Responding to Bill Wagner on Being Missional
Dr. William (Bill) Wagner) is a nominee for the president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Last week, Dr. Wagner was interviewed by SBCToday, and during that interview, he made the charge that Calvinists are less missional and desirous to see people saved. Now these charges are not new (i.e. Calvinism kills evangelism), and it is to no one’s surprise that these statements would be made during the yearly ascendancy of SBC politics leading up to the annual meeting in Indy later this summer.
It is the conviction of Dr. Wagner that Calvinists cannot be missional due to their belief in predestination. He writes,
At the Evangelical Theological Faculty many of my fellow esteemed professors are from the Reform persuasion. I have send many hour speaking with these leaders of the church. I have come away with a great appreciation of their position but still convinced that the doctrine of predestination has a tendency to blunt the sharp edge of evangelism and missions. I am speaking about both my studies in the past and my observations of contemporary missions.
Now Wagner says that Calvinists are less missional “comparatively speaking,” but just exactly whom they are juxtaposed he does not explain. Less missional compared to Arminians (or Armenians)? And what does he mean by “missional”? Wagner makes his assertions based on two factors: his observations and his studies. I would like to comment both of them in a brief response.
When I think of leading voices of the missional movement, I think of men like Tim Keller and Ed Stetzer, both of whom are Reformed in their doctrine. More objectively speaking, Perhaps Dr. Wagner is not aware that the top two multiplying churches in the United States are pastored by Calvinists. But alas, stuck in a denominational mindset while living in a post-denominational world does not perhaps afford the perspective to appreciate such church planting and missional movements such as Acts 29 Network, Sovereign Grace, or NETS–all of which are Reformed. To say that Calvinists are less missional is to ignore the burgeoning movement of the past two decades of church planting, revitalization, and reforming from both within and without the SBC that has transcended denominational lines and been accomplished through networks and partnerships that are distinctively missional and Reformed.
Aside from the considerable realities unaccounted for within Dr. Wagner’s observations, there is an even greater issue when it comes to the study of theology and mission. Wagner posits the idea that to hold to the biblical doctrine of predestination would somehow prevent someone from being missional. If that is the case, then why did that not work for the Apostle Paul or even Jesus for that matter? If, in the mind of God, predestination was contrary to His mission, then he certainly would do away with his eternal decrees and leave His redemptive purposes in the hands of men. But Scripture clearly does not follow this line of thinking or rationale. Rather, the mission of God is grounded in the doctrine of predestination. God’s plan throughout redemptive history–his mission to bring glory to his name–is evidenced in the sovereign election of Israel and the Church. Furthermore, predestination serves as a promissory means of encouragement and cause for perseverance, knowing that the ends that God has decreed will surely come about, and that by the full use of means through the preaching of the gospel and calling men to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
But even more problematic is the fundamental idea of missional in a triniarian sense. We cannot understand our mission correctly if we do not first consider the mission of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. And if our mission diminishes or depreciates the mission of the trinitarian Godhead, then whatever we consider as “missional” should be a mission that we abort. The gospel Calvinists preach is essentially trinitarian; God the Father plans redemption, God the Son accomplishes redemption, and God the Spirit applies redemption. Salvation is from the Lord. That should ground our mission, and from that massive reality, then, comes our understanding of mission. Calvinists believe that Jesus has sheep that “are not of this fold” whom He will pursue as the good Shepherd, that the Father has given to the Son those who would believe and that the Son will not lose one of them, and that the Holy Spirit is the Great Evangelist, drawing men to the Savior, regenerating dead sinners, and effectually calling them to repentance and faith in their conversion experience.
So comparatively speaking, does whatever alternative Dr. Wagner supposes in his study do justice to the mission of God? If his understanding of the gospel and conversion lies squarely upon the will of man, then how could God’s mission ever be accomplished much less certain and efficacious? If by “missional” you mean that the final and effectual means of fulfilling the Great Commission lies anywhere else than in God’s purpose in grace, then yes, we are “less missional” than Dr. Wagner. I don’t want to be so missional so as to do without the biblical truth that those whom God predestined, he called. Nevertheless, I would argue that Calvinists are more missional for the simple fact that we account for the trinitarian foundation of both gospel and mission. Not being ashamed of the gospel also means not being ashamed of the God of the gospel and the glorious doctrine of predestination he reveals in his Word.
This is just the starting point to refuting the claims made by Dr. Wagner. Much more could be said, but I want to conclude by making it clear that the doctrine of predestination does not exempt anyone from the Great Commission and the stewardship of the gospel with which we have been entrusted. For the Dr. Wagners’ making such charges, we are to be reminded of Romans 9; for the Calvinists who are counting points rather than winning souls, we are to be reminded of Romans 10. Neither are acceptable. The Apostle Paul who could so clearly explain God’s eternal purpose in grace in Romans 9 could also convincingly call for preachers with beautiful feet to proclaim good news to perishing sinners.
