I am curious as to the definition of "evangelism" and "missional" for Stetzer. I don't think his concept of that will be mine, even though he is not precisely in the same position as the broad contours of the SBC. Reformed pastors will very often be functional hypercalvinists if we accept almost any notion of outreach in the SBC.

I'm not Stetzer, but I think it is safe to say it entails verbally sharing the gospel with another person. And I would venture to guess that he would include a personal element - not just proclaiming the gospel from the pulpit on Sunday, but actually having a conversation with someone who is far from God.

I can't help but wonder what hero-pastors he has in mind who do not lead evangelistic churches. I'm unaware of such a phenomenon on any significant scale. I can't put my finger on any prominent persons with strong theology and weak witness- surely he had a group of pastors in mind? Who?

He is right to warn of "functional hyper-Calvinism" on one hand- it does exist. I don't find the reference offensive, just curious how broad a people suffer from such condition? Do we really have a significant pool of folks who want no evangelical contact with sinners yet are strong theologically? I just don't see that.

I find Stetzer's comments "functionally unhelpful." First, he begs the definition of "evangelistic," "witness," and "missional." And, secondly, Stetzer seems to presuppose that preaching "strong theology" is not "missional" in and of itself.

Stetzer is therefore most unhelpful because it is these very suppositions that are the crux of this entire discussion. Until evangelism is biblically understood (in contradistinction to the seeker model prevalent in most Arminian [semi-Pelagian?] churches) such conversations will be little more than exercises in talking past each other.

I believe the term "functional hyper-calvinist" was started by Bob Selph early in his term as ARBC coordinator (I heard the address on tape). Pastor Bob used it as Stetzer did. Those who claim to be Calvinistic and Evangelistic but never talk about the Gospel to those who need to hear it.
Let us and the functional hyper-calvinist semi-pelagians both repent.
In Christ Alone,
Greg

Given different definitions of outreach, missional, and evangelism, I think it would be more helpful to actually name people. I am almost certain, given my understanding of Acts, that I would be considered a functional hypercalvinists. For that matter, the majority of the Reformed tradition would probably be considered functional hypercalvinists because of the view concerning Eph. 4 and evangelism and what that actually looks like for the layperson.

I just think it would be better to be specific and name names. As it has already been pointed out, there is always going to be a difference in practice when there is a difference in theology.

By "functional hyper-Calvinist," Stetzer seems to mean those who advocate evangelism in theory but rarely do it themselves. They are apparently pastors who describe the gospel doctrines, but are not passionately appealing to the lost.

Stetzer says:

"We need to be known for being passionate evangelists."

Even better, we need a theology which will naturally incline us to be passionate evangelists. A mere warning to "just do it" will not suffice. What is lacking among self-described Calvinists today is a sound understanding of God's revealed will wherein he passionately seeks the salvation of ALL men. Where are the Calvinists echoing Calvin when he said, "So wonderful is his [God's] love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved..." If some are functioning as hypers with reference to not being zealously evangelistic, then they need to be reminded of God's own desire for all to be saved. That's the root of the problem. The passages of scripture that teach of God's universal saving desire are being systematically reasoned away, and there are few self-described Calvinists who are expressing any concern about that. What's the result? "Functional hyper-Calvinists," if not manifest or explicit hypers who deny God's universal saving will, and thus are not that passionate about all being saved.

The variety of hyperism that is prevelant today is not the sort that denies the need to preach the gospel to all men, or that it is the duty of all to believe. Rather, the rampant hyperism today is much more subtle. It denies:

1) That God wills all to be saved in the reaveled will.

2) That God has any sense of love for the non-elect.

3) That God is being gracious to the non-elect through the common bounties of providence.

4) That God himself is well-meaning in the gospel offer in the case of the non-elect.

All of these doctrines are interrelated, and the denial of them lends itself a lack of zeal to evangelize. If in the back of our minds we don't think that God wants all to be saved (because only his decretal will is truly a will), then we will not be zealous to take the gospel to everyone. We will be inclined to wait to see someone who gives evidence of being under genuine spiritual conviction (i.e., a sensible sinner) before we share the gospel with them.