As many of you know, my family and I moved to Norman, Oklahoma, a year and a half ago primarily due to my mother’s illness. Previously, we lived in Frisco, Texas, where I was a pastor at Stonebriar Community Church for six years. We all loved the church. We loved the people, the commitment to the preaching of God’s word, and the reverence for certain traditions. Oh, and did I mention grace?! That is why I went there in the first place – grace! Rarely (and sadly) do you find a passionate commitment to the word of God and a attitude of grace. This situation gives forth to energy. Call it the power of God, the movement of the Holy Spirit, or whatever you will according to your tradition, but the church was alive. I wanted to be there every day. I miss it greatly.
Grace and truth. The two most important elements in my hierarchy of looking for a church.
Notice, to the surprise of many, I did not list “perfect theology” as a criteria. I did not even say theology that I am always comfortable with (since there is no perfect theology). At Stonebriar, I had it all. Just about everything Chuck taught, I agreed with. If not, I loved the man so much that I would bend myself to agree with him! (At least for that Sunday.) Of course, Chuck is a pastor more than a professional theologian. But he was committed to sound theology and he is a Calvinist! (a four pointer at least). Oh the depths and riches of reformed preaching! The power, the hope, the pride that can be taken when God’s sovereignty is preached in such a way.
However, today I do not go to a Calvinistic church. In fact, I am at an Arminian church. In fact (again), I am a regular teacher at a church that is both Arminian and Egalitarian. In fact (last time), last week I had to call the pastor that I am under to ask if it was okay for me to teach on “Women in the Church,” a topic in a current series I am on. This church is called Crossings Community Church and it is part of the Church of God, Anderson (not the charismatic Church of God you may be thinking of).
Let me briefly define a few terms before we move on (I will get in trouble if I don’t. If you already know these “big” words, move on. If not, learn them! – its not that hard):
Calvinist: One who believes in the doctrines of grace most traditionally defined by the TULIP acronym. The most controversial of the doctrines are Unconditional Election: the belief that God elects some individuals to salvation and not other based upon his sovereign will; Limited Atonement: the belief that Christ’s death only paid for the sins of the elect; Irresistible Grace: the belief that when God’s saving grace is presented to the elect, it is always effective (i.e. they will not ever reject it); and Perseverance of the Saints: the belief that those who are saved (the elect) will persevere and cannot “lose” their salvation.
Arminian: One who denies all of the Calvinistic doctrines of grace except the first, Total Depravity. The Arminian will opt for a belief in “Conditional” election: the belief that God’s predestination is based on the foreseen faith of the individual; “Resistible” grace: the belief that God’s saving grace can be rejected by anyone; “Unlimited” atonement: the belief that Christ’s death paid for the sins of every individual; and the belief that a truly saved person and fall from or “lose” their salvation.
Complementarianism: Belief in essential equality, but functional hierarchy in the sexes. This hierarchy is by God’s design and is not due to the fall. Man is to be the leader in the church and home. Women are not to be in positions of authority over man in the church or home, but are honored due to their role in the same way as men.
Egalitarianism: Belief in the essential and functional equality of the sexes. All role distinctions which imply leadership belonging to the man is due to the fall, not by God’s design. Therefore, women can serve in positions of authority over man in both the church and the home. Role is assigned by individual giftedness, not gender.
So . . . Why does this Calvinistic Complementarian go to an Arminian Egalitarian church?
There are many reasons, but I want to highlight the three most important and then attempt to help you gain perspective in choosing a church.
1. Crossings teaches the Gospel and focuses on it.
“But, but, but . . . I thought you said they were Arminian . . . Oh, I get it. You really don’t care that much about Calvinism and egalitarianism.” No, this is not the case. I care deeply about the doctrines of grace. A little less so about complementarianism, but don’t mistake this for any sort of apathy. It just demonstrates how much I prioritize my Calvinism. However, there are many things that I prioritize even more than Calvinism . . . much more. These include the centrality of Christ, the proclamation of the Gospel, and the authority of Scripture. But there is one more thing. One more thing that I have come to value more and more over the years . . .
