Confronting Unbelievers In Our Midst

Josh Buice writes about an evangelistic encounter he had with the “God Hates Fags” group while at this year’s Southern Baptist Convention. It is, every word of it, worth reading. You can read Why I Witnessed to Westboro “Baptist” here.

An excerpt:

As I spoke to the gentleman who was standing on the American Flag while holding two different signs high above his head, I noticed that he had a little boy (most likely his son) who was also standing there beneath this man. The young boy was also holding a sign with a very judgmental message. So, there I was in front of the infamous radical Westboro hate group. The first thing I said was, “I serve a Savior who forgives.” He responded by saying that I serve a false god and that I (along with all of the SBC) am a liar. When I asked him why he accused me of being a liar, he informed me that “You preach a message of love when God really does not love everyone - he hates most people.”

As I stood beside the busy intersection adjacent to the Convention Center, I asked him, “How many people have you seen saved through your preaching?” He responded, “We have seen several people come and join our church.” I said, “Joining your church is different than salvation. Have you seen anyone repent of their sins and turn to God through Jesus Christ as a result of your hate messages?” He responded, “The Bible says that it will be like the days of Noah in the last days, and how many were saved through Noah’s preaching?” I responded, “So, you think that only you and your small group from Westboro will be saved?” I continued, “You don’t believe that God saves people during the last days? What you should consider is that Christ has sent us out to preach the true gospel that saves rather than a hate message. We are not to make ourselves judges over people, but we are to preach the gospel. The true gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. If we will do that, people will be saved. Paul also informed us that it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save them that believe. Therefore, God did not intend for us to be judges over others, He called us to take His gospel message to the world.”

Again, go and read the whole thing here.

Interesting Facts About Alcohol

I’ve said little about the whole alcohol controversy in the SBC. Truth be told, I don’t care about alcohol. To me, alcohol is a) just something else to drink, b) something to use to clean Grace’s belly button before it falls off. I don’t think alcohol is: sinful, “dee-muhn likker,” harmful to one’s testimony, or any of the other objections brought to it by legalists and those who (like me) were taught these things traditionally. You can’t show any of these things from the Bible nor experience without making God a liar and Jesus a sinner.

What you can show — from both the Bible and experience — is that the abuse of alcohol (drunkenness and its results; i.e. drunk driving, binge drinking, physical and emotional abuse resulting from drunkenness, etc.) is a flat-out sin.

Furthermore, while I am decidedly not a teetotaler, nor am I a “drinker.” Ever since tasting my first alcoholic drink in college, I have rarely (if at all) partaken when it was available. If beer and wine disappeared from the earth, I wouldn’t miss it. Though we made beer and wine available at my wedding reception (for the in-laws, Catholics all), neither I nor my wife imbibed outside of the champagne toast. Give me a choice between a Coke and a Sam Adams, 9 times out of 10 (if not 10 out of 10) I’m going to pick the Coke. My wife is regularly teased by her brothers about her lack of drinking at family get-togethers, even more so now that she’s married to a Baptist. You can ask my in-laws, they’ll tell you the same thing. By the way, if the choice was between beer and sweet tea, the tea would win, every time.

That being said, Mr. Frank “Centuri0n” Turk does some research, and uncovers some interesting statistics about alcohol. He cites the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (a government agency) as reporting the following:

- 61% of American adults drank alcohol in the last year where stats are available (2004); that means roughly 183 million Americans drank alcohol that year.

- 32% of those had 5 or more drinks on at least one day; that means roughly 59 million Americans abused alcohol at least once in 2004.

- 21,081 alcohol-related deaths were reported in the same year, including all deaths from alcoholic liver disease. That equals 0.035% of all -abusers-, and 0.0115% of all -users-. Converted to deaths per 100,000, that’s 11.5 deaths per 100,000 users, and 35 deaths per 100,000 abusers. This, btw, is the worst-case scenario as I will openly admit that some alcohol-related deaths are to people who are victims of others’ abuse.

- CDC records also indicate that in the U.S. in 2005, the number of deaths by accident/unintentional causes in the general population was 37.7 per 100,000. Deaths by cancer in the general population in the same year were 185.8 per 100,000. Deaths by heart disease were 217 per 100,000 in the general population.

Mr. Turk concludes from this information:

- To spell that out as clearly as possible, someone who is abusing alcohol has the same likelihood of dying by accident as by alcohol-related circumstances; he is 5 times more likely to die by cancer than by alcohol-related circumstances; he is almost 6 times more likely to die from heart disease than by alcohol-related circumstances.

