21 Then Peter approached him and asked, “Lord, how many times must I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? As many as seven times?” 22 “I tell you, not as many as seven,” Jesus replied, “but seventy times seven.
23 “For this reason, the kingdom of heaven can be compared to a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began to settle accounts, one who owed ten thousand talents was brought before him. 25 Since he did not have the money to pay it back, his master commanded that he, his wife, his children, and everything he had be sold to pay the debt. 26 “At this, the servant fell facedown before him and said, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 Then the master of that servant had compassion, released him, and forgave him the loan.
28 “That servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him, started choking him, and said, ‘Pay what you owe!’ 29 “At this, his fellow servant fell down and began begging him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’ 30 But he wasn’t willing. Instead, he went and threw him into prison until he could pay what was owed.
31 When the other servants saw what had taken place, they were deeply distressed and went and reported to their master everything that had happened. 32 Then, after he had summoned him, his master said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And because he was angry, his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured until he could pay everything that was owed. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to you unless every one of you forgives his brother or sister from your heart.”
Text: Matthew 18.21-35 Series: Supply Preaching Church: Fellowship Baptist Church, Marion, AR Date: September 11, 2022
A few days ago, I posted a quote on my social media feed from the reformer John Calvin. Now, the quote in question said nothing about the doctrines or concepts that are usually associated with that name; actually, it had to with the usefulness of catechism in the transmission of the faith to the next generation. However, within a short amount of time, a recent acquaintance of mine messaged me with concern that if churches saw me posting quotes from this particular figure, then they would not ask me to preach. I am sure his concern was well intended, but since moving back to the Bible Belt five years ago, I have been constantly perplexed by the reactions that Calvin and his teaching seems to provoke.
On another occasion a few years ago, I was interviewing with a church in another state. They had received my resume from a state convention, and so they reached out to set up a virtual interview. After logging on, we exchanged pleasantries and said a word of prayer, but before asking me for my testimony or personal background, the first question they asked right out of the gate was “What do you believe about Calvinism?” Examples like this could be multiplied, but the fact remains that the slightest scent of affinity for John Calvin or for the doctrines known as “Calvinism” often provokes a visceral reaction in most churches in this area. There is a ubiquitous disdain for these concepts, especially in the more rural churches, and to be quite honest, it boggles my mind.
Reasonable disagreement on the question of God’s sovereignty and man’s ability when it comes to our salvation is understandable; this is a debate that has ebbed and flowed for the entire history of the church, but this kind of revulsion is simply beyond the pale. And so, in the space that remains, I would like to suggest four possible reasons for why rural Bible Belt Christians are so put off by so-called “Calvinism”.
First, there seems to be widespread misunderstanding when it comes what so-called “Calvinists” actually believe. Because of this, those beliefs are regularly mischaracterized and misrepresented in ways that no reasonable student of Reformed theology would ever agree with. Accusations that “Calvinists” do not believe in evangelism or that “Calvinism” makes God the author of sin are such tired critiques that they almost need no response. Answers to these questions and many more are readily available from reputable and godly scholars in both printed and electronic forms, but it is easier to label and dismiss someone’s beliefs than to listen and engage the merits of those beliefs. Whether you agree with the concepts or not, if you cannot explain those concepts in ways that their adherents would agree with, then you probably shouldn’t be critiquing them to begin with. As I have suggested in another post, this is how we show grace to those with whom we disagree.
Another reason why Bible Belt Christians harbor such vehement resentment for so-called “Calvinism” is that many rural churches have been hurt by pastors who held these beliefs in an unhealthy, unchristian manor. Time and time again, I have heard stories about how “Calvinism split our church”, and this absolutely saddens my soul. However, I would suggest that the essential cause of the pain had more to do with the character of the pastor in question and less to do with the theological concepts that he espoused. In most cases, “Calvinism” is simply a symptom of the problem, not the root cause. Pastors are called to the highest standards of Christlikeness, and a consistent attitude of combativeness or divisiveness driven by the nagging need to always be right should be a direct and immediate disqualification from pastoral ministry. The glaring absence of Christlikeness coupled with biased preaching that beats its preferred theological hobby horse every week, regardless of what it may be, is a recipe for heartache every time.