2. Crossings teaches grace and does not divide over non-cardinal issues.
Crossings does not just preach grace, you can feel it when you walk through the doors. I have been to dozens of churches where right as you walk through the doors, it as if a heavy burden has been placed upon your back. Smug looks of suspicion along with demeaning conversation are the most readily expected experience. I am sad to say but this is especially true of many churches in my Calvinistic tradition. All they are concerned with is making you a Calvinist. Sigh . . . I would that all men (and women) were Calvinists like me, but my goal is not necessarily to make them such. But Crossings is not about making you an Arminian, either – obviously since they have me teach! They are gracious in non-cardinal issues, allowing for diversity. They understand that diversity actually teaches more and illustrates God’s grace more than digging your heels in on every doctrinal matter. I love grace so much. When I go there, it does feel as if the burden is removed and you are joining a place with many broken people seeking help together.
Friends, this is the heart of Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism 101.
3. I am needed and used there.
Who am I to obscure the call of God based upon my particular doctrinal favoritism? These are God’s people and I will love God’s people wherever they are. If I can be used in a church that does not line up perfectly with my theology, that is great. Why would I ever turn down an opportunity to teach a group of people just because they don’t already agree with me? That is just plain silly and lacks perspective. Would I rather teach and serve somewhere that the people already would be in agreement with me? Would you? Where is the fun in that?
(Just to make it plain, I always teach in accordance with the umbrella that Crossings provides. I do make it known, when relevant, where I stand on certain issues, but I also go out of my way to help the members understand where Crossings stands and why. I respect them very much in this. But, these issues don’t really come up that much since there is so much that Calvinists and Arminians do agree upon. We just often forget how much.)
Would it be better if they were Calvinists? Would it be better if they were Complementarians? Sure, as long as they kept the grace. But, if I have the choice, I will never trade perfect theology (or nearly so) for grace. Grace is the Gospel. When you lose that, where do you go? Stay in bed.
You will never find the perfect church . . . never! There is no perfect denomination. There is no perfect tradition. There is no perfect church and there never has been. Although Stonebriar was close, it was not that close.
I don’t believe in trying to find a church based upon non-cardinal doctrinal issues. But, unfortunately, many churches don’t share my perspective, which makes it hard for people like me. If you go to a church and they have different convictions about certain issues and all they are doing is trying to convert you, this is a troubling experience. This leaves the Christian with the only option of attempting to find a church that agrees with them on everything. What a detriment to the diversity of the body of Christ. Doctrinal statements are fine. Crossings has one. Stonebriar has one. But when every detail of the doctrinal statement is prioritized to the point where every member has to sign off on everything, this is unfortunate in my opinion.
I go to a church that is full of grace and truth. That is why I go to an Arminian church. If there were a Calvinistic church like Stonebriar that was full of grace and truth (and there are some), I might go there. But right now I feel as if I am where God wants me to be.
However, this is my opinion and I am curious as to your thoughts.
146 replies to "Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church?"
I am not surprised, Michael. I have followed you for quite a while now, and I know you are a man of truth and grace. And I go to a Methodist church, not because I fully agree with Methodism, but because this particular church practises WIFE (Swindoll) well.
Leslie, I am not surprised about this from you as well!
WIFE
Worship
Instruction
Fellowship
Evangelism
Never forget it!
Michael, I have the exact same situation in my life and ministry right now. I’m a Calvinist attending, and teaching, in an Arminian church. I also teach in a another church’s Bible College that is Arminian.
Thank you, Michael, for this post. As a committed Wesleyan-Arminian, I did my MA and PhD work at a school where none of my profs were “Arminian” or “Wesleyan,” but were various gradations of Calvinistic. I deeply appreciated their awareness that the theological distinctives of Calvinism are not the sine qua non of orthodoxy or the gospel, and I did my best to learn how to articulate their position with the same clarity and fidelity they would expect from an adherent.
This post gives me hope there are more Calvinists who recognize the relative significance of their theological distinctives and are willing to live that out in their lives.
Blessings to you.
Beautiful, oh how I long for a church like that.
Hi Micheal
I am a recent convert to calvinism (last 2 years)after being introduced to your online theology program and I think required reading at that time Wayne Grudems Systematic Theology.
I go to the same church Tim Challies calls home,Grace Fellowship church.
Our home church pastored by Paul Martin expresses itself in grace and truth,I love it!
