OTHER POSSIBLE MOTIVES OF (NE0)CALVINISMA FRIENDLY RESPONSE TO DR. JEFF AMSBAUGH'S ASSESSMENT OF NEO-CALVINISM IN THE SWORD OF THE LORD

"Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit."

Matthew 12: 33

"If any sort of man who is prominent in society, even hints vaguely that he believes the Christian faith, he is taken hold of at once - and rumors circulate as to profound spiritual experiences in the royal family and others. We are always defending our position. And great is the interest, the excitement given to that. It is a defensive and a negative attitude, and it is part of this dead orthodoxy which is content simply with maintaining its own position."

- David Martyn Lloyd-Jones

"You see, you must not be searched, you must not be examined, you are all right. Of course, denounce those sinners who are outside, or those liberals, but, why, we are the people who are orthodox! We do not need that, we need instruction, We want these general lectures, these addresses, these character studies. How interesting, how nice. But we must not be disturbed. There is nothing wrong with us. And so such people, as you see everywhere in the Bible and in the history of the Church, have always disliked anything that searches them, or makes them feel uncomfortable or probes them."

- David Martyn Lloyd-Jones

"The natural self-righteousness of man prompts him to frame apologies. We are all the best men in the world according to our own gauge and measure. If we could sit as judges upon ourselves, the verdict would always be, 'Not guilty.' Sin, which would be very shocking in another, is very venial in us; nay, what would be very abominable in other men, becomes almost commendable in ourselves, so partially do we judge our own cases."

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

INTRODUCTION

ack during my years in the marketing business, I worked for a man named Clay. Clay was the living embodiment of Fagan in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist. Tall, gaunt and bald, Clay had a face like a gin blossom Zodiac and a mind like a District Attorney facing reelection - he could

twist anything into an argument to promote his own platform. During our department meetings he would often remind us of the importance of "sowing the seeds of larceny" - his own terminology - in order to develop a lead. And whenever a team manager brought back exciting reports of big numbers from the field, Clay would positively beam with covetousness and split that lean, haggard face with a smile so yellow, I still can't believe it's not butter. Thinking back on that greedy grin all these years later, it doesn't take great leaps of imagination for me envision him in some dim, dank, Dickensian den of iniquity, training a brood of London street urchins and ragamuffins in the subtle art of cutting purses.

But as the old adage assures us, even a broken clock is right twice a day. And while Clay wasn't right about very much, he had one strong point that I remember well. He never accepted excuses for the failure to generate leads. However a team member tried to excuse himself or herself, Clay always insisted that each member take responsibility for his or her own failure and, instead of blaming circumstances, pursue a line of personal self-assessment that would identify problems in his or her own performance. According to Clay, if you weren't generating leads, you would always find the reason by looking in the mirror.

B

That brings me to Fundamentalism. More specifically, it brings me to Dr. Jeff Amsbaugh's article in The Sword of the Lord in his column For Such a Time as This entitled A Possible Motive of Calvinism. In this article, Dr. Amsbaugh addresses the antinomian flavor of Neo-Calvinism and the use of Calvinism as a cloak with which to veil the underlying purpose of abandoning historic lines of separation long held by

Fundamentalism, and its predecessors, Pietism and Puritanism.

Now at the outset, let me make it clear, that, overall, I agree with Dr. Amsbaugh's point. His observation is a good one. His insight is keen. His judgment is sound. Dr. Peter Masters, pastor of Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle, himself a Calvinist, has attacked this very point, saying,

"The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world."

Unfortunately however, this whole matter, this tidal wave of Neo-Calvinism which is sweeping the nation and the corresponding defection of former Fundamentalists to Neo-Calvinism is being dealt with in a very superficial manner. Fundamentalists are angry over it. They are denouncing Calvinism and raging against it. Articles and books are being written and Fundamentalists are discussing the question of why Fundamentalism continues to lose adherents to the New Calvinism. And while much of the rhetoric in these discussions rings hollow, occasionally, someone with keener insight - such as Dr. Amsbaugh - manages to strike a blow quite a bit nearer to the bull's-eye. Yet even in these more commendable cases, I still believe that the arrow falls somewhat short of the mark.

The point of distinction that I would draw with Dr. Amsbaugh is that his conclusion only succeeds in respect to the blame that falls upon Neo-Calvinism and the guilt of that movement. That, however, is only half of the problem. It is an incomplete diagnose that condemns Neo-Calvinism on the one hand without also addressing the responsibility of Fundamentalism in creating a spiritual vacuum that has left church members across the country utterly confused, empty, unfulfilled, and, in some cases, angry, frustrated and desperate.