A third possible reason for the emotional overreaction to “Calvinism” in the Bible Belt might be linked to the lasting influence of Revivalism in this area. The theological example of men like Billy Graham and Adrian Rogers casts a long shadow over those who were directly influenced by their ministries. These were faithful, godly men whose proclamation of the Gospel led many to faith in Christ. For these Christians, the lasting memories of multi-night revivals with altars filled with throngs of people coming to faith in Christ represent the good ole’ days of the church. Even to this day, there is a deeply felt and inherent longing in many churches to experience those highs once again, and the assumption is that if we just preach the way that they preached, believe the way that they believed, program the way that they programmed, then we can reproduce the same results. Unfortunately, the culture has changed significantly since the heyday of these ministries, and the methods that worked then are unlikely to work in the same way now. However, as they did so well, so also must we proclaim the Gospel boldly and invite people to repent and believe, whatever that may look like.
Lastly, I think a final and more fundamental reason for the vitriolic reaction to so-called “Calvinism” has do with the conflict between the sovereignty of God and the ability of man. Again, my purpose is not answer that age old question, but simply to point out that the exaltation of God’s sovereignty, which is a basic principle in Reformed theology, is a direct affront to our own innate sinful desire to exalt ourselves. The suggestion that there is nothing that I can do to save myself or to turn myself toward God and away from sin apart from His gracious intervention is an insult to my own prideful sense of self. No one wants to admit that they are so deeply corrupted and enslaved to their own sin that they cannot lift themselves up by their own volitional, moral and spiritual effort. Except this is exactly what the Gospel teaches us. Whether we hold to the theology of so-called “Calvinism” or not, we must admit that we cannot, nay will not, save ourselves, even if we were given the opportunity. We are completely and totally dependent upon God to save us from sin and from ourselves, and this He did by sending His Son to die on the cross and rise again. This is what all Christians must believe.
In the final analysis, whether a person agrees or disagrees with John Calvin and his theology is not the point. We must be willing to listen to and learn from one another “as iron sharpens iron”; we must learn to discuss our differences with grace and understanding. And if we must disagree, then may the content of our disagreement be concerned with the Scriptures and with what they teach us about God and mankind, about sin and salvation, because these are the questions that matter in eternity. As our Lord Jesus said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1.15)
24 As Jesus left and was going out of the temple, his disciples came up and called his attention to its buildings. 2 He replied to them, “Do you see all these things? Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here on another that will not be thrown down.” 3 While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately and said, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what is the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
Text: Matthew 24-25, c.f. Mark 13, Luke 21 Series: Eschatology: A Study of the End Times Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR Date: September 7 , 2022
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 instructing us to deny godlessness and worldly lusts and to live in a sensible, righteous, and godly way in the present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. 14 He gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to cleanse for himself a people for his own possession, eager to do good works.
Text: Titus 2.11-14 Series: Revival Church: First Baptist Church, Mammoth Spring, AR Date: August 31, 2022
It is no secret that the last few years have been extremely difficult for churches and even more so for pastors. Of course, pastoral ministry is commonly fraught with its own set of unique stresses, but those stresses have grown exponentially over the past few years due to the chaos and turmoil that has so regularly characterized our society. This has led to unprecedented numbers of pastors leaving the ministry, a trend some are now calling the “Great Resignation”. The Barna Group has recently reported that some 42% of pastors havegiven real, serious consideration to quitting being in full-time ministry within the last year, a number which is up 13 points from 29% just over a year ago. It is a trend that should concern all of us, both pastors and congregants alike. If pastors are called by God and love His church, why are they leaving ministerial service seemingly in droves?