I have a sister who in error thinks that because Arminians have not heard the true gospel preached across the pulpit they are not saved.
I believe that perfect theology may be there error.
She is not a hyper calvinist as she still preaches to the lost but I think she is more of a neo gnostic calvinist(perfect knowledge)
This lack of grace is always a bone of contention between us.
I am also almost finished George Whitefield biography which beautifully portrays the relationship between Calvinism and Armininism with George Whitefield and the Wesley brothers.
I may just suggest she read his biography.
May God bless all that you do in his name.
Greg
Michael,
What would a church look like that has an attitude of grace?
How did Stonebriar look?
Greg
CMP,
As a Pentecostal I have also been a victim of that kind of attitude you described above. And you are right, there is no perfect theology.
Would you be close to what they call “Bapticosts”? LOL.
I know the Church of God, Anderson. Bill Gaither belongs to that. For those who don’t know, the Pentecostal one is Church of God, Cleveland Assembly.
On the converse side though, would it be appropriate for an Arminian to teach at a Calvinist church?
It would be fine, as long as the individual teaching is loving and does not teach on the particular differences in the “distinctives.” Soteriology is only one part of the total systematic of Christianity. Mentioned above is WIFE which is a good beginning and end!
Michael, thanks for this post. It gives me a lot to think about, as you often do.
I have been searching for the “perfect” church, or something close, for the last couple of years. In the meantime, I have been going to Stonebriar. It is only because of your views of Chuck and TTP that I was willing to give it a chance. It is quite shocking to me to hear that Chuck is a Calvinist! A few months ago, I heard him preach one of the best sermons ever on the sovereignty of God and I thought, this is what I’ve been looking for! Amen! and Hallelujah! Then, the next week was about “wrong-way” Christians and left me confused on his theology. I am still searching for a church, but you have made me feel better about Stonebriar in the meantime.
One quick note, coming from the Baptist (Southern) tradition, almost everyone I know is a 4 point Arminian but the one point that they disagree about is falling from grace. They deny depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, effectual calling, but they hold tight to once-saved, always-saved. And you have argued in TTP, if total depravity (radical corruption) is true, then the rest must necessarily be true. So, I would certainly like to hear more explanation on how depravity is the one point on which Arminians agree with Calvinists.
Thanks again for the post.
Wayne in Frisco,
As a Pentecostal, we do believe in total depravity, but how to handle it is what makes us different. There is simply no such thing as a little bit depraved…”a fly in the ointment”.
But even though people are, God still speaks to them, God still moves for them…as when we pray for someone whether or not they have faith.
But we go on to teach that once you have received Jesus Christ and have become born again, now you are no longer in that previous depraved condition. And you must allow God to do the work in you.
Take the example of the potter’s wheel, that clay was smashed and smashed until it became the shape the potter was pleased with.
[…] and does so very well. Not surprisingly (to me, at least), this is from C. Michael Patton on Parchment and Pen. To quote his definitions of “complementarian” and “egalitarian”: […]
Hi Michael,
I loved this article. Secondary issues must take a back seat.
As a five point Arminian, Charismatic, Egalitarian (it is no wonder we disagree on so many items), I have attended several churches that were none of the above.
I have grimaced a couple of times when the Pastor has gotten a little to Calvinistic, but that tends to happen once or twice a year.
Most churches whether Charistmatic in theology or not, tend to be non-charismatic in practice, and I can live with that. I tend to be a pretty quiet charismatic anyway.
I remember reading something by Grudem (I think) about core versus secondary beliefs and what we should be willing to divide over. I was with him on all issues except the role of women.
I will not go to a church that is not Egalitarian. Simply because I believe that non-Egalitarian churches are quenching the spirit, when they don’t allow people (women in this case) to exercise their spiritual gifts. I realize that this is a little inconsistent with being willing to attend a non-Charismatic church, but my views of Egalitarianism are stronger than my Charismatic views.
By the way I grew up as a Calvinistic, Non-charismatic with a hierarchical view. It was 25 years ago that reading in 2 Peter and Hebrews made me question my Calvinistic views and I ended up in a denomination (the Alliance) which tended toward the Arminian side of things (they had some Calvinistic Pastors, but not many, at least up in Canada), they were Charismatic in theology, but not so much in practice, and were split down the middle on the Complementary/Egalitarian debate. It provided a good landing place for me to look objectively in all directions theologically.
