Flor Mechem

As a result of my Dutch heritage, I have been greatly influenced by the Reformed system of theology and the doctrines of Calvinism.

My intention here is not to argue for or against Calvinism or to examine its tenets. Instead, I want to share some observations about how this teaching has impacted my family and to share some observations about how churches should handle theological disagreements in their bodies.

My father was brought up in Moerkapelle, which at the time was a small, out of the way village in South Holland. His family belonged to an ultra Calvinist church, known as black stocking Calvinists. This meant that he spent his Sundays in Church, reading his Bible or at rest. Members of this church followed strict rules of behavior and dress and also maintained a slavish dedication to the five points of Calvinism.

In applying its understanding of Calvinism, my father’s church took the position that God exercised His sovereignty by being extremely selective in choosing only a few “elect” to enter into the kingdom. With a constant focus on the total depravity of their human nature, reinforced by their own evident failures, it was believed and explicitly taught that only a handful of the hundreds who attended this prominent church would make it into heaven.

After my father immigrated to Canada, he became an elder in a less rigid, less severe Dutch Christian Reformed Church. For most Calvinists, the five points of Calvinism, including the doctrine of election, or predestination, do not result in anguish. Since they are Christians, they assume that they are among the elect and those in their family, circle and others who come to Christ are also among the elect.

However, my father could not shake the implications of his early training. It filled him with despair, uncertainty and self-doubt. He also became fascinated by the enthusiastic brand of evangelism practiced by Billy Graham, who was on TV and storming around the US with a reckless disregard for the doctrine of election. Instead, Graham taught that anyone could “make a decision for Christ.” Such a claim struck my father as blasphemous and contrary to everything he had been taught. Nevertheless, at the 1957 Toronto Billy Graham crusade, my parents succumbed to this view and my father became an outspoken advocate for it.

He left his church, became a Baptist and even took a few years to sacrificially travel back to Holland where he worked as a lay evangelist, proclaiming the grace of God and the ability and need for all to freely choose to become Christians. He had a specific desire to minister to his family but his vision was greater than that. The enthusiasm he held for his new beliefs and the confidence he felt in his salvation shaped his life from that point forward. Without any formal training, he was unable to convince many to join him in his new beliefs. Nevertheless, his personal story of spiritual transformation was inspirational and compelling.

Of course, most Baptists, including the church my father joined, are Calvinists as well. However, for them as for most Reformed churches, the unhappy implications of Calvinism are pushed into the background and have very little practical effect. Since this system provides a highly structured and airtight interpretation of the Bible, thoroughly hashed out by brilliant scholars and godly churchmen over a long period of time, it has the benefit of keeping its adherents from false doctrine and, usually, from wild tangents. It also meshes well with the classical idea of perfection and the modern scientific method.

As a result of the transforming power of the great awakening in the 17th century, evangelistic forces have become deeply ingrained into most American denominations including the Presbyterians and other Calvinistic groups. I know of no American churches that hold views like those held at the church my father grew up in.

I think that Calvinism for some acts as a substitute for the authority of uninterrupted tradition and Church hierarchy that Protestants lack. The premise of the Reformation was the supremacy of the Bible. Whenever anyone in the Church strays from the truth, the clear teaching of the Bible acts as the antidote. Although many in the Catholic Church have veered into various strange ideas, the church itself has maintained the authority of its hierarchy and of its traditions. Those above can drop the hammer on whoever gets too far out of line.

Protestants lack this power. As a result, anyone can pull out his Bible and his unique interpretation of truth to start his own church and draw followers. The unfortunate consequence is that many strange sects, cults, systems of belief and practices have gained a foothold out of the root of Protestantism. Within the Calvinist system, this tendency is greatly tempered because all doctrinal issues are settled.

The evangelical church in the United States is largely Calvinist. However, there are many Evangelicals who take an Arminian view, and many more who reject at least some of the five points of Calvinism. These mostly come from the Wesleyan or Methodist tradition. Others, such as Calvary Chapel Churches of which I am a part, have tried to avoid the historically divisive controversy by claiming a middle ground. In light of the huge challenges and mission facing the Church, few take the time to engage in such theological arguments. Among those equipped to debate, positions have been so laboriously staked out that few ever are won over to the other side over. Sadly, Biblical understanding among most church members is so lacking, that few can even follow the arguments let alone pick sides.

One forum in which theologians thrash things out is The Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). It draws both Calvinists and those with other views. Within this influential group there is a mutual respect and somewhat of a truce between those holding opposing opinions as to the merits of Calvinism since this has been a longstanding controversy. Non-Calvinists have historically been seen as somewhat in disarray as to their positions, which has allowed those who espouse the elegant and unequivocal views of Calvinism to hold the higher ground.

Over the last few decades, two theological doctrines have crept into the evangelical church that bring into question whether such comity can continue. Both of these doctrines are being debated by evangelical Biblical scholars and gaining adherents despite the reservations and objections of many. Although they remain out of the mainstream, these ideas have been determined to be Biblically defensible by the membership of the ETS and not rejected out of hand.

These decisions by the ETS, whose members are equipped to determine such issues, have created a great stir. In fact, in May, 2007, Frank Beckwith, a professor at Baylor University and president of ETS stepped down and totally abandoned the Protestant theological project. Instead of continuing with the approach of deciding issues solely by means of Biblically based arguments, he converted to Catholicism where tradition and church authority can be brought in to enforce orthodoxy. With more than 20,000 different Protestant groups and sects making claims about their unique interpretations and finding himself on the losing side of what he believed to be critical issues, he threw in the towel.