Over at churchanswers.com, Thom Rainer recently shared some of his findings pertaining to this question in an article entitled “Ten Reasons Pastors Are Glad They Quit Vocational Ministry.” It would be redundant to reproduce the entire list here; however, suffice it to say that all of the reasons stated reflect the relief of having a massive burden lifted off of the shoulders. But what exactly is the massive burden that these former pastors were carrying? I believe that it was the unhealthy and unrealistic expectations of the church and its members. So many churches in this country expect their pastors to be superheroes, masters of every skill, having impeccable personality and charisma, able to carry every burden of ministry, always available, never to feel exhausted or drained or burned out. A quick perusal of online advertisements for pastoral openings reveals that for most churches, Jesus Christ himself wouldn’t be qualified; after all, he was a single thirty-something with no children, no experience, and no seminary training.
Whether because of the rise of celebrity pastor culture or due to the influence of values taken from the business/political world, expectations regarding pastoral responsibilities and qualifications in most churches are nearly unattainable. However, the problem is not necessarily that the expectations are wrong; they are usually reflections of a congregation’s felt needs or past hurts, though many of these still go unacknowledged or unspoken. Rather, the problem is that they are all heaped upon one person, i.e. the solo or senior pastor. This is why a plurality of elders leadership model is more healthy, because it shares the responsibilities of leadership among a group of biblically qualified and trained men. A single or solo pastor/elder is unable to be all things to all people at all times; he is not able to be everywhere and everything that the members of the congregation might need him to be. Or to put it another way, he is not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. He has limitations on his time, his energy, and his resources. A plurality model for elders eliminates these limitations by sharing the burdens of ministry among a group of pastors of equal authority and responsibility.
Of course, this does not mean that there are no qualifications or expectations for those called to serve as pastors. The Bible is clear that a man must be spiritually mature, that he must have proven Christ-like character as well as sound theological and biblical convictions. It is also clear that a pastor’s primary duty is to be devoted to prayer and to the ministry of the Word, to care for and feed the flock of God. In many ways, pastors should be held to a higher standard of faith and practice than the regular church member, but as church members, we must remember that our pastors are still human, that they are members of the same body, that they need the same care, encouragement, prayer, and support that we all need. This is why the Bible so often uses the body metaphor to symbolize the nature of the local church. As a body, the church has one head, and that head is Jesus Christ. Beyond that, the rest of the parts of the body are interdependent, and pastors are just one of the parts of that body. They need the life and nourishment of the body just as much as any other part. As the Apostle Paul puts it,
Now as we have many parts in one body, and all the parts do not have the same function, in the same way we who are many are one body in Christ and individually members of one another.
~Romans 12.4-5
Like any relationship, the relationship between pastors and church members must be grounded in trust, worked out through open and honest communication, and always characterized by grace toward one another, because only when both sides are able to admit their most vulnerable needs without fear of judgment will we be able to build the kind of foundation that can sustain long-term ministry faithfulness. It is the church’s Scriptural responsibility to raise up men from within their body to serve as pastors/elders. However, so many churches in the world today have adopted the mindset that they exist only to be served by their pastors, rather than to serve them. This attitude is the primary reason that good and godly men flee pastoral ministry in droves. They have been used up and beat down over and over; they have been chewed up and spit out too many times. We desperately need to rediscover what it means to build each other up rather than tear each other down, and this applies to pastors as much as it does everyone else. Who is caring for the pastors? Because they desperately need it.
Campbell, Charles L. The Scandal of the Gospel: Preaching and the Grotesque. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2021.
Painters have their colors and canvas, sculptors have their clay, and preachers have their words. And words are powerful. As the Bible so often indicates, words have the power to build up and to tear down, and this is especially so in the ministry of preaching, as Charles L. Campbell discusses in his latest book, The Scandal of the Gospel: Preaching and the Grotesque. Campbell is James T. and Alice Mead Cleland Professor Emeritus of Homiletics at Duke Divinity School. He is a past president of the Academy of Homiletics, a highly sought-after lecturer, and he is well published in the field. Most of the content for this latest book comes from his 2018 Lyman Beecher Lectures at Yale Divinity School; only the fourth chapter contains new material.
