evangelism."

Please note that this opponent uses the term "resurgence".

 

SBC,

Would you please explain what you mean by this????

Blessings,

Archangel

 

How many would you like?

Here's the first one with the word "Resurging" in the Article's Title!

Article in Christianity Today entitled - Calvinism Resurging Among SBC's Young Elites </font>[/QUOTE]And so let us read the article and note certain parts of the article (from 6 years ago...)

Bill J. Leonard, dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School and a church historian, acknowledges that early SBC leaders had Calvinistic beliefs but says he doubts Reformed doctrine can make a widespread comeback any time soon.

And upon reading the article, we see no statistics, no real evidence, other than the mentioning of two seminary presidents. Read it again, and see for yourself.

 

And read it - the historian merely calls it a "fuss." It's not full-blown. And again, no stats, no nothing. We do hva4e quotes like:

"The vast majority of Baptists today are not strict Calvinists," Shurden said.

We do see this quote, from the Founders' website, but with no proof whatsoever:

"Since the early 1970s, our denomination has seen an undeniable resurgence of interest in the theological system known as Calvinism and its attendant principles that we call the 'doctrines of grace,'" says an excerpt from a book by Ernest Reisinger and Matthew Allen included on the Web site.

Again, if we make statements should we not provide some type of proof. Neither of the links so far have given that.

 

So one person saying it, when even he admits that people would disagree, makes it a resurgence?

Again, he provides no statistics, no proof, no evidence. Just an isolated statement that no one in the article concurred with.

 

From a different post, we read the words, "'Resurgence' isn't a word I would use for Calvinism, but it's definitely there," McWilliams said."

So does that cancel out your other quote, or will we just use your since it helps your side out?

And here's another question: From where do we see this resurgence? We do not see it in the vast majority of our churches, and in the churches that I have seen where it has surged, the results have been church splits and pain.

 

Then what is it?

Go to Chicago and see what things the church is doing in their community and in the mission field.

Read Courageous Leadership by Bill Hybels. The foundation of Willow Creek is that "the local church is the hope of the entire world." It is only through the church that we can truly reach out to others and show them the love of Christ. WCCC does an amazing job not only at drawing people, but in discipling them, and making ministers of them.

 

The point he refers to which he said others would disagree with is over the danger of Calvinism he thinks it entails, not over his use of the term "resurgence".

As I said elsewhere in this forum, I want to stand on what I believe the Bible teaches and I am sure you want to do the same. If I have to stand alone, then so be it.

Personally, this is the only place(other than a few posts on another slightly used board) I argue over theology. I have more productive things to do in the real world.

 

As documented in many places, the fact that most of these are not unchurched but formerly churched who left church for bad reasons, like it was boring and such. The fact that a great number of these people leave very quickly. They are not in it for the long haul and there is no radical transformation. There is no call to a radical godliness and separation from the world and its patterns. In fact, there is a bringing of the world into the church so that apart from the Bible verse quoted, there is no real difference. I am sure that was not the biblical method. 1 Cor 1-4 and 2 Cor 1-4 is an explicit refutation of that kind of ministry and approach. Their whole aim was to create a church around what people would like. This has constantly been their own statement. I do not quesiton their sincerity and I do not question whethey they have had some fruit. The evidence from many places that i don't have time to list here is that it is not what it has cracked up to be. We don't see the solid Christian growth from this and we don't see the great cultural revival that we would think they should be having. Hybels is a tremendous communicator and appears to have a good heart. But his methods are not NT methods.

As for George Barna, he is an authority on some things. Chruch growth is his claim but there are many evidences that he is wrong on his approach. This whole marketing method of the church needs some serious reflection that it does not often get. I would recommend the following as a thought starter Market Driven Ministry Parts 1 and 2. On this page are links to two articles that will prove good starters for anyone willing to think critically and biblically about this issue. It will be worth your time.

My encouragement is just that. More critical thought. We have too often accepted something because it draws big crowds without properly analyzing and thinking through it.

Again, I am not questioning his motives. I am questioning the wisdom and biblical correctness of some of the methods he has chosen. I think he has compromised the gospel he preaches. Let's be discerning here.

 

Do you have those statistics somewhere? They weren't in the article you posted. From what I've read of Barna, this isn't so.

There is. How much of Hybels have you actually heard/read? This may not be initial, but it does come. I wouldn't suggest that anyone enter a witnessing situation by preaching a "turn and burn" message.

Such as what? Music? Media?

So Christ's sharing of parables including a Samaritan, for example, isn't an example of Christ using modern-day examples to tell the good news of the gospel? God spoke very culturally to the Israelites, just as Christ spoke culturally to the people around him during the ministry on earth, just as Paul spoke to the church "of an unknown God."