Let’s look at the two doctrines causing all the fuss. The first is called conditional immortality. Under this view, Hell is not a place of eternal, enduring torment for humans. Instead, at some point in the judgment process, human souls of those who are not God’s children are annihilated. This view has been held for many years by those in some parts of the church and is not novel. In fact, when placed under the glare of theological scrutiny, the Biblical case upholding conditional immortality passes muster among the experts. Nevertheless, this teaching runs counter to traditional mainstream church teaching that predates the Reformation and scholars like Beckwith were unhappy to give ground on it. Despite this, under the “sola scriptura” rules of Protestant Biblical interpretation, tradition is not enough.

However, conditional immortality pales in importance compared to the recent popularity of a view called open theism. This view holds that God does not choose to have exhaustive knowledge of the future, leaving parts of the future open to various options. Not only does this veer far from the traditional view of God held by Arminians and Calvinists alike, it also serves as a direct assault against Calvinism, with its view that God has foreknown and selected each and every Christian before the creation of the world. Watching the ETS give its stamp of approval to this doctrine is apparently what pushed Beckwith over the edge.

Having said all this, here are a few observations:

There is agreement on the basic vital tenets of the Christian faith. When differences emerge, I believe that we should not let these distract us from the core belief and mission that God has made crystal clear for us. When younger, I was zealous about certain positions and enjoyed engaging in debate about them. Hopefully wiser now, my desire has become, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done” both on a micro scale within my life, family and circle as well as on a macro scale in fulfilling the great commission. Compared to the thrill of ongoing sanctification and the forward march of the Kingdom, I simply have lost enthusiasm over the controversies.

We need to admit that we all “know in part” (KIP) as Paul clearly taught. God has revealed much but not all that we may want to know. Humility as to our ability to resolve all theological issues is needed. When respected, astute, godly Bible scholars can come to conflicting conclusions on certain issues, the point arrives when we should leave it at that. Within the modern church, I would list the following issues as among those having risen to KIP status: Calvinism vs Arminianism, End times Eschatology, Open Theism vs. Conventional Theism, Conditional Immortality vs. Enduring Torment, Infant baptism vs. Believers baptism, and the Proper exercise of Spiritual gifts.

If Protestants could develop an ability to live and let live around such issues, it would honor the concept of “sola scriptura” and allow us to fellowship in spite of our theologically different views and heritages. Without compromising core agreed upon truths, an appreciation of a variety of opinions on side issues could possibly even be enjoyed, much as we enjoy different kinds of ethnic food and culture. The emphasis of teaching should be to address the horrific ignorance about core Christian beliefs among most professed Christians.

Churches have a responsibility to limit needless discussion about apparently irresolvable theological issues. In the early church, it seems clear that there was a raging controversy over an issue labeled by Paul as “genealogies.” In God’s wisdom, the details of this disagreement have been hidden, but spending an inordinate amount of time debating it and other peripheral issues was strongly condemned. In a like manner, churches have a need to discipline those who stir up controversy about subjects that cannot be fully resolved, especially when they go against the views held within a body.

We should also exercise caution in pushing any of such KIP theological positions too strongly. For example, Calvary Chapels were guilty of embracing as irrefutable the imminent secret rapture of the Church a few decades ago, tying this event closely to the creation of the modern state of Israel. As a result, many among them made poor life choices and teachers were forced to backtrack from false teaching.

My grandfather died in 1920, a few months before my father was born. He was known as a godly man who had eight children and a large farm. Although he had been steeped in the teachings of black stocking Calvinism, he made a shocking declaration shortly before he died. Gathering his family around him, he explained that his own independent study of Scripture had caused him to decide that it was indeed possible to have assurance of one’s salvation. In fact, he was absolutely certain that he was a Christian and going to heaven. My father did not hear about this confession until long after he had also come to the same conclusion. Had he heard it earlier, his life and likely mine as well would have been different.

I admit that I enjoy theological discussion and debate. In times past, I engaged in it too often and too enthusiastically. Looking back, I see that this was a sign of spiritual immaturity.

Yet, as creative, problem solving beings, it is natural for us to focus on issues that are unclear and puzzling. It does not seem right to me that such discussion should be either eliminated or elevated in importance. Although I do not see a need for a systematic, comprehensively consistent theology and doubt that this is what God wants us to concentrate on, I know that others feel differently about this.

Controversy over difficult theological issues will occur at times. When that happens, I believe the best outcome is for the consensus view of a church to be clearly explained and upheld with humility. The situation may require an admission that some issues do not lend themselves to universally accepted or even fully satisfying answers. This is how much of life is and should serve to increase our trust and faith in God’s wisdom and sufficiency not decrease it. However, once clarity about such an issue is established, attention should be directed to more vital concerns.

Sometimes we seek to know too much. It brings to mind a time a few years back when the accounting industry of which I am a part sought to create a “Super CPA” designation providing a higher level of certification for premiere CPAs who had gained mastery over broad disciplines. Before this idea was jettisoned, a call went out for suggestions as to what to call such a professional. KIA was the winning suggestion. It acts as a single acronym for two qualities that dovetail closely, “Know It All” and “Killed In Action.”

Friends Link : Jill Graves http://marlacrowther.idatablog.com/