- The average alcohol user is 3 times more likely to die by accident than through alcohol-related circumstances, 16 times more likely to die from cancer than through alcohol-related circumstances, and almost 20 times more likely to die from heart disease than through alcohol-related circumstances.

- For the record, 59,664 people died from the flu in the same year — 2.8 times as many as died from alcohol-related circumstances.

Here’s what I’m not saying: I’m not saying that any of these deaths are not tragic: they are all tragic and take a toll on real families. What I am actually outlining here is that the moral argument against alcohol use has to take into account that more people die by accident than from alcohol-related circumstances annually; far more people die from the flu than from alcohol-related circumstances.

Let’s keep that in mind as we advance toward the discussion of the moral ills of all alcohol abuse.

I’m not the “average” alcohol user (since I almost never drink), yet I am more likely to die than the “average” user. That is, there is no chance someone who has 1 drink a day is more likely to die because of drinking than I, who does not drink. Interesting.

If we as a convention are going to tackle health-related issues and make resolutions against them, we need to get off the anti-alcohol bandwagon and tackle the REAL issue facing the convention: obesity.

Myself included, Christians these days are too fat to have any credibility. Until we tackle the real health problem our convention faces (the one that can cause all these diseases –cancer, heart disease, etc.– that kill more than alcohol), we have no business being dumb about beer. I call on all Southern Baptists — indeed, all believers — to join me and my wife by walking every day and working to eat healthy. Those of us who are interested might want to join me again by turning that walking into running after a month or so.

UPDATE: Mr. Turk elaborates:

The entire -point- of Baptist cooperation is -not- health and welfare: it’s the Gospel, and saving people from an eternity in hell.

Nobody gets saved if everyone is sober, skinny, tobacco-free and still in their actual sins rather than their man-made sins. What if we made a resolution at the convention that the Gospel is the power to save, to the Jew first and also to the Gentile, and that the SBC would only take action related to being the hands and feet of the Gospel?

It is an immense waste of time, effort and a harm to the Gospel to beat people up over things which are not even sins but are in fact merely a matter of culture and taste. The -vast- majority of people in the US drink responsibly and ever -temperately-, if we can use that term here without manning the portcullis. Why demand that all of them stop drinking because of the hadnful who, frankly, have a problem that needs a bigger solution than the hard scowls of people who don’t even know how to open a beer bottle?

Before you object, I didn’t know how to open the champagne bottle at my own wedding. We had to get my brother-in-law to do it! Those words from Mr. Turk apply directly to me just as they might to you.

Be It Resolved…

WHEREAS, this is a function which the Deaf Jedi has never attended, and

WHEREAS, it is a stated ministry goal to foster cooperation between the Hearing and Deaf Southern Baptist entities, and

WHEREAS, the 2008 event will be located in Indianapolis, IN, which is within a two-hour drive from my home; be it

RESOLVED, that the Rev. J. Stephen Newell, Jr. will seek to gain messengership from Louisville Baptist Deaf Church, along with his Senior Pastor and other members of LBDC, and

RESOLVED, that this group will attend the Southern Baptist Convention 2008 Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, IN, and

RESOLVED, the purpose of this excursion will be a bridge-building expedition between our Deaf and Hearing ministry counterparts.

Predators: What Can We Do?

The story of the weekend has been the alleged sex-abuse “scandal” in the Southern Baptist Convention. While (so far) nowhere near the severity of the recent Catholic scandal, all of us in the SBTS blogosphere — and I hope in the churches — are in agreement that if there is even one sex offender filling the role of minister in our churches, that is one too many. For an excellent collection of articles, videos and blog posts, see Timmy Brister’s compilation Southern Baptist Sex Offenders.

In that post, Timmy asks the question, “How should a Convention of autonomous churches hold one another accountable and provide full disclosure of all prospective ministers so as to prevent sexual abuse from happening and promote justice when it has?”

In this post, I will not attempt to answer in full the second part of the question. The answer to that should be obvious. Promoting justice means any and all such offenders should be immediately reported to the authorities for investigation and/or prosecution. It is incumbent upon churches to receive an allegation, confront the accused, and report the allegation to the authorities.

The problem for many of us, however, is from the first part of Timmy’s question. How can we screen potential ministers and hold our sister churches accountable? As I am in the process of thinking about just that for our church plant, I’d like to suggest a few things our churches can do. We may not even need the SBC to do it for us.

