by Teri Ong
I recently read with great appreciation a blog post called “Time to Speak Up” by Kevin T. Bauder [In the Nick of Time, May 15,2009]. The incident that precipitated his fine article was a message by Pastor Dan Sweatt at a meeting of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International wherein Sweatt denounced “Calvinists” as those who “take away the Book” and “take away the Gospel.” Such charges are not only unlearned, Bauder astutely points out that they amount to bearing false witness (un-truths), which is not an error– it is sin.
One of Sweatt’s issues is that young fundamentalists are associating themselves with people like John MacArthur, John Piper, and Al Mohler (“Calvinists”) instead of people like Jack Hyles, Lester Roloff, and John R. Rice (dare I say “Arminians”?). He does not want young preachers to be “of Calvin”, though presumably he doesn’t mind if they are “of Arminius.”
It was already the situation in the first century church that believers were seeking to identify with certain respected persons while at the same time denouncing certain others. Some men were literally “idolized”, and others were unjustly defamed. Peter and Paul ended up on both sides at various times, through no fault of their own. Paul, however, spoke out against the practice of personality identification. (I Corinthians 1:12) Nonetheless, even though we purportedly did away with hagiology during the Reformation, we still have our lists of saints to venerate and devils to despise in the present day.
I remember hearing, as a student at Tennessee Temple University in the early 1970’s, a particular speaker at a meeting of the Southwide Baptist Fellowship who decried the Southwide as being “too wide.” Obviously, their list of venerated saints was too long for him. On another “student” occasion, I was greatly blessed by a powerful sermon by B. R. Lakin. After Lakin, the congregation exuded a sense of spiritual energy and edification. Immediately following him in the pulpit was Jack Hyles. Hyles at that time was venerated by many fundamentalists because of his place in Elmer Townes’ Americas’s Ten Largest Sunday Schools.
Along with Hyles on the platform at Highland Park Baptist Church that night was John R. Rice, who was by that time about 80 years old. Hyles got up and began his message by pronouncing that it was no wonder that John R. Rice had been so successful in ministry; Rice was a handsome man and a powerful speaker with a charismatic personality. But he (Hyles), on the other hand, had only been able to get where he was in terms of ministry success by depending on the power of the Holy Spirit. I was at once fascinated and horrified at the spiritual aspersion cast by the speaker on the old man sitting with him on the platform! At any rate, by that time the spiritual challenge and power of Lakin’s message was far out the door and down the street, and a pall of disbelief at what they were hearing hung over the crowd. Hyles clearly wanted more people to be “of Hyles” than “of Rice.”
The distinction in their case would have had to be based on personality rather than on “theology” since the two men probably agreed on everything but the tiniest nuance of what one might call doctrine. But in many cases association with a person or a group often is of greater significance than the actual “theology” involved.
For instance, a friend of ours recently asked a young man if he considered himself to be a “Calvinist.” The young man replied that he was “a four point Calvinist.” Our friend followed up by asking, “Which point do you disagree with?” The young man answered, “Well, which point is it that four-pointers don’t agree with?” The young man was not well versed enough in the theological issues to elucidate or defend his position; he was simply identifying with a name, albeit in a limited way (pun intended)!
Another case in point is the Nebraska pastor who advertised on his church sign (which we saw with our own eyes), “Independent, fundamental, KJV, Pre-melanial [sic]”. He was really advertising that he was “of D.O. Fuller” and maybe “of C. I. Scofield.,” since he also was advertising his theological ignorance.
To align with any human has dangers because all humans are imperfect, sinful, and fallible. To align FULLY with any one human means only this– that you are both wrong on exactly the same points. Some teachers are more “right” than wrong, but all are “wrong” about something, no matter how minor. Does this mean that human teachers, including writers of past generations, are of no value? No, God has designed a purpose for human teachers. In fact, they are His gift to the Church. (Ephesians 4:11-12) But God has also given us minds and the Holy Spirit so that we can evaluate the degree to which our teachers align with God’s truth. (Acts 17:11) Noble Christians must always “chew the meat and throw out the bones” in regards to human teachers. I have spent a good part of my career in academia attempting to help students recognize which is which, and reduce the stigma of “Not enough FUN, too much DAMN, and no MENTAL.”
I was amused by the phraseology used by R. C. Sproul Jr. in an article he wrote about C. S. Lewis. The whole staff of Tabletalk Magazine is unabashedly “of Calvin”. That does not bother me as I predominantly could identify myself that way (though when it comes to the relationship of covenants and dispensations I would say I am “of Ames”). But I also, along with Sproul Jr., greatly appreciate the Biblical insights of C. S. Lewis. Sproul phrased his approbation, “I love Lewis, despite the painfully obvious truth that he was not a Calvinist.” Toward the end of Sproul’s positive article, he wrote, “C. S. Lewis was not a Calvinist, though by God’s grace he is one now.” (Tabletalk, Jan. 2008, p.81)
I almost wrote Sproul a note in which I would have said, “Come on! In heaven, even Jean Calvin isn’t a ‘Calvinist’; he’s a ‘mere Christian.’ Everyone in heaven is a ‘mere Christian.’”
Since there are dangers associated with venerating particular “saints”, no matter how fundamental or evangelical, some pious person may read this and claim for himself, “I am of Christ,” as happened in Corinth (I Cor. 1:12). But as C. S. Lewis insightfully put it in The Great Divorce, the person who truly is of Christ “doesn’t think about it much at all.” It is in heaven that we will “all attain to the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:13) In the meanwhile, we are to speak the truth in love and grow up the best we can. (Eph. 4:15)