It is unfortunate that Dr. Wagner has concluded that believing in the doctrine of predestination or being a Calvinist inevitably results in being less missional. I’m glad that William Carey and Andrew Fuller didn’t buy into that message. I’m glad that the leaders of the missional movement today are not buying into it either.
Oh, and for that matter, neither should you.
Tags: Dr. Bill Wagner, Gospel, Missional, SBC
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
March 13, 2008 at 2:10 pm
[...] The Calvinism discussion in the SBC continues to heat up. Rule of thumb for Calvinists in the SBC: always cite SBCers for your examples if possible. Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 2:09 pm | Trackback | Permalink [...]
March 13, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I suppose Wagner never saw the Lifeway study that said Calvinists are actually a little more evangelistic than us non-Calvinists.
And people wonder where the young Baptists are going these days…
March 13, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I sometimes wonder where ignorance leaves off and malice begins.
March 13, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Timmy,
First– Driscoll and Mars Hill is Calvinistic? I thought he was a 4-pointer. Nevertheless, you point is well taken –they’d probably consider him Calvinistic.
But although your analysis of Wagner’s statement is spot-on theologically, and worth a hearty ‘Amen’, I think you’ve missed the entire point. In fact, I see Calvinists consistently and habitually miss the point in this particular disagreement regarding missions and predestination –especially in the blogsphere.
Honestly, I think the non-calvinists camp has heard ad nauseam the fact that theologically and historically, Calvinism should and usually does increase evangelistic fervor. They know, they’ve heard, but they just don’t care.
Instead, these men look at numbers, where Calvinism will always be enormously lower than those teaching an easy-to-believe, make-a-decision-and-you’re-in type of message.
These men look at evangelistic fervor, where again, the fervor to proclaim a message of self-denial will always be perceptively lower than inviting people to the cotton-candy evangelistic party on Saturday evenings.
These men look at methodology, where the invitation system, singles’ programs, push to convert all 5year olds, and sinners’ prayer dominance will always and unequivocally result in MASS converts.
Addressing this issue theologically has gotten to the point where it’s simply talking past them. The point is this: they have a different understanding of conversion, evangelism, and methodology, and they will always judge others by their own standards –which will always lead to these types of comments.
Hey, if I worked at an SBC mega-church in my area, which runs 4thousand on Sunday and baptizes dozens each week, I’d look at my church as cold and dead as well –I don’t care what kind of theological spin you put on things.
Until we can all agree on what constitutes a true gospel proclamation, a conversion, and subsequently, the methodologies used to spread the message, we’re wasting our time talking about predestination.
(P.S.– I dropped you a line this week congratulating you on heading south; I hope you got it. I rejoice with you, brother, at the amazing opportunity to serve the Lord and spread the gospel.)
–
March 13, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Amen, brother Timmy…Amen. Now I wish you didn’t have to waste your time on stuff like this. Here’s an idea – just do it. Plant churches, share Jesus with people who don’t know him…blogging about what “Baptists say” about John Calvinism seems to be a lot of wasted keystrokes, no?
March 14, 2008 at 4:07 am
Yeah, I wrestled with whether it was worth addressing at all. For me, the reason I have chosen to address this issue is not so much the source as it is the content. When someone tacitly dismisses the reality that God has a mission planned (predestined), mission accomplished (life and work of Christ), and mission applied (ministry of Holy Spirit), then that’s a big deal to me (at least to warrant a minor response on my part). I do not think that anything I write will prevent or stop the caricatures and misrepresentations, but at least perhaps it gives us an opportunity to discuss mission (praxis) and gospel.
But you are right. We must do it, and by God’s grace, I hope to do it well.
March 14, 2008 at 5:01 am
Nathan , Not that this is a big deal for this discussion but from what I have heard in his sermons, Driscoll is a 5 pointer.
March 14, 2008 at 7:59 am
“If, in the mind of God, predestination was contrary to His mission, then he certainly would do away with his eternal decrees and leave His redemptive purposes in the hands of men.”
This sentence doesn’t make any sense.
March 14, 2008 at 8:27 am
Perhaps you are saying this: Unconditional election of a certain amount of souls unto salvation and damnation (before they did anything good or bad?) is not contrary to his “mission” if we understand his mission being one of “glorifying himself.” The issue is not over predestination per se, but over how “mission is understood. For an Arminian predestination is not contrary to his mission either. But since predestination is conditional it follows that the triune God’s mission is universal. The Father calls all, the Son dies for all, and the Spirit reaches out to all, though the work of each of these is resistible. Why is that? Because God set things up that way. So it isn’t entirely accurate to say eternal decree is done away with. The decree is one that allows for personality, relationality, and love, which can be understood as reflecting the glory of the Trinity.