Twenty-five years later I am still willing to learn, which is one reason why I visit this blog on a regular basis.
Very interesting post.
I’m pretty new to both doctrines and find myself leaning in the “Calvinist” direction. But it doesn’t seem right to label myself as such because I don’t hang my salvation on John Calvin’s understanding of Scripture, but rather the finished work of Christ.
Some people seem to believe that it is heretical to hold to the doctrine to which they do not personally subscribe. And fellowship has been broken over the differences. It made me wonder–Since both doctrines can’t both be exclusively correct, do the differences in the teachings mean that (at least) one is heresy? If one teaching is heretical, am I obligated to avoid those who believe it? At what point is a man’s incomplete understanding of God to be considered heresy?
I have wondered if the two teachings MUST be considered as complete opposites at all times. It appears that you believe there actually is common ground which should not be compromised. That is encouraging.
Perhaps I don’t understand either perspective well enough to be discussing this.
Greg,
I can fully affirm 5 of the 10 statements in your Church’s statement of faith. Is that a passing grade? 🙂
Just saying this to show that at some point attending another type of church can be very difficult.
By the way, I work in Burlington, so we are practically neighbours.
Man, Michael! What are we going to do with you? People with their head on straight aren’t allowed to have blogs…
Thanks for the post. It’s encouraging.
I’m really glad you took the time to write this out, Michael. I’m a young pastor in the Church of God (Anderson) – notice how I write “Anderson” in parentheses…that’s pretty standard practice for us LOL – and I’ve been listening to the Theology program and reading your blog for about a year and a half now. You will never know how greatly your ministry has helped me in thinking through my own theology, which in turn helps my small church in Ohio. While I usually disagree with you at many points, I am almost always able to see past that because of your humility and honesty. So it IS possible to Calvinists and Arminians to not only co-exist, but learn from each other and build each other up!
(And may I just say that I am shocked that my little denomination made it onto the theology blog and into this converstation! Now I know how all the cool Baptist kids feel. 🙂 )
Good for you, CMP! Eclectic Christian – Michael Bell and I would probably have a lot in common.
Howdy,
I think it is great that you can teach under the authority that you have some disagreements. I appreciate that evidence of your graciousness.
As a pastor, it is my opinion that most people cannot do just as you are doing. They tend to belittle the pastor they disagree with or come right out and say that the pulpit is wrong. That is where I must draw the line – when people start teaching aginst what is being taught from the puplpit.
One does not have to agree with everything in our statement of faith, but our teachers must teach in accordance with and not contrary to our affirmation of faith. A beficial way all churches should consider in the use their confessions of faith is found in this article: “How We Use Our Statement of Faith” (http://www.ccwtoday.org/article_view.asp?article_id=91).
If we admit we are all in theological development and certainly don’t have perfect theology, we can work together when we disagree on terciary issues (Category 3 beliefs – beliefs not necessary for salvation, orthodoxy, or ecclesiology, or philosophy of minsitry). See “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity” (http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-05-20) for a good understanding of the needed triage in applying our beliefs for the sake of unity (I have more than 3 categories though).
In saying this, I do find that most (not all) Arminians are realy “Christian Humanists,” who tend to truncate the Gospel of our Lord Jesus. This is why, thought teachers don’t have to fully subscribe to our church’s Affirmation of faith, they must teach in accordance with it and not contrary to it. I would not allow someone to actively promote a theology that is contrary to the church or the elders affirmations of faith. In this way the flock is protected from false teaching and allowances for differences and theological development can be maintained in unity.
Michael,
Thanks for the post. Just a follow up question.
Would you feel the same way about the church if you were a “staff” Pastor? In other words, would you remain at a church where they taught doctrines (but not the “essentials), that you disagreed with?
Just curious if this would change things, and why.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Patton is slowly being drawn into our “dark side” of Arminianism. :0)
It’s good to know that there is an opposite of me out there! I go to a Calvinist-complementarian church and I am an egalitarian-Arminian.
Graciousness and care for others matters much more to me than the doctrinal i’s and t’s.
Josh, I don’t know how I would feel. As long as they gave me freedom to teach the way I teach and respect their stance on things—i.e. teach Evangelically—then I would.
