Where'd All These Calvinists Come From? Part 4 of 10
Some astute inquirers have noticed that all the influences I've mentioned so far have been British. A couple of observations about this. My wife and I lived in Britain for 6 1/2 years, and I would say that there is something in the British culture (perhaps it is part of living in a much older place) which is at home with given-ness. That is, where an American would say "that's unfair" a British person might simply respond "that's the way life is." There is both maturity and resignation in this British response. Such different responses have advantages and disadvantages for both sides. It is simply the case that our friends in Britain are the children of those who stayed, and we Americans are all the children of those who left. Consider the interesting gene pool that's created!
I'm not saying that Britain 70 or 80 years ago was a hotbed of Calvinism. It wasn't. But there was an at-home-ness with the Bible's teaching on election and predestination that seems somehow more alien to Americans. During the mid-20th century, Reformed theology was not totally absent from America. There was the Dutch Reformed community in Michigan and the mid-west. I first read Flavel and Baxter not from the Banner re-prints, but from those by Baker (though that Baker Book House is, sadly, long gone). A. W. Pink travelled around and made friends with various conservative Reformed Baptist ministers (among whom one was my great-grandfather, Leaman Winstead). But on the whole, the early and mid-20th-century was a desert time for Reformed theology in the broader English-speaking evangelical America.
And then came what many may see as an unlikely aid to the cause.
Among the most deadly objections to Calvinism among American evangelicals was the charge that it killed missions and evangelism. American evangelicals have had, for a hundred years or more, an inability to distinguish between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. Calvinism teaches the absolute sovereignty of God and the real responsibility of man. Hyper-Calvinism teaches that because God is sovereign our actions, essentially, don't matter. That is, because the end is already established, the means may be dispensed with. (Thank God Paul didn't think that! Look at Romans 9-10--the strongest statement on predestination leads to the strongest call for missions and evangelism! He himself had been encouraged in his evangelism in Corinth by the doctrine of election--see Acts 18.) Even among those who could distinguish between the two, Calvinism was dismissed by saying that it always led to hyper-Calvinism. The slippery slope is always a fascinating argument. The inevitablity of certain consequences from certain circumstances at least always sounds compelling.
And then came Evangelism Explosion. D. James Kennedy, a native of Augusta, Georgia, became the pastor of a little PCUS church in Ft. Lauderdale in 1959. He began training his people to do evangelism. And by 1962, he had organized this as a program called Evangelism Explosion. The book continues on, in its 4th edition. It has been used literally around the world. It is the subject of much debate and criticism among evangelicals. Missional types dismiss it as a modernistic sales job, assuming too much to be of any use today. Reformed types dismiss it as one-sided, coercive, or decisionistic. Nevertheless, neither of those sets of discussions need to detain us as a matter of history.
My suggestion is that Evangelism Explosion (and the subsequent dramatic growth of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, especially in the 1960's) became a quiet, but telling piece of counter-evidence against the stereotype of Calvinism killing evangelism. Kennedy was unashamedly Calvinistic in the soteriology he presented in his sermons. He later joined the PCA, with the Westminster Confession as its doctrinal standard. Regardless of how consistent or inconsistent one takes aspects of EE to be with Reformed theology, a church that clearly meant to be Calvinistic pumping out evangelism, and evangelism training throughout the 1960s and 1970s was a telling argument in pragmatic America. I'm not sure anyone thought of it at the time. But I think that it substantially weakened the ground of the opponents of Reformed theology. A pastor born in the 1920s, coming to maturity in the 1940s may have assumed that Calvinism was as gone as the horse and buggy, and partly he may have assumed that because of the "evangelism-killing" argument. But a pastor born in the 1960s, maturing in the 1980s, would have a hard time taking it for granted that a Calvinistic theology always (slippery slope) leads to killing missions and evangelism. There would be too many churches around him using Evangelism Explosion.
I know we are looking at history, but how about Redeemer Pres.'s emphasis on church planting? Not bad for some Calvinists.
Also, Sovereign Grace Ministries has an agressive church planting ministry. Evangelism clearly takes place in these Reformed organizations.
Hopefully, this caricature of Calvinism can be put away for good. Thanks for raising this matter. I had not thought of the Kennedy and EE "link." It seems believable.
Posted by: John Meade | Jul 13, 2007 10:20:47 AM
I have EE in my personal library, given by an old Baptist elder from long ago. It remains a counter argument for those within the SBC and elsewhere holding anti-calvinistic leanings.
Posted by: Mel Kizedek | Jul 13, 2007 10:32:00 AM
I am a member of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and it is thoroughly Calvinistic in its teachings and totally committed to evangelism in its practice. I do not believe the two contradict each other. An EE presentation merely represents the outward call that so often accompanies the Holy Spirit's inward call. Thank you for pointing out that Calvinism does not "kill" evangelism.
Posted by: Matthew Cochrane | Jul 13, 2007 2:22:36 PM
I was trained in EE at a small Baptist college in central Arkansas, and although the professor who taught it to me was not Reformed, he very much respected EE and the way it allowed an individual to accurately pinpoint a person's need for God. Being Refromed I very much respected his wisdom in allowing this system of evangelism to be taught in his class, and as you have stated how it shows that Calvinist are in no way against the believers responsibility to evangelize to all the world.
Posted by: Jason | Jul 13, 2007 4:19:42 PM
These series of posts are very enjoyable and thought provoking, Mark. Gracias.