In the forward, Campbell explains that he is not seeking any consistency or system; rather, he says that he is “simply trying to make some homiletical connections between preaching and the grotesque” (p. xiv). This concept of the grotesque subsequently stands at the center of the book. The term is borrowed from the world of visual art, where it originally referred to paintings found in ancient Roman grottos, i.e. grotto-esque. These “murals presented unsettling, disorienting hybrids that transgressed accepted categories. They distorted what was considered ‘normal’ or ‘beautiful.’ They messed with accepted patterns. They were, as they came to be called, ‘grotesque’” (p. 6). This description encapsulates the homiletical vision that Campbell sets forth in these chapters, i.e. preaching that is unsettling, disorienting, that transgresses accepted categories and norms, that is “grotesque.”
In the first chapter Campbell considers how this concept of the grotesque fits with the scandal of the Gospel. Taking his cue from 1 Corinthians 1:23, he explains that the Gospel confronts with the destabilizing pairings of opposites: God-cross, life-death, repulsion-fascination, horror-hope. A God that is violently crucified on a cruel Roman cross is inherently “grotesque.” In chapter 2, Campbell explores how the grotesque is often weaponized in the act of preaching. Specifically, when one compares sociological and/or theological opponents with non-human objects, one is using the grotesque to dehumanize and minimize them in order to maintain one’s own particular understanding of order. In chapter 3, Campbell offers an alternative to this kind of weaponization by explaining how the grotesque creates preaching that is “open, protruding, irregular, secreting, multiple, and changing” (p. 55). Preaching that is grotesque welcomes input and insights from a variety of voices, and not merely biblical and theological ones. It is preaching that “becomes real when truth happens among the cacophony and incongruities of diverse voices and diverse lives” (p. 57). Finally, in chapter 4, Campbell imagines how the grotesque could be employed in preaching to address the environmental crisis.
Campbell’s application of the grotesque to the discipline of preaching is provocative to say the least because it stands in such stark contrast to the kind of preaching that is the focus of Campbell’s critiques. Sermons that offer simplistic principles for improving marriage, managing finances, or raising godly children attempt to “give people a nice focused nugget to carry home – not the shocking unresolved contradictions of the grotesque gospel” (p.11). This kind of preaching is neat, clean, even idealistic. The problem, however, is that “when we rush to order, when we avoid the interval of the grotesque, our preaching may become shallow, unreal, clichéd. We don’t go deep enough. We’re not honest enough. And we end up falsifying both the gospel and life itself – we end up imposing false patterns” (p. 12). Life is so often the opposite of the neat and clean categories we attempt to impose on it from the pulpit. It is complex and messy; it is “grotesque.” Campbell would have readers embrace these tensions rather than attempting to resolve them.
Though he rightly critiques this “humanistic” (his label) approach to preaching, the alternative that he proposes is inherently more so. Grotesque preaching is “shaped by the dynamic and open life of Jesus’ grotesque body. Grotesque preaching calls the church to be open to the world and calls the pulpit to be open to different bodies and new voices” (p. 56). It springs forth from the lived experiences of people rather than from the authoritative Word of God. What is glaringly absent from Campbell’s vision for preaching is how it relates to the principle of “Thus saith the Lord.” Christian preaching springs forth from the fact that God has spoken. The Apostle Paul instructed his protégé Timothy to “Preach the Word” (2 Timothy 4.2). God has spoken; therefore, we speak. In other words, the purpose of Christian preaching is to exposit the declared Word, “giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was read” (Nehemiah 8.8). It is not merely to listen to people’s stories or to appreciate the diversities and complexities of the human experience.
In the final analysis, Campbell’s invitation for preachers to approach the complexities, difficulties, and tensions of life with greater compassion is a welcomed alternative to the idealistic naiveté that characterizes most preaching today. That being said, his alternative is essentially void of the very resources that God has provided to address those complexities and difficulties. In other words, grotesque preaching, as Campbell envisions it, comes off merely as a way to exalt and platform human experiences over the Word of God. However, it is ultimately powerless as a homiletical method for proclaiming the inspired Word of the one true and living God. In my view, preachers would be better served by attending to the text of Holy Scripture, giving its meaning through systematic exposition, than by any clever attempts to be “grotesque.”