In fact, in my description of the “perfect” church that I will someday write about, I would like to have a diversity of Evangelicalism on staff. I know that this is not the “right” way to do it necessarily, but if you have two pastors on staff who disagree about Cal and Arm and still love and fight the good fight together, that says more than you could know.
The lion and the lamb together.
Michael defines Unconditional Election this way:
Actually, an Arminian could agree with this definition as it is stated. It does not sufficiently bring out the distinction(s). One could simply say that:
2. UE is the belief that God elects some individuals to eternal life, apart from any foreseen virtue in them (even faith).
Michael defines Limited Atonement thusly:
This definition is too reductionistic, as it only accounts for the Owenic variety of Calvinism. One could simply say that:
2. LA is the belief that Christ came with a special design to ultimately secure the salvation of the elect alone through his all-sufficient sacrifice.
This broader way of putting it can account for all the positions that were present during the Synod of Dort (including the English and Bremen delegations), which is much more complex than Patton’s singular limited imputation presentation.
Michael defines Irresistable Grace this way:
This definition bothered me the most. It could leave the impression that the elect never resist God’s gospel call to saving grace. This it not what Michael means to suggest, I trust, but the above wording could easily leave that impression. One could simply say that:
2. IG is the belief that God has determined that the grace offered in the gospel will be effectually received by all of the elect alone as some point in their lives, such that they cannot morally resist this special grace.
This refined definition guards against the notion that the elect never reject “God saving grace” when it is presented to them. The unregenerate elect frequently do reject God’s offer of saving grace
In conclusion, I realize that Michael is not seeking to be overly technical in his definitions in this very brief blog post (nor am I), but we must be careful enough in our definitions (however brief) so that people are not misled in an area that has been historically very difficult to understand. Since much confusion abounds in these areas today, let’s be careful not to contribute to those confusions by inaccurate and/or reductionistic definitions.
Tony
What a great post, with encouraging replies!
It reminds me of one pastor who said something about there not being any exam that will allow one into heaven… Our works can’t save us, and that includes our works of belief.
One response:
The fact that you identify ‘egalitarian’ with an uppercase E causes me concern — I hope it’s misplaced. Not all churches that don’t allow women pastors also refuse to allow women to exercise their spiritual gifts. Some do; some don’t.
-Wm
Michael, that is why we still get along.
However, I am taken aback by this statement:
“Simply because I believe that non-Egalitarian churches are quenching the spirit, when they don’t allow people (women in this case) to exercise their spiritual gifts.”
Was the majority of the historic Christian church quenching the Spirit? I could understand it if you said that this view was too far off for your comfort level, but to ascribe the SQ to it! Ouch!
I think that the Spirit is much harder to quench than that!
Granted, if they were chauvinistic and legalistic with it, that would be the case. But it would be hard for me to say that, say, Stonebriar is quenching the Spirit.
God bless you brother.
Tony, I would break my own blog rules of getting the post off topic if I attempted to defend my definitions. Suffice it to say that I am soon going to be writing a very long series of blog posts in defense of Calvinism, with the expressed intention of correcting misunderstandings!
Wm,
“Not all churches that don’t allow women pastors also refuse to allow women to exercise their spiritual gifts. Some do; some don’t.”
Although this is not a church, I do allow women to post! A very able woman named Lisa Robinson.
Michael,
I look forward to reading what you say in those upcoming posts. However, even though my brief definition interaction above does not deal with your main point, it does deal with one of your subpoints, which is your definitions. So, to that extent, I believe I was still on point. Your brief definitions, in this post, are problematic (particularly the ‘Irresistable Grace’ definition), even if they only constitute a subpoint of your post. I would encourage you to be more careful in the future 🙂
Grace to you,
Tony
p.s. I also enjoy doing ministry with “non-Calvinists.” In fact, I am working with one now in order to refute the strictly limited or Owenic views of the atonement 😉
Tony, again, you will just have to wait until that is the subject.
Michael,
Where does compatibilism, or ‘soft determinism’, as some call it, which is the belief that God is totally sovereign but lets man freely make choices, (good or bad), factor in between Calvinism and Arminianism?
Compatiblism is what I call “Evangelical Calvinism.” It actually represents a more mainstream Calvinism rather than a more radical form. I am a compatibalist.