Background Checks.
Anyone who applies for a staff position (pastor, associate pastor, music minister, etc.) is automatically subject to a thorough background check, whether he/she works with children/youth or adults. This background check should include the usual criminal check and cross-reference the national sex offender registry. The sex offender registry can be accessed online; criminal checks can be done for free by most local associations and state denominations, and as I understand it some local police agencies. The check should include a review of any academic degrees and professional credentials. The last formal stage of the check should include a credit check or financial review to assess the risk for financial mismanagement.

In addition, potential ministerial staff should be required to submit a list of all churches of which they have been a member. A church can then contact those churches and hopefully determine if they left that church in good standing, or if any problems occurred as a result of their membership. This does not include pastorates or other staff placements, it is simply their membership history outside of being “paid staff.”

Lastly, potential ministerial staff absolutely must list every staff position held at every church in which they have served, paid or volunteer. This would include in addition to paid staff positions such volunteer positions like Sunday School teacher, prayer leader, visitation leader, Royal Ambassador/AWANA/Girls in Action leader, Vacation Bible School, and so on. A church absolutely must review these placements and contact those churches as to the details of their service, effectiveness, and any problems that manifested during their service. This will go a much longer way towards protecting our churches than anything else.

Letters of Recommendation.
Furthermore, for a ministerial staff position, no fewer than two letters of recommendation should be required, and the writers of those letters should be, at best, senior pastors. At worst letters should come from ordained associational leaders or state/national denominational leaders. These letters should testify as to the candidate’s character, education, and ability at the very minimum. Churches must be able to verify the pastorates or offices of the letter writers and speak at length with them about the candidate.

Thorough Interviewing.
I think that not only the pulpit committee or staff committee responsible for hiring staff should interview a candidate, but that (especially in smaller churches) the entire church should have an opportunity to interview a candidate. Perhaps after a candidate has been invited to preach as part of the selection process, there can be a Q & A session immediately following so that the congregation can get to know the candidate and ask questions about the candidate. This session would be followed by a second interview with the pulpit committee to review any questions that may come up as a result.

Discipleship and Interviewing of Volunteers.
For a volunteer staff position (like those listed above), I think the above background checks should be sufficient. In addition, I would like to suggest that such volunteers be personally discipled by the staff person in charge of the position so as to determine the volunteer’s fitness for ministry. This discipling would be rigorous and transparent for the volunteer, and also confidential unless serious moral/criminal lapses are uncovered. At the conclusion of this period of discipleship, the volunteer should be interviewed by the ministerial staff, and possibly the ministry being served. For example, we should allow our youth to participate in the interviewing of candidates for youth minister or youth ministry volunteer. I have applied for both a youth minister and youth ministry volunteer position in the past and this very thing was done as part of the process. My respect for the churches and their youth increased greatly on this point alone. Only at the completion of this process should a volunteer be permitted to assume his/her duties.

Accountability.
In order to hold our ministers and volunteers accountable, I would first suggest that every Southern Baptist church follow the steps suggested above. If every church had something like this in place, we could then make it a policy that all information uncovered during the investigation will be shared with any future potential ministry placements upon their request. This means that if a minister applies for a position elsewhere, our church will make available the records we have to the entity applied to, upon their request. The minister does not have a say in this. If our ministers are truly people of integrity, they would invite inquiry to their character when seeking a position.

This applies to volunteers as well. If a member leaves our church and seeks to volunteer at their new church, and that church has the same policies described above, then we are going to be contacted about said member. We will also share the results of our investigation and discipleship with the church, under the same confidentiality agreement.

Any church hiring or allowing to volunteer someone who has failed any step of this process quite simply would have no excuse. I would almost argue that to hire such a person or allow such a person to volunteer is tantamount to inviting such a person to take advantage of the church.

I think there is more that we can do, but I think this is a good start. I welcome any further suggestions to this basic foundation I have laid out.

“Evangelical Calvinism”

There have been some loud squealings going around lately about something called “evangelical Calvinism.” I haven’t the first idea what this term means. Did someone invent it in order to look cool? To throw a big red “S” on their chest? To further separate themselves from those who are merely “evangelical?”

If so, I have a big wooden fraternity paddle that needs to smack some behinds.

But to get to the point, the “loud squealings” I referred to in the first paragraph are coming from those who are non-Calvinists. What a curious thing, said the Deaf Jedi sarcastically. Upon the reading of several articles by some rather obscure Southern Baptists that seem to have found their way into the general Southern Baptist grapevines, I only had to put my head in my hands and say, “Here we go again.” When are we going to start disagreeing with a theological position on the basis of what that position actually teaches? I wanted to smack these people upside the head a few times.