This Book Review was originally published in the Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies, here.
Question: What parts of the law do we follow today? Series: Wednesday Night Bible Study – Q & A Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR Date: July 27, 2022
Question: How do we apply the promises of Israel to the church? Series: Wednesday Night Bible Study – Q & A Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR Date: July 20, 2022
Question: How do we connect the Old and New Testaments? Series: Wednesday Night Bible Study – Q & A Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR Date: July 13, 2022
The study of Eschatology in the church is usually met with two distinct responses. On the one hand, some become so consumed with an over fascination that it drives them to unhealthy speculations, and on the other hand, others are so filled with apathy and distaste that they would rather neglect its doctrines altogether. Recently, I heard about one church that spent eighteen months studying the Book of Revelation, and there is nothing wrong with that per se. However, to the external observer, it could appear as if this subject is more important than the Gospel itself. This is perhaps part of the reason why this area of theological reflection is so often met with such varied and disparate responses; we have failed to demonstrate clearly how these truths are connected to the saving work that God has accomplished in and through His Son, Jesus Christ. We have become so bogged down in controversial matters like tribulations, raptures, millenniums, antichrists, and the like, that we have lost the point that these events bring the promises of the Gospel to completion.
At its core, the Gospel is about how God has solved, is solving, and will solve the problem of sin. Of course, sin is first and foremost a personal individual problem; human beings are corrupted by and enslaved to sin, and because of this, they deserve to spend eternity in hell under the wrath of God. However, in the Gospel, Jesus Christ took upon himself the punishment that we deserve; He died in our place, satisfied the wrath of God, and declared, “It is finished!” Now, by grace through faith in Him, we are forgiven of our sin, clothed in His righteousness, and promised eternal life. But sin is also a cosmic problem, because all of creation has been polluted by and cursed because of sin. As the Scriptures explain,
For the creation eagerly waits with anticipation for God’s sons to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to futility—not willingly, but because of him who subjected it—in the hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage to decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children.
~Romans 8.19-21
In the beginning, when God created the world, all was very good, but with the fall of mankind, sin and its consequences have hopelessly poisoned God’s good creation. This world reeks with the stench of death and decay; where there was once life and beauty, there is now sickness and death. But in the gospel, God is making all things new; he is restoring and recreating the paradise that was lost. In the Book of Revelation, chapters 21-22, we read of a new heaven and new earth which is completely free of sickness and death, heartache and pain, tear and loss. It is a world that is completely free from the stain of sin in every way. It is not just the Garden of Eden restored, it is the Garden of Eden made better.
In other words, the Gospel is inherently and irreducibly eschatological, because not only have we been set free from the penalty of sin, not only are we being set free from the power of sin, but one day we will be set free from the very presence of sin. Until then, we live in the tension of the already but not yet, already forgiven of our sin, already free from sin’s tyranny, but not yet free from its temptations and habituations in our daily lives. We rightly long for the day when the problem of sin and its effects will be no more; this is our blessed hope. And this is why the study of Eschatology should not be viewed as a distraction from the proclamation of the Gospel. On the contrary, the doctrines of Eschatology are so intricately and intimately woven into the fabric of the Gospel, that if we neglect or ignore them, we truncate the Gospel message, empty it of its power, misconstrue the nature of its promises.
This is not to say that the study of Eschatology is always done correctly. Certainly, there are many who have engaged this subject matter in improper or unhealthy ways that have shifted the focus or missed the mark. Eschatology is one of those areas in the study of which it is possible to miss the forest for the trees. There are many details and questions that fall into this category that could become a distraction. However, this does not mean that we should omit the study of it altogether, because Eschatology is fundamentally about hope, the hope of a world free from sin. This is the wonder of our salvation, not only that we have been forgiven of our sin and have received eternal life, but that the work of Christ in salvation has put something into motion that will completely transform the world as we know it.
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, instructing us to deny godlessness and worldly lusts and to live in a sensible, righteous, and godly way in the present age, while we wait for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Faith seeking Understanding 