Thank you for your mature insight. I have copied two small paragraphs and saved them concerning diversity and doctrine. They speak to what and where I am in being found acceptable among many churches. Many pastors seem paranoid about possible ‘problem’ would-be members. People (like myself) who like to talk about Scripture and Christ but may dissagree with them on certain secondary issues but are willing to keep these differences to themselves if allowed to stay long enough to show that or be simply asked. My last church that I wanted to join very much, shuned me over something that I was not even told. My only guess was that maybe we differed on the “Lordship” issue? No one wanted to talk. They just walked away. Too much rejection and pain for me to pursue things beyound that. They had my call in to them and my e-mail address and phone number. Never a call or contact back. When I first walked in, I was treated as a long lost friend. It was last in a long list of weak or sick churches that I tried. I’m a retired 60 year old man who loves the Lord and theology for all of my 25 years as a Christian. Exceipt for formal Greek training, I am home taught. I am ‘opinionated’ on only the fundamentals, with one exceiption that I see as a fundamental doctrine: Eternal Security. I cannot see how the Arminian Gospel can be a ‘Grace’ Gospel. It seems that Calvanistic Grace is preached at conversion and then replaced with certain prohabitions later on. This is not meant as a criticism but an observation. It seems double minded but only on a subliminal basis. I do believe that they teach Grace but later on and on their printed litature comes the few prohabitions. This I believe, begins to undermine that doctrine of Grace.
Michael said:
Seriously, who are the “many”? I don’t think anyone would ever accuse you of looking for a church with perfect theology, especially if they know that you’re constantly and perpetually reacting against your own fundamentalistic past. This post actually comes across as most of your posts, as if you’re perpetually announcing to the world: “I am no longer a fundemantalist bigot! I hate my past mentality. I have an open mind now, even as a convinced ‘five-point’ Calvinist!”
Whenever I check out this blog, I am never surprised to see you reacting against any possible perception by others that you’re still a narrowminded, fundamentalist bigot. So, I am not at all surprised (or critical of the fact) that you’re going to Crossings Community Church, and I don’t think anyone else is really surprised either. Do you think some of your friends and readers here are surprised? You write as though “many” are.
Sincerely,
Tony
Tony, I am not surprised by your tone, that is for sure 🙂
It is sometimes hard to fully understand, outline, and defend the doctrines/dogmas of any particular denomination or church. Or in any case, sometimes it’s better to keep in mind or openly discuss, the description and merits of many different doctrines, in order to see the larger context; even as we defend the beliefs of our particular church.
Looking at many different doctrines and churches is useful. Especially when in our Non-Denom era, the average churchgoer is usually not fully apprised of – or committed to – the fine detail of this or that particular church dogma.
So the average churchgoer might like to hear what his or her own church believes, in comparison to what other churches do. But in part, a broader overview is also useful not only to clarify our own churches; but also … to open us up to the larger … body of Christ. Which would include not only our own congregations.
Looking around at various doctrines of different churches, through comparative Dogmatics, can be a way to broaden our vision. And to extend the hand of Christian fellowship, the brotherly spirit, to all the many other various Christian churches.
And to see – and join – the larger Body of Christ?
Besides, who said I had a fundamentalistic past? Exposure yes, but past no.
Michael,
I think I probably fall into that camp too, but there’s very little I’ve been able to find on it, doctrinally speaking, except as it pertains to philosophy. Perhaps I am looking under the wrong definition.
Can you please cover this aspect in your upcoming post on Calvinism, and how it differs, or is in harmony with unconditional election?
That would be most appreciated, because some of us can’t place ourselves firmly either in the beliefs of Arminianism or Calvinism.
Thanks.
You bet. That will be a major part of finding the harmony between sovereignty and responsibility. Calvinists hold them both in tension. Have you read my “Why Calvinism is the Least Rational Option”? http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/11/why-calvinism-is-the-least-rational-option/
Oops, our posts crossed, Michael. I was, of course, referring to compatibilism, and not fundamentalism.
Michael,
My “tone”? You seem offended by something I’ve said. I am just interacting with what I perceive to be very common in your posts, including this one; that is, an interest in making sure that your readers know that you’re not a narrowminded religious bigot. You’re openminded enough to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials, and therefore you’re willing to go to a church such as Crossings, even though you have significant differences with them on at least two issues: Calvinism and Egalitarianism.