What parts, specifically.

Not excatly correct - their whole aim was to create a church aroung what people would need. I think there is a difference.

I've read some of the criticisms and most are without much merit. A good example of such an article is Paul Proctor who calls Willow Creek as having a "godless nature" and a "godless direction."

and yet your article talked about the dangers of pragmatism, which is where you are headed with that argument. Again, where is your evidence?

I think his methods are very similar to Christ, who had the audacity to eat with sinners, causing shock with the "Godly" people of that time, thinking "how could he stoop to such a thing!"

A quote: "Clearly the Willow Creek Community Church has moved Christianity a step closer to the secular world." I'm not sure this is a bad thing, although I understand the author's worry. I would say that it is our responsibility to bring Christianity to the world that doesn't want anything to do with Christ.

Let us imagine a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is the moment right before a person accepts Christ and 1 where he wants nothing to do with Christ, the church, or Christianity. Leonard Sweet says that 50 years ago, the average person in the US was at an 8, so it didn't take too much for them to be able to step forward and accept Christ. NOw, the average person is at a 3 or a 4. Much more is needed for them to be able to understand and accept the gospel message. Willow Creek's methods are to help the person who may be at a 4, or even worse, begin to grow towards an acceptance of Jesus Christ. I don't have a problem with it.

I also find it interesting that the article says that Willow Creek is not focused enough on worship. One need only go to service to see that this is plainly false. I wonder why he did not mention the midweek service which is filled with praise and worship.

From reading both of the articles, there is a clear theological bent more towards the realm of Calvinism, where God is going to save who He is going to save. He talks several times about total depravity and that, as such, there is nothing man can do to present the gospel message as attractive. (He also says in plain language that the Holy Spirit must regenerate before the person can choose Christ.) Obviously, I would disagree with this. I would agree with Willow Creek that a church must meet a person's immediate needs before they can deal with the power of Christ. It is like witnessing to a hungry beggar - the guy has to be fed physically, before he can be fed spiritually.

I would also questoin the articles' claims that Hybels never preaches on sin or Hell. This is blatantly false - at least in the messages I have read from him. He is very honest about the fate of non-believers. He doesn't preach "fire and brimstone" messages, but speaks about a very real fate of the non-believer. I am not sure why the author says that, honestly.

Perhaps his argument falls apart the most when discussing how terrible the use of contemporary music is in the Christian world. Because praise music tends to use guitar and drums, we are obviously having a loosening lifestyle. THis is the logical fallacy known as a slippery slope argument. He concludes with this argument, and it is quite faulty. The same argument appeared when the organ began to be introduced to the Church and the bishops of the Church exclaimed, "The organ is a tool of Satan!" and the church used it anyway. The same argument appeared when choral music started using two-part, and then later four-part harmony. The cries of secularism were heard throughout Europe. Yet even in our most traditional churches, we admit that we are truly blessed by an organ offertory or a powerful choir piece. In the same way - the use of contemporary music has the power to bring an outside culture to today's world. I see no difference between the cries of "rock music is bad for the church" and "organ music is bad for the church." The latter hsa proven to be false, and I am confident the former will as well.

The overall message of the author is that Willow Creek isn't God-centered enough. I would encourage him, and others who have written disparagingly about Hybels and the church, to actually go hear him preach, read some of his books, whatever it takes. It is clear that Doran has not attended the church nor Saddleback Community Church (Rick Warren's the pastor there), so one has to wonder how credible he truly is.

And I've read Hybels' rationale for these things and have properly analyzed it. We've had this debate in staff meetings at our own church. He doesn't do these things merely for "big crowds." His belief is that the local church is the hope of the world, and he communicates solid, Biblically based truths to both the lost and the found in the hope that they will commit their lives to Christ. And, despite what many of the commentaries have said, they do not end there. They have discipleship classes for all new converts. They stress ministry and missions. They stress worship. All these things are so often missed in the zeal to criticize Willow Creek. I would encourage you as well to read "Courageous Leadership" by Bill Hybels to understand more about the rationale for WCCC. Perhaps reading that in a discerning matter would be good for you.

 

I don't have the statistics handy. I would have to find them but I don't really have time to look right now and I am sure they would be unconvincing to you anyway.

I have heard and read Hybels some, though not a great amount. My point was not that we should use a "turn and burn" method. I think Hybels is a very clear communicator about these things. THat was not really my point.

But there is a clear indication that in terms of philosophy, entertainment, and secularism, he and Warren (though very different in many respects) have brought the world into the church. Music and media are a part of that, yes. I do not think the problem is the using of examples or the parallel to parables you speak of.