SHALLOW HOMILETICS

Dr. Amsbaugh has advocated expository preaching. I sincerely commend him for doing so. While expository preaching alone is not the final solution for Fundamentalism's woes, it does much good, and a general return to expository preaching would go a long way in curbing the shallow homiletics that have long characterized Fundamentalism.

But Dr. Amsbaugh's very suggestion here serves as somewhat of an admission that something is glaringly absent from Fundamentalist pulpits, that Fundamentalism desperately needs something that will anchor its pulpit ministries back in the Word of God, and not in the opinions of men. For decades now, Fundamentalist preaching has been a sloppy conglomeration of questionable exegesis, unsubstantiated stories, misinformed quotations, frivolous joke-telling and rambling personal "illustrations" that have nothing to do with the text whatsoever and still less to do with feeding the flock

of God. I have often heard Fundamentalist pastors tell outright lies, borrowing stories from another source and telling it as though it happened to them, or else exaggerating or twisting the truth to make the story support their own purposes.

BIG-BUSINESS BAPTISTS AND FOOTBALL FUNDAMENTALISTS

Currently, the big obsession is borrowing language from the world of big business. Fundamentalist pastors apparently feel that they've really given their people a jewel if they can quote something from Wall Street leaders such as Warren Buffet, Lee Iacocca or John Maxwell. Or they talk about their favorite sports heroes - Tony Dungy, Bret Favre, Bobby Knight or Tim Tebow. They think that Wall Street wisdom or locker room logic can meet the spiritual needs of God's people and serve the purpose of feeding the flock of God. But the Apostle Paul denounces all of that in I Corinthians 2: 12 - 13, saying that he preached "not in the words that man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." Note his clear line of distinction in verse 12: "Now we have received, not the spirit of this world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given us of God."

CULTURAL CHRISTIANITY

Then we have this other category of Fundamentalists who have reduced Christianity to a Southern or Midwestern cultural phenomenon. You won't hear them quoting from Wall Street executives, and often they seem to have a real conviction against organization, to feel that sloppiness is next to godliness. Their preaching is filled with endless nostalgic tales from life in the country, tales about Grandma's biscuits and gravy, tales about their old hound dog Roy or about Betsy the cow. Their preaching is punctuated not with tears of conviction and repentance, but with laughter and merriment and when someone says "Amen" it may just as well come in response to a statement about fried chicken as to anything of a genuinely spiritual character. And all of this is done with an unmistakable sense that it is all very cute to divert the attention of God's people away from sound doctrine and Biblical practice and to while away the hours dedicated to worship and the ministry of the Word by reminiscing about the good old days of life on the farm. After all, they would never want to get "too deep".

Now this has nothing to do with feeding the flock of God. This is not Christianity at all. This is not church. This is simply culture, Southern culture or Midwestern culture. And it is both utter negligence on the part of the participants and a perversion of Biblical values and mandates and spiritual responsibilities. Those involved with that kind of preaching and worship ought to take the name of Christian off completely, stop using the Bible and the church as a pretext for their nostalgia and

sentimentalism and simply host a barbecue where they can honestly indulge in their true interests. In that way they can have all of the bluegrass music and country tales that they want, and no one can object to its incompatibility with sacred things of a sober and spiritual nature.

FAMISHED FLOCKS

Of course the tragedy of all of this is that the flock of God continually goes unfed in these contexts. Christians grow weaker and weaker spiritually, because what they get in church is not the milk of the Word, much less is it the meat of the Word. It is spiritual junk food. Pure filler. Good for nothing.

What God's people need is manna from heaven, the true bread which came down from heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ. When they come to the house of God, they need to hear about God's only begotten Son, the church's first love and coming bridegroom. And they need more than just in a brief, casual mention here or there or a name tagged on at the end of a prayer. They need to see the Lord Jesus Christ reverently magnified, his person glorified, his name exalted, his atoning work expounded and explained in every service. But instead of hearing about Christ, they hear about these various celebrities or cultural mementoes all in the name of supposedly driving home some moral or practical point. And so they go looking for someone who seems to have something Biblical, something genuinely spiritual to say. And they come across John Piper's blog or Jerry Johnson's website, where these Neo-Calvinists are actually discussing doctrine, and they buy into it, because it seems to have more substance than the foolishness and nonsense that they get at their dead, dried-up, godless Fundamentalist church that never even mentions the Fundamentals, except on Christmas and Easter.