I am just offering this for your consideration: No one is really surprised that 1) you’re not looking for a church with perfect theology and 2) you’re going to a church that you describe as “Arminian” and “Egalitarian.” Why then write as if you’re talking to “many” people who will be surprised by that? I know I am not surprised. I doubt that the religious bigots who have opposed you on Paltalk are surprised either. I’m just wondering why you think anyone at all would be surprised by your attendance at CCC?
Sincerely,
Tony
p.s. I recall a blog post in the past (perhaps it is lost now?) where you spoke about your prior involvement in (not merely an exposure to) fundamentalism. That’s why I mentioned it. If you had such a past, as I recall you did, it would why you are now constantly reacting against it.
Tony,
I don’t know. I guess I just posted it for people’s thoughts and help to further see how I view things. I don’t really know if they are surprised, but, as the post says, many might be considering my attention to theology.
Hope that clears things up.
Also, the post does not hinge on whether people are surprised or not. That is really not the issue here.
Kara Kittle,
I don’t believe you’re understanding Wayne’s concern. But I’ll allow him to respond. Good try though. 🙂
Wm,
I meant nothing by having upper case versus lower case. In either case I am not sure what the concern would be.
Wm (quote 1) and Michael (quote 2)
An egalitarian believes that if God has gifted someone to be a Pastor, then they should be able to serve as a Pastor regardless of gender. If a person is gifted then by not allowing them to serve in the way that they have been gifted I see that as limiting the Spirit. A complementarian might respond by saying that they don’t believe that God gives gifts in that way, but then I see that as restricting God as to what he can or cannot do.
I think the problem comes when we take what is descriptive and try and make it prescriptive. For example the Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada have a statement that says:
The first statement is descriptive. It is what has happened in the past. The second statement is prescriptive, but leaves an opening.
A completely prescriptive statement would have read something like “All evidence would determine that this pattern must continue.”
Now the Alliance recognizes that there has been a pattern. I recognize that pattern too. They also realize that God in his sovereignty has in the past and can in the present and future make exceptions to that pattern. (For example there is a pretty extensive list of women in leadership in scripture.) So what the Alliance did after some 20 years of debate on the issue is determine that if a congregation felt that God was calling a woman to a leadership position as an elder they could by a 2/3rds vote allow that to happen.
My point is, don’t take a position that is going to limit what God might choose to do. I he decides to choose a woman to lead or teach, who am I to say no? So yes, I believe that a church that says a woman can’t teach or a woman can’t pastor, they are limiting God, and thus potentially quenching the Spirit.
P.S. I have enjoyed Lisa Robinson’s posts on this site very much.
“now allowing” in the previous post should read “not allowing”
On description (of past practices in the churches and so forth) becoming an eternal prescription, for the future? On abandoning that link-up?
Personally I like a lot of freedom. So much that I don’t usually contribute in Dogmatics discussions at all; they are all too dogmatic. Even when they are stretching the limits (allegedly).
Still, a note of caution for those who are about to change the rules. My experience has been that there are problems, when we decide that a) little in the past, even in the Bible or traditional doctrine, is really prescriptive for the future. And b) then we start presenting one our new ideas, as the word of God.
For a pastor to announce something as doctrine or dogma, in effect he is announcing it as absolutely certain; as the word of God. And people will often follow it to the letter.
Granted, the equality of women is a massively popular idea in pop culture; but can Egalitarianism hold up to this standard: being announced in chruch – and therefore being announced implicitly, as the absolute truth? As the word of God? Against which there is no appeal?
Are we really that certain about equalitarianism? And do we have the authority to make that determination, in the name of God?
Especially in the Protestant church … that fought Mary tooth and nail? Granted: Judith; Esther? Still; are we really following Judaism at all, or the God of even Jesus, when we all but completely abandon patriarchialism?
Dr. G.
I see Egalitarianism as allowing God to be sovereign, and not to make pronouncements that would restrict God in his sovereignty.
Friends, let’s not make this about the gender debate. If you do, keep in the context of the discussion. I can see this turning into something else very quickly! 🙂