In the interest of heading off any questions and commentary that may reach me in the next few days, I’m going to briefly list several implications that Calvinism has in evangelism. These can be found in my various posts on each point (see The Doctrines of Grace in the sidebar), and I will be adding a couple of implications in this list.

But please remember, these are coming from a guy who is not a Calvinist. In the footsteps of Apostle Paul, I implore my non-Calvinist brethren: in disagreeing with Reformed perspectives, imitate me. Actually learn the stuff first. And now, with no further ado….

Total Depravity.
Total depravity gives us the sure conviction that all of us are going to perish in hell without Christ. This alone ought to convince us that evangelism, hey, might be a really good idea. But it goes a step further by thoroughly grounding us in Christ’s words that no one can come to the Father unless it is through Him. Note that, through Him, not by works. I’m reminded of another verse that says something like, “Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord.” So I can’t just up and decide some day that I’m gonna follow Jesus. I need the Gospel preached to me before I would ever get the inkling to do so.

Unconditional Election.
Election gives us an incentive to witness. Think about it: only a certain number are going to be saved. This is a surety even if we believe in conditional election. There is no way around this. Not everyone is going to heaven. First of all, this should spur us to get off our lazy behinds and evangelize. Second of all, this should give us an incredible sense of purpose to understand that God is going to use us to bring in those who will be saved. What this adds up to is this: Git-R-Done!

Limited Atonement.
This point, more than any other, is the clincher for me where evangelism is concerned. And I don’t even subscribe to this point! Limited atonement gives us a heart for lost people. If people are going to hell, we ought to be broken and weeping over them! If limited atonement is true, then we know without a shadow of a doubt that there are people DOOMED to hell. We should be brokenhearted over this. And brokenhearted, we witness passionately, hoping to heaven that this person is not doomed.

Irresistible Grace.
Irresistible grace gives us confidence that our efforts will be successful. Why? Because we’re not the ones getting people saved. God is. His Spirit is working to bring those who will believe to Him, and He is working through us. Thus we can witness with full confidence in the ability of the God who has commanded us to the Great Commission.

Perseverance of the Saints.
I know, I’ve not yet finished this one. But this further strengthens our confidence in evangelism. We will not worry about the possibility of those who come to Christ through our efforts falling away. God will preserve them. He may even use us to effect this perseverance and preservation. We can witness in the full assurance that those who believe will truly be transformed into the image of Christ. Our efforts will not be in vain. I think there are more implications to come here, but I will save them for the post.

Now, that is all I have to say about that.

*Waves a hand in front of your face and calls on the Force*
You want to print this out or copy/paste it into an email. You will send this to those of “loud squealings” or those with potential to squeal. You don’t want to sell me death sticks. You want to go home and reevaluate your life.

Oops, that last one was for the creepy guy with bug antennae over my shoulder.

The Scarlet Letter

For background on this post, see Timmy Brister’s post on the next SBC Executive Committee chairman here.

Anyhow, Timmy said he would grow his beard back out if I came up with a “scarlet C” t-shirt. I played around with CafePress and came up with a nice one. No, they are not for sale, but if anyone wants to order a few I could be persuaded. Here’s the t-shirt concept:

Note the “bloody C” design I found. If anyone wants one, you may line up for orders at SNewell77[AT]gmail.com.

UPDATE: I decided to go ahead and start a CafePress shop. It is “not-for-profit.” There are men’s, women’s, kids’, babies’, and even doggy stuff as well as a few knick knacks. If you’d like to order a shirt or something, go here.

TN Baptist & Reflector on Calvinism, Part 2

Man, it’s turning out to be a prolific morning.

Soon after reading Nathan Finn’s article in the previous post, I went over to the Tennessee Baptist & Reflector to browse the current articles and found this article.

I’m not even going to provide any commentary; instead I will reproduce it here in its entirety and let it speak for itself. What follows is the article so linked.