STAGGERING HYPOCRISY

But the crisis of Fundamentalism is not limited to the pulpits and pews. It is a broad, overarching constant. My serious question for those who are so enraged over Calvinism is this: Why weren't you this upset when Dr. Jack Schaap was openly preaching before multiplied thousands that God the Father hates everybody and that Jesus Christ hates everybody? Where was your outrage then? At least Calvinism teaches that God loves some people. But Dr. Schaap had the utter audacity to preach repeatedly and to publish his bizarre doctrine that God the Father and God the Son hate everybody, and yet there was scarcely a peep over it within Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism largely blew it off and dismissed it by saying that Dr. Schaap was just "a little off on a few things" or else by ignoring it altogether or in some absolutely startling cases, actually defending the man!

Nor is this limited to Dr. Schaap's heresy. Fundamentalists generally are comfortable with doctrinal error - as long as it isn't Calvinism. Fundamentalists will yoke up with Peter Ruckman, with Brian Donovan, with Sam Gipp or with Doug Stauffer. Let a man completely undermine the doctrine of justification by grace alone, let him completely undermine the absolute necessity of faith in Christ and in the Saviour's atoning work on the cross of Calvary, let him completely undermine all New Testament theology and rip the Bible to pieces with Dispensationalism and all will be forgiven under the ambiguous and deceptive cloak of "slight differences". But let a man let slip a phrase savoring of Calvinistic undertones and - let me tell you - the fight is on, Brother! This is hypocrisy. Sheer, utter hypocrisy. I am not a Calvinist, but, God helping me, I'll take a Godly old Calvinist like John Bunyan, Benjamin Keach, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, J. Gresham Machen, B. B. Warfield, A. W. Pink or Peter Masters over the out-and-out, unbridled heretical filth and doctrinal perversion that Fundamentalists are so comfortable with these days.

Nor does the hypocrisy end with questions of orthodoxy. It extends to orthopraxy as well. After all, Fundamentalism has made its position clear on new evanglicals such as Rick Warren and Bill Hybels. So far, so good. We ought to separate from such men. Just as long as they're not our buddies from the local preachers fellowship or study partners from our college days. Or as long as they don't donate large sums of money to our fledgling Bible college. In such cases, there is, of course, an exception to be made. So much for Fundamentalism as a Separatist movement.

But what about the doctrine of the local church? We hear enough about it these days. But do Fundamentalists really believe it? Are they really willing to insist upon faithfulness in church attendance as a matter of imperative obligation for every Christian the way that Baptists were four hundred years ago? Are they willing to publicly identify and rebuke church absenteeism as what it actually is - disobedience and rebellion against God? Are they willing to obey the Bible and separate from those who walk "contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them", to actively practice church discipline in cases where a member willfully refuses to faithfully attend services? Or are the token Easter and Christmas services accepted as sufficient to retain membership in the local church? I leave the reader to answer those questions for himself or herself.

But from a different perspective, we must assume that Fundamentalists today do not believe in the imperative of the local church or attendance there. How else do we explain the hypocritiacal craze that has swept Fundamentalism over "Christian" athletes such as Tim Tebow or Tony Dungy and the ongoing football frenzy that Fundamentalists have obsessed over for decades, even from the pulpit? If they truly believe in the imperative of the local church and the Biblical mandate of faithful attendance there for all believers, how can they praise men from the very pulpit who are openly and publicly undermining what they claim to be the staunch defenders of? How can they praise from the very pulpit what they ought to rebuke, namely, an entiree industry - the professional sports industry - that has done more to undermine church attendance than any other business in our society? Again, I leave the reader to answer those questions for himself or herself.

And what about standards? I am thinking about a Fundamentalist brother in Indiana right now who refuses to permit Hollywood films, cartoons or documentaries which contain profane language, cursing or immodest dress in his home. So far, so good. Yet - astonishingly - this same brother avidly supports and promotes his local NFL team! Yes, yes, this same brother who will not tolerate immodest dress in a Hollywood film has no objections to supporting the ungodly football industry, with its scantily-clad cheerleaders, profane, vulgar, immoral, drug-abusing players, blaring rock music and flagrant alcoholism! Wonder of wonders! What contortionists these Fundamentalists are! They speak out of both sides of their mouth! They demand holiness and separation on subjects like rock music and modesty, but change their tune when it comes to the personal hobbies, celebrities or friends that they are fond of themselves. So much for dying to self, to sin and to the world!

CONCLUSION

I agree with Dr. Amsbaugh's conclusions regarding Neo-Calvinism. But I believe that his diagnosis is only a partial one. Neo-Calvinism is not Fundamentalism's biggest problem. Fundamentalism's biggest problem is Fundamentalism - a movement whose once-glorious legacy has disintegrated into a litany of carnality, contradictions and confusion. Christ said it best when he said, "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." My serious advice to Fundamentalists who are baffled and angry over the rapid progress of Neo-Calvinism and the defection of their former allies is simple: Go look in the mirror.