It is interesting to me that opponents of "evangelism/missions-killing-Calvinism" are often members or leaders of churches in which the vast majority of their fellow members are not overtly engaged in the evangelism programs of their own fellowships.
Look at the percentages of most any nonCalvinistic, conservative, Bible-believing church with regard to participation in CWT, EE, etc., or note the turnout to "Tuesday Nite Visitation" and the accusations from the nonCalvinist community ring a bit hollow.
Some thoughtful hyper-Calvinists probably follow through on their theology, and are likely the only ones who are consistent in so doing.
Something other than supposed theological orthodoxy drives the vast majority of other "non-evangelizing" evangelicals. If Calvinism is such a death blow to missions among its own (hogwash), then how do the nonCalvinists account for the paltry activity among their own troops? What is responsible for the relative evangelistic blight in the great Forest Harmenszoon? Surely not their theology...
Timotheos
Posted by: Timotheos | Jul 13, 2007 4:46:06 PM
Thankyou Mark for this series so far.
When I think of where we are at in the UK, in terms of the growth / decline of explicitly calvinistic churches, I think it is insightful that Point 4 (evangelistic calvinism in the form of EE) is where you part with British influence.
I think it is also noteworthy that Point 1 (Spurgeon) had an evangelistic emphasis, which was / is not a prominent theme of 'the Doctor' and 'the Banner', for all the tremendous work they have done.
I would argue that aside from in the universities, there is no way in which Calvinists in the UK could be seen as being as fervent for evangelisism (with a few possible exceptions), with us often relying on transfer growth over the last 50 years.
This would give some insight into our current predicament, and some of the critique of us from the charismatic movement in the eighties, which split many churches.
I look forward to the rest of the series ...
Colin Thomas
Posted by: Colin Thomas | Jul 14, 2007 4:22:13 AM
These articles are very interesting.
I'm just waiting for the article attributing much of the resurgence of Reformed Theology among young ministers to John Piper.
Posted by: Kyle Carlson | Jul 14, 2007 9:48:33 AM
The Evangelism Explosion method has some good points but does not integrate well with culture today. It was more effective in the 1960s. It is a good approach but some consider some others better today.
The real growth of Coral Ridge in the 1960s was due to all the new home construction. When that leveled off the growth leveled off. Also, the church today reflects what the area is today. Senior citizens.
Not to minimize what Kennedy did. He has a good heart and is a good man. They did endeavor to Evangelize even though most growth was transfer growth. According to the Fuller Inst. of church growth, 90% of all growing churches are always in areas of home growth. Also, Kennedy's Reformed and Reconstructionist position has prevented the church from being what it should as having a Bible teaching expository preaching and teaching Pulpit.
So much of today's preaching from Reformed churches is overly entangled in Apologetics. They are trying to defend the Lion when all you need due is let the Lion out of the cage and he will defend himself. We need to teach the word itself not preach about it.
Evangelicalism was freed from the grip of European Reformed theology by the Great awakenings that effected the English speaking cultures in the 18th and 19th centuries. A Bible only ism gave little place for the presuppositions of Augustinian theology and NeoPlatonism. American Evangelicalism was a combination of more moderate Calvinism that rejected Puritanism and a Wesleyan Arminianism. Gone were the over statements and pseudo intellectualism of English and European Calvinism.
If there is a mild emergence of some sort of Calvinism today, it reflects the confusion of present Evangelicalism causing some to seek more certainty of faith. Unfortunately, there has not been an emerging evangelism as occurred through Campus Crusade and others in the 60s and 70s and the Calvary Chapel movement in the 70s and 80s. Instead there is a narcissistic doting about words and Pseudo Intellectualism that has emerged with some young Calvinists. It is an emerging Militant Hyper Calvinism. Theology centered but not Christ centered.
Posted by: Bob Topartzer | Jul 14, 2007 2:23:23 PM
Mark,
Thanks for the posts. I find that people who understand the Calvinistic position tend to be more evangelistic.
My question is how much do you think the return to expositional study and preaching has brought about the return to Calvinism?
Posted by: Augie | Jul 15, 2007 7:01:14 AM
NOT trying to be nit-picky or controversial here, just thoughtful (and maybe helpful). :)
"It is simply the case that our friends in Britain are the children of those who stayed, and we Americans are all the children of those who left."
Does anybody have a problem with this statement? Thabiti?
Posted by: Katie | Jul 20, 2007 11:40:29 PM
D. James Kennedy died a staunch believer in the Augustinian view of redemption. The view as taught by Paul that God has provided salvation for the elect before the foundation of the world. C.H. Spurgeon called it biblical Christianity.
EE is to be used as a tool to start conversations with unregenerate people. To get the ball rolling as it where in order to present the preaching of the gospel.
And of course, People are saved by the preaching of the Good News.
EE is a tool that is all. It is after, all a man made tool and being so it does fall short in some areas such as being soft on the matter of sin. Yes, sin is pointed out, but I don't think it is emphasized hard enough. There is no Good News until there is first bad news.
The semi-Pelagianism that holds the modern church captive has weakened most preaching to nothing more than easy believeism. Most modern church people believe that man is basically good at his core. This flies into the face of Scripture that declares "that the heart deceitful and desperately wicked and who can know it."
There needs to be a turning to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is, to deny ourselves, pick up our cross, and follow Him. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be save." Not receive Him into your heart and be saved. To believe in Him is to obey Him.
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." Dear Jesus, please let it be so.
Posted by: Dennis | Mar 9, 2008 1:13:58 AM