I wasn’t looking for Reformed or Calvinistic doctrine. You could say I was driven into its arms.
I didn’t begin in charismatic circles, as many do. My roots were in a Baptist fundamentalism that prided itself on being non-charismatic, doctrinally pure, uncompromising in preaching, and unworldly in conviction.
But when I was old enough to understand, I could see some terrible flaws. Our ministries to children and youth were saturated with pragmatism: games, sweets, rewards and plenty of entertainment. Some of it was innocent, a lot of it was just foolish, and some was probably blasphemous. When we didn’t use the carrot, we used the stick: plenty of sermons about hell, plenty of guilt, and plenty of eyes-closed-no-one-looking-round-just-raise-your-hand.
Our worship services were filled with breezy announcements, ad-hoc orders of service, and campy revival songs from the 19th century. The preaching was more homiletical and doctrinal than expository, and filled with plenty of fundamentalism’s trademark bully-pulpit: settling scores with opponents and providing, shall we say, decidedly personal applications. The altar calls were manipulative, interminable and, for a supposed move of the Spirit, predictably similar every week.
There was no biblical counselling – most personal or character problems were to be solved by doing more soul winning or attending more services.
Church leadership was not accountable, not plural, and frankly, unassailable. Church organisation was improvised, and its fruit was seen in the revolving-door phenomenon of easy-come, easy-go attendance.
Worst of all, the theology of decisionism meant that the vast majority of “decisions for Christ” never became “disciples”. They were all just backslidden. We had no doctrine of perseverance; only a doctrine of eternal security for every decision — creating the weird (and unbiblical) hybrid of someone who is permanently a Christian, but who does not persevere.
I was not dabbling in the doctrine of predestination, nor did I have an inordinate curiosity regarding election, free will, or the nature of the call. In fact, I had no idea what Calvinism or Arminianism were. I was just looking for a healthy church – and I frankly didn’t know what that looked like.
Walking into one of these dreaded Reformed churches, the first thing I found was expository preaching: a sermon concerned with exactly what the text said. I also found that the worship was structured and sober. I’d never heard of the Regulative Principle, but whatever it was, it seemed to eliminate the hand-shaking howdy time on the second stanza, the excruciating testimony time, the skit, and the altar call. The hymns also seemed thicker at first, but richer in theology.
The ministries were without the entertainments, and had less attendees, but those that came seemed to stay. Families attended, and teenagers came to faith, and became active members. The leadership was plural, and spoke often of “qualifications” – a concept I’d heard little about. The administration of the church seemed meticulous and structured, and it seemed to produce a peaceful and orderly church. People regularly sought out the leadership and each other for biblical counsel. There was an emphasis on growth and maturity, not only on soul-winning. And there was still plenty of evangelism and missions.
But at this point, I had to ask myself, if the allegedly horrible doctrines of Calvinism were the only substantive doctrinal difference between the Baptist churches I had come from, and the ones I now saw, how is it that they seemed to produce such a massive difference in church life?
Eventually, experience provided explanation. If God is sovereign over salvation, you don’t need gimmicks, games and goofiness to win and keep true disciples. If God sovereignly speaks through His Word, then the preacher’s job is to unleash the lion of the Word from its cage, not attempt his own circus tricks. If God is sovereign over His worship, then He gets to decide how we worship Him, and we follow those instructions to the letter. If God is sovereign over His people, then church leadership is responsible to mediate God’s authority through the Word, not assert its own. If God is sovereign over salvation, then we can expect that true conversion will bring abiding, persevering faith, and we should treat only those who persevere as true disciples –the rest we evangelise. In these and all kinds of other ways, I saw how the doctrines of grace affected church life.
Again, I was not drawn to the dizzying heights of the decrees of God, or of foreknowledge before the foundation of the world, or of the order of regeneration and faith. I still find these doctrines awesome to contemplate and difficult to comprehend. But I was wooed and won by God-centredness. The doctrine of a supreme and sovereign God seemed to produce churches that emphasised God’s gracious work, not man’s angsty attempts.
Appropriately then, I can say that I didn’t seek out the doctrines of grace. They found me.
Thank you David! I appreciate what you are doing for His glory alone. What I remember in my church growing up the message was get saved or you will go to hell, participate in the children’s programs(Easter & Christmas), give, and behave. I remember stories on Noah, Jesus’ birth and resurrection, Lucifer, and offering. The doctrine of election, grace, regeneration weren’t anything I heard until my late 40s.
I am thankful the Lord providentially put me in a church that stands and practice sola scriptura, plural, practice church discipline, building up men to led their families, older women to walk out Titus 2, wives to love their own husbands and raise children, and children to know more than Easter and Christmas and good snacks at church. Today, I desire to know and understand Him because of the teachings from the pulpit which drives me to obey and study more. Even today, my small rural community where I grew up is full of churches that are led by unregenerate people. To be part of a ministry that teach expository teaching would be hard for many to tolerate. Take away the entertainment and soft message many would be lost.
Glad to hear of how the Lord led you, Cheneta.
Oh, indeed, Seth. I’m not really referring to movements as much as doctrines. I will still happily identify with the classic form of fundamentalism. And I wouldn’t be comfortable in a pure-form Reformed, covenantal church, either.
My point is that people assume that men who shift on these doctrinal positions were on the hunt for a new take on the mysteries of election, when they were usually just looking for a decent church.
And it’s more revivalism, than Arminianism, that does the damage.
My experience was similar to yours, David. But though I did see the 5 weaknesses you listed above as I grew up, I also saw in fundamental churches that sin was sinful, cross-cultural churchplanting was expected, and the Second Coming was a common hope.
Both groups have such important strengths, and such glaring weaknesses. Would to God that I and my family could both drink deeply from the doctrines of grace without neglecting these others.