Regardless of position, it is time for a cease fire
By Reggie Weems

The discussion concerning Calvinism is as important for the Southern Baptist Convention as it is healthy. It certainly demands ongoing dialogue moderated by truthfulness, sincerity, respect, and charity. This is because the tone of the discussion is as important as the conversation itself. The convention “discussion among friends” (at the SBC annual meeting in June) between Paige Patterson and Al Mohler set an excellent precedent for knowledgeable interaction balanced with a display of spiritual candor (Galatians 5:22-23). Any future discussion of Calvinism in Southern Baptist life should also possess the same kind of humble and sincere respect for brothers, displaying a “walk worthy of the vocation” (Ephesians 4:1) to which Christian ministers and gentlemen are called. Sadly, this spirit is lacking in many public monologues (be they preaching or print), turned diatribes, about Calvinism; a model of which appeared as a recent editorial in the Baptist & Reflector.

Its very title, “Calvinists have no sense of urgency” possessed an argumentative tenor that immediately revealed a predisposed bias that clearly lacked documentation. A well acknowledged history of Calvinism reveals the missionary fervor and evangelistic urgency of such well known Calvinists as William Carey, the father of modern missions; David Brainerd, missionary to the American Indians; Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, a First Great Awakening pastor and evangelist respectively (Whitefield was a dear friend and co-laborer of the non-Calvinist John Wesley); Adoniram Judson, the first Baptist foreign missionary; and Charles Spurgeon, a 19th century paragon of evangelism who considered Calvinism “a nickname for Christianity.” Neither the Calvinistic founders of the Southern Baptist Convention or the Convention’s Calvinistic presidents for its first 50 years of existence lacked urgency, as the documented history of that missionary enterprise reveals.

Once past its egregiously erroneous title, the article begins with an unnecessarily sarcastic statement about predestination and is afterward replete with broad, sweeping, unsubstantiated accusations founded on the self-confessed ignorance of a subject chosen by the author. In short, the article should not have been written without more factual information or Christian charity for fellow-laborers in Christ. If Calvinistic pastors comprise no more than 10 percent of SBC pastors, it is statistically impossible for the former to be responsible for a decline of urgency in the convention. Complacency about evangelism in the SBC is a matter of disobedience in any church or pastor regardless of their position on Calvinism. As such, parties on both sides of the aisle are surely guilty of impotence in evangelism. Misleading statements about the effects of Calvinism do not address the real issue or solve the real problem.

Charles Spurgeon, arguably the most successful evangelist of his generation, never offered a public “come forward” invitation at the end of his sermons. The Lord Jesus certainly never expected that the fulfillment of the Great Commission would rest on one individual offering a single invitation one day a week. This is congregational disobedience to Matthew 28:18-20 and pastoral disobedience to Ephesians 4:11-12.

From the pulpit or in official papers it is all too easy to hit the Baptist hot buttons that are sure to evoke automatic “Amens” and immediate applause. These tactics only further polarize the already convinced. Such thinking by our own religious pundits is a short-term gain at best but detrimental to the convention in the long-term.

The very people who cry against Calvinism’s lack of evangelism use the pulpit to give unbelievers every reason not to become part of God’s family. Who wants to join a family that attempts to publicly embarrass its own? No one is going to knock down our doors to get in when the “C” in SBC stands for Cannibals. If evangelism is our common goal, genuine love for one another is a large part of Jesus’ answer to the problem.

It is much more difficult, though much more beneficial, to sit down and intelligently, objectively discuss matters of disagreement. Dialogue requires hard study, intellectual integrity, and Christian deportment. It is to the church’s shame that we often witness secular debaters treating their ideological opponents with the respect that requires each side to understand the other’s position while rationally, calmly, defending their own perspective.

Too many of our leading pastors resort to name-calling, branding, and innuendo. Further, easily influenced preachers reading a newspaper or magazine, perhaps returning to their churches from a state convention or pastor’s gathering not only articulate what they heard but also the manner in which it was spoken. Thus, we are teaching a new generation of pastors to resolve conflict from behind the sacred desk in ways that are not sacred. An ill demeanor may be temporarily forced upon a congregation or accepted by fellow pastors but such pastoral conduct will not advance the cause of Christ in the world. No one is going to bully a non-Christian into believing the gospel.

After enumerating the positive effects of the Spirit’s filling, Paul defined Spirit-filled believers as those who “crucify the flesh with its passions and desires” (Galatians 5:24). Those “passions and desires” are then identified as personal “conceit” and the “provocation” of brothers (Galatians 5:26) both of which are a “transgression” of the law of the Spirit (Galatians 6:1).

Regardless of one’s perspective on the issue of Calvinism in the SBC, everyone benefits from the honest appraisal of another’s view, the proper representation of all sides and generosity, kindness, and respect.

Calvinism should not be the immediate issue. Even before we begin to discuss Calvinism, the shouting should stop and we should understand that our very character is being tested and revealed before God and the world.