As far as mission goes, it may be true Calvinism gives an evangelist a kind of confidence that some will be saved irresistibly by the power of God, but it certainly doesn’t give us confidence that God desires anyone we preach to be saved. Those of the Reformed Baptist persuasion will know the agony of pondering over whether one’s child is elect. The only way to “solved” that agony comes back to how we think of God’s mission: God damning your child before the creation of the world for his glory is what it’s all about if God wants it that way.
I’m thankful for the “missional Calvinism” of the pastors you pointed out, but their ministries don’t prove that Calvinism is missional.
March 14, 2008 at 8:58 am
To Adam I would say, “sense” appears to be in the mind of the reader here.
To Timmy,
Once again you are able to torch a straw man in a gracious way. I hope Bro. Tom lets you preach on a regular basis down in FL.
March 14, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Adam,
Well, I can assure you that is not the first time (or the last!) that I have said some that does not make any sense.
What I mean by leaving the redemptive purposes in the hands of men is that if God was not sovereign in salvation, if he did not plan (predestination) and execute it to perfection (cross work), then no one would be saved. Think of what Peter said in Acts 2 and 4. Peter wrote:
“this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”
Acts 2:23
“for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.”
Acts 4:27-28
Now those who crucified and delivered up Jesus were not mere puppets. They did what was right in their own eyes. Yet God was sovereign over their choices, and their actions were perfectly in line with what God had planned to do in bruising His own Son. The free choices of responsible men are not in contradiction to the divine decrees of God (i.e. compatibilism).
I would disagree and say that God’s predestination is eternal, not conditional. The whole idea of “predestination” denotes a fixed and unchangeable purpose. To argue that predestination is conditional is to speak contrary to the most fundamental meaning of the word. Yet, God’s mission is universal–that is what, for instance, the gospel of John and book of Acts is all about. It is not all about the Jews, but Gentiles also. When you give your explanation that “God sets things up that way,” I really do not follow you there. Why? How? Do you have a biblical argument to support that claim or the claim that predestination is conditional? I agree that God’s decree does not make God impersonal or entirely transcendent. Yet God has not left his mission, its planning, purpose, and accomplishment in the hands of men. It is his work. He planned it and accomplished it, and he is working through his people to call all men everywhere to repent. To argue, however, only for God’s relationality and love reflects much of the revisionist work of Pinnock and Sanders in their view of an open God and open future (I am not saying you are an open theist, but that you are making that argument here).
Regarding the elect and confidence in preaching to all, I do believe God loves everyone he has created, but I also believe God has set his affection on those whom he has chosen (electing love expressed in foreknowledge). Now, does any of us know who the elect are? No. I preach to all men indiscriminately, knowing that God will use such preaching to call out those whom he has chosen. To not believe in election when you preach gives you no certainty that anyone would be saved, since their salvation is in the hands of man’s will and not God’s. That’s a huge difference. When Paul goes into a place where he is beaten and imprisoned, what encouragement does he have that anyone will be saved? Conditional predestination? The goodwill of man? No. He goes, “bound by the Spirit,” because he knows that God “has many in that city” who will believe, and “as many as were appointed for eternal life believed”. That is why Paul tells Timothy to “do all things for the sake of the elect” (2 Tim. 2:10). We preach, suffer, and give our lives to the gospel (doing all things) precisely because we know that God’s mission will not fail. It is purposed and grounded in God’s irrevocable plan unconditionally fulfilled in Christ.
March 14, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Oh, and regarding your last comment,
“I’m thankful for the “missional Calvinism” of the pastors you pointed out, but their ministries don’t prove that Calvinism is missional.”
I would be interested in hearing just why you believe that to be the case. Nevertheless, Calvinism is missional not because of 21st century expressions but, as I have aforementioned, in the life of Paul and the early church. Calvinism is an anachronistic if you use that term, but the doctrines of grace that propelled Paul to be missional also propelled Calvin, propelled Carey, Fuller, Judson, Whitefield, Martyn, Edwards, Brainerd, Spurgeon, Paton, and on and on.
March 17, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Timmy, I know this conversation is well over, but you asked for a response to a couple of things. First you asked about conditional election and why I hold to it. Biblically, I see two things: unconditional election that is corporate (Eph 1:4-5; 5:27), and conditional election that is individual conditioned upon faith that perseveres (Col 1:22-23). Theologically, the kind of covenant we are in is conditional in the same way Israel was (Rom 11:17-24). Warning passages (like those in Hebrews and 2 Peter) indicate a conditionality that is unavoidable. So God has set things up a certain way where he will have a people elected “in Christ” if they believe in Christ.
This preserves ideas about relationality, love, and moral responsibility. I may sound like an Open Theist here, but I don’t think they are necessarily wrong on those points. However, since I am a