In 1 and 2 Cor, the issue there is that the people were trying to get Paul to adjust his presentation and message to make it more palatable to the people of the day. There were trying to get him to communicate using the common communicative principels of the day (sophistry). And Paul outright refused because it would be a compromise of the plain power of the preached word. I think many parallels can and should be drawn from 1 and 2 Cor to address the problems in this philosophy of ministry.

2 Cor 4 is notable where it talks of using the gospel craftily and deceitfully, something that I think has been done in many cases, although not intentionally. While many today, like yourself, cry out that if we do not use this new method people won't hear the gospel. Paul's response is that their eyes are blind anyway (an interesting response for you to struggle through ... he appears to give a clear nod to the fact that not all are prepared by the Spirit to hear the gospel). Their minds have been deceived and until God opens their minds, it won't matter what we do to the message. I cannot, for the life of me, reconcile that passage with the philosophy that you speak of here. If others can, more power to them. I can't seem to find how this passage has been dealt with. And 2 Cor 4 is just a microcosm of the whole that needs careful consideration.

When you say their whole aim was to create a church aroung what people would need I think you miss the point that these "needs" are felt needs, not real needs. And I think there is a difference. Hybels by his own admission started this church as I recall by going and asking people why they left church. Those churches in the WCCC philosophy have done the same and openly advertise it. A WCCC affiliated church in Ohio used this very method of advertising their church.

I would differ with the statement that it is our responsibility to bring Christianity to the world in the sense that you appear to use it. Our job is to confront the world with the radical claims of Christianity and that cannot be done by the philosophy that "you're really ok, you just need a little help," which is often what this philosophy leads to. I think there is a radical call in the gospel to be different. And I don't see that radical call in my experience with some of these churches.

I think CAlvinism does play a role because of what 2 Cor 4 says. If our gospel is hid, it is hid to those whose eyes are blind anyway. Until God opens their eyes, they will not see, no matter what you do to the gospel. I think that passage is a crystal clear passage about the state of those who have not been opened by God. If, as you and others claim, everybody has been opened by God, then who in the world is Paul talking about here? I think there are some whose eyes have not been opened by God and that is the only way that his statement makes any sense in the passage.

I don't have a problem with leading people to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. That is not where I differ with WCCC and Hybels.

The music issue is a serious one but not one that we can really entertain here. I think your argument is flawed for various reasons but we will let that go here.

I do believe the author has attended and listened to services in both of these places. Additionaly he quotes extensively from their own writings. So I think he is fairly qualified to speak on it.

I have found help in some of the things Hybels has written, particularly Becoming a Contagious Christian. I will check out this book on Courageous Leadership. However, based on your comments here, I would argue that you have not properly analyzed this movement in light of Scripture (although I am sure that is no surprise to you) . I think there is a lot at stake particularly in the radical claims of the gospel. For some reason, based on what Paul has written, I can't see him approaching his world like Hybels approached his ... it terms of philosophy. I think their zeal was perhaps similar; but their philosophy seems so far different. And since Paul's was inspired, I think that is the better way to go. I realize you would agree with that ... we would simply differ on what Paul's philosophy was.

Have you read Horton's book entitled A Better Way? It is a good book particularly on worship but it addresses a lot of the mancenteredness of some of these philosophies. I found it interesting to read.

I have enjoyed the conversation about this however.

[ March 29, 2003, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

And if you honestly believe Paul and Silas spoke to the Philippian jailer regarding 4 different types of faith as well as the theological definitions of justification, propitiation, etc., then your imagination has gotten the best of you. There is definitely room for this type of soteriological elaboration within the teaching of the church, but IMO it does not fit within a "what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ" presentation of the gospel to a seeker.

 

Would you please explain what you mean by this???? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I simply mean that overzealous Calvinism is not the reputation Mohler or Southern want to present to the broader SBC world. If they do, they will create a lot of unnecessary division in the ranks.

 

Would you please explain what you mean by this???? </font>[/QUOTE]I simply mean that overzealous Calvinism is not the reputation Mohler or Southern want to present to the broader SBC world. If they do, they will create a lot of unnecessary division in the ranks. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I don't think either Dr. Mohler or Southern are embarrased about their Calvinism. I don't know if you were implying that.

I have known many Calvinists and Arminians who co-exist very peacefully, and that in a ministry setting.

Blessings, thanks for the clarification

Archangel

 

Mohler does not represent fully the type of Calvinism to which I was referring. Some of the students in and coming out of SBTS do represent the type I was describing. I would never suggest Mohler was embarrassed about his Calvinism. Southern itself should not have a Calvinism with which to be proud. It should represent the larger beliefs within the convention. IMHO Mohler has been embarrassed by some of the antics of the callow Calvinists who misrepresent Southern and Mohler.