Evangelicals Don't Think

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of evangelical Christian life—let me be more specific . . . of life in the Southern Baptist Convention—is the absolute repugnance for thinking which seems to be epidemic across the convention. Numerous examples could be mustered to demonstrate this sad fact, but a recent episode at a church with which I am quite familiar will suffice.

This particular church happens to be in the middle of a search for a new pastor. Recently, I have learned that one of the questions the committee is asking of new candidates is simply, “Are you a Calvinist?” If the candidate answers in the affirmative, the church immediately disqualifies him. [To be fair, I have received other information that “we might consider a 3- or 4-point Calvinist but not a 5-point, hyper-Calvinist”] When asked the reason for this stance on Calvinism, the committee has stated that they wish to avoid anything which could cause division. Evidently, the search committee had heard of the struggles at Dauphin Way Baptist Church and wished to avoid the same issues.

[see http://www.missouribaptists.org/content/Dauphin%20Way.htm]

Several points of clarification need to be made. First, as far as can be determined the search committee was only familiar with Dauphin Way Baptist Church through secondary “research”—i.e., reading articles like the one linked above. Second, these “qualifications” were determined by the pastor search committee in a congregation-led church, evidently without input from the congregation. The church itself has no official stance on the so-called “points of Calvinism”.

Without even getting into the merits of Calvinism and the superficial understanding of the issues displayed by the type of questioning being used by this committee, this scenario displays at least part of what is wrong with the SBC (and American evangelicalism as a whole).

Let’s look at what has happened here.

This committee has heard of a problem at another church and has heard that the problem (or at least part of it) stemmed from the fact that the pastor taught “Calvinistic” doctrines. Then, utilizing the largest brushstrokes possible, the committee has decided to avoid anyone who considers himself a Calvinist for fear of division. Do I even need to highlight the mass of assumptions that are being made in this decision? The leaps in the logic process are astounding, and the unwillingness to think through issues is troubling, at the least.

Let me be clear: the problems in this scenario reach far beyond mere doctrinal issues (although the lack of theological depth is a severe problem—and that charge does not stem from the anti-Calvinism stance taken by the committee), and my response to this committee’s actions would be the same if the particular hot-point issue were the candidates’ hair color rather than their stance on Calvinism. The idea that one particular problem at another church somehow translates to an across the board, absolute, and very general response is the type of reactionary non-thinking I would hope churches could move beyond.

The fact that this scenario involves a severe lack of understanding of doctrinal issues only exacerbates the problem and demonstrates some of the major depth issues facing the evangelical church in the 21^st century. [Again, this is not because of their “conclusions” on Calvinism. Although I consider myself Reformed in my theology, I know plenty of people who would easily—and gladly—wear the title “Remonstrant” who have a great understanding of the doctrinal issues. One such individual had the same reaction as me when I explained this particular scenario.] One of the long-standing criticisms of the evangelical community—and Southern Baptists—is that adherents “check their minds at the door”. Ridiculous scenarios such as the one described above do nothing to counter that criticism.