Our real beliefs are showing up in our behavior and it is not appealing to anyone, inside or outside of the Convention. Christian character and integrity are simply the adorning of doctrine (Titus 2:10) which is the application of what we believe. Thus, who we truly are and what we sincerely believe is best defined by how we behave. It is as important as what we say.

— Weems is senior pastor of Heritage Baptist Church, Johnson City.

One final word: for the letter I wrote to the Baptist & Reflector regarding the article addressed in this post, go here.

Tom Ascol, the “Teflon Don”

Or, “Mud never sticks to a man of integrity.”

I’ve reflected quite a bit tonight on the BP News article about the Late, Great Debate (see previous post), and I think that I have come out of this with a single conclusion. Tom Ascol is the “Teflon Don.” My respect for him has just increased at least tenfold.

In a debate that has been downright nasty, Tom Ascol has been the model of integrity, humility, and peacemaking. He has shown what a gracious spirit looks like. If you did not have a good level of respect for him before the events that brought about the debate fiasco, you ought to have it now.

Thank you, Tom Ascol, for modeling for a young pastor like me - and many others of my generation - what true biblical integrity looks like. You have been a concrete example of Proverbs 22:1 and Romans 8:31-39. No controversy, slander, or untruth can undermine us in the eyes of our Lord and others if we have committed ourselves to integrity in Christ. May we seek to imitate you, and in so doing, imitate Christ.

The Late Great Debate

Baptist Press has an excellent article on the late great debate that would have taken place last night at Liberty University. The article can be found here.

The article is fair and balanced, but it does get several details wrong, namely the details about the debate itself. Be forewarned - neither the Caners nor James White come out squeaky clean. Only Tom Ascol comes out of this article in a gracious manner.

A Letter to the TN Baptist & Reflector

I read with great disgust and dismay Lonnie Wilkey’s article in the current issue of the Tennessee Baptist & Reflector concerning Calvinism.  The article in question can be found online here.  What follows in this post is the letter to the editor I have written concerning the article.

To the Editor:

As a Tennessee Baptist from birth and salvation (First Baptist Church Dayton, TN), a graduate of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary living and serving the Lord in Kentucky, it was with great surprise and interest that I read Lonnie Wilkey’s article ” Calvinists have no sense of urgency — Jesus did.”  I was disappointed greatly with this article.  And as someone who is not a Calvinist, such a negative endorsement should speak volumes.

Mr. Wilkey shows a great deal of ignorance about just what Calvinism actually is.  Calvinism - or Reformed theology, if you prefer - does not discourage evangelism.  On the contrary, those of a Reformed persuasion are just as motivated if not more so than their non-Calvinist brethren about evangelism.  Calvinists believe that God has commanded them to go out and preach the gospel to the whole world, that the elect of God (those who would place their faith in Christ) might come to Him.  Since no one but God can know just who the elect are, Calvinists believe it is a humbling thing to be the instrument by which the Lord Jesus draws all people to Himself.  Calvinists believe they are to call the elect - whoever they may be - to accept Christ, which in and of itself is an invitation!  Yes, indeed, Calvinsts believe evangelism is serious business!

Mr. Willkey also shows he at the very least has not read carefully the book of Romans, which clearly states in chapter nine that salvation has nothing to do with human endeavor, but is entirely the province of a God who chooses whom will be vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath.  Furthermore, those vessels of mercy and wrath are in 9:22-23 clearly ordained by God.  It is not about “who has been given the opportunity to accept Christ,” since it is quite obvious that many thousands of people perish every day without ever hearing the Gospel.  It is about God showing Himself in glory through both the witness of Christ and the punishment of sinners.

This article, some have said, could easily be debunked by a high school student with an internet connection.  Not only could it be, it is easily debunked by any thinking Christian willing to devote a few minutes of serious inquiry into Calvinism and what Scripture actually does teach about these issues.

I am disappointed in and embarrassed with Mr. Wilkey’s obvious lack of research into this issue before he wrote this article.  I would like to prayerfully and lovingly suggest that in the future Mr. Wilkey do his homework before writing a hatchet job against a theological position he does not understand.  Such hatchet jobs do not build up the body, but tear down in division.  I, and hopefully other Tennessee Baptists, expect better from the editor of our own state paper.

Grace to you and peace.

Rev. J. Stephen Newell, Jr.
Associate Pastor, Louisville Baptist Deaf Church
Salt and Light Ministries–Christian Counseling for the Deaf