Calvinism's Role in a Great Commission Resurgence

As a young SBC Calvinist, I’ve been dealing deeply with the implications of the Great Commission Resurgence movement within the SBC, as have most members of the Convention. The problem, as with most of us, is not that I don’t support even greater emphasis on missions within the denomination; rather, that I’m just not yet sure how all this will play out on a large scale. At this point I realize that some of my readers will need a little background on the debate.

Most people don’t realize that 30 years ago, the SBC was on the brink of decline into a dark form of theological liberalism. Our theologians, seminaries, and churches had drifted away from the Bible. Fortunately, God saved our denomination through the work of such men as Patterson, Criswell, and Rogers. In the 70s and 80s, these men fought a political battle within the denomination that assured that Bible believing conservatives would stay in control and that Christ would stay in the center.

Thirty years later, in 2009, we celebrate that our denomination remains in large part faithful to God’s witness in the Bible; however, we recognize that we have not been as faithful as we should have been in following God’s “Great Commission” to spread the gospel to the world. In an age where SBC numbers and giving is declining, many such as Dr. Akin are calling the denomination to preserve the original intent the conservative resurgence by refocusing our efforts on domestic and foreign mission work. Dr. Akin has gone so far as to have written a treatise on the issue which carefully outlines his intentions and goals.

I’ve been thinking more and more about this ever since I finished the new book Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialouge. As all of us are aware, Calvinism is on the rise in the SBC and we are not quite sure what to do about it. The Great Commission Resurgence acknowledges that there are theological tensions within the SBC (such as the current Calvinist-non-Calvinist debate). The overwhelming consensus, however, is to label these kinds of debates as secondary and tertiary debates, that while important, are less influential to the propagation of the gospel. In the long run, the GCR people argue, we should not let these issues detract us from evangelizing the nations.

At this point, many of us recall Spurgeon’s famous quote that “Calvinism is the gospel.” I tend to agree with this quote, while at the same time acknowledging that much of the work of the church throughout the history of the church and of our denomination has been carried out adequately and appropriately by non-Calvinists. It seems then that SBC Calvinists are at a crossroads: do we accept the methodological emphasis of the GCR on core commitments to the gospel and orthodox Christianity, or do we stick to our guns and recognize that there are possible flaws to the GCR method. After all, doesn’t the GCR just want to put blind commitment to the gospel above theological consensus and thereby commit the same methodological errors that Tom Nettles identifies Mullins and Scarborough making at the turn of the century in By His Grace and For His Glory?

At this point, I think it is healthy to introduce a distinction that Dr. Greg Welty of SWBTS uses in his essay in the Calvinism book. He notes that when talking about doctrines and the gospel that some doctrines pertain to the esse (essence, core, or the sine qua non) of the gospel while others are bene esse (good for the essence and spread) of the gospel. According to Dr. Welty, Calvinism falls into the latter category, meaning that it is not the center of the gospel, but is good for the health and vitality of the gospel. While I tend to see Calvinism as less than the essence of the gospel but more than just good for its propagation and health (somewhere in the middle of the esse-bene esse distinction), I tend to agree with this assessment. And all of us who believe that true gospel work has been done by non-Calvinists are forced to accept this conclusion. While the non-Calvinists have certainly not been preaching what we would see as a full and majestic view of the gospel that places its locus on the full extent of God’s glory, their preaching has in some very substantial way been at least sufficient to be used as a means to bring about regeneration. If people can be saved by preaching from an unreformed and semi-Pelagian bent, then Calvinism cannot be the one, true, and only essence of the gospel. This doesn’t make the five points of Calvinism any less true, but I think it does mean that Calvinists should at least agree with and support most of the GCR and be ready and willing to work with our non-Calvinist brethren in spreading the gospel.

On the other hand, a Calvinist’s criticism of the GCR movement should be its theological nearsightedness. If indeed Calvinism is good for a healthy understanding of the gospel, then only a return to confessional and missional Calvinism within the SBC will actually accomplish the goals that the GCR wishes to achieve. It is Calvinism that turns us away from man centeredness (including man centered evangelism, preaching, ecclesiology, and church growth techniques) and towards a more God-centered approach to all of these things. I believe that a rise in Reformed theology is only good for the SBC because it has the power through God’s grace to purify and reform our convention and place our emphasis back on the Bible and missions in a way that a Great Commission Resurgence, a Baptist Identity Resurgence, a Cooperative Program, a convention name change, or a merging of the IMB and NAMB never could. So my only quibble with the GCR is that the GCR can only really change things insofar as it reorganizes state conventions and money flow. As an institution, it has no power to change hearts or minds, and I think the GCR leaders realize this. Only a return the centrality of Jesus Christ and Scripture can do that, and a rise in Calvinism I believe is one of the best ways to accomplish that. This does not mean that Calvinists should abandon attempts at a GCR because we are a minority opinion. On the contrary, it should encourage us to work even harder, using and offering our gifts and insights in order to advance the glory of God, recognizing that our contributions are incredibly important to the spread of the gospel.

In conclusion, a Calvinist should support the GCR and be willing to cooperate with non-Calvinist lovers of Jesus in order to reach the lost in a time when the lost need to meet Jesus more than ever. On the other hand, Calvinists should realize that a GCR will never occur until we return to the lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture. It will be difficult for this to occur unless Calvinism plays a major role in a Great Commission Resurgence. I suppose, then, that Calvinism is much less important, and at the same time, much more important to the gospel than we really know. We would do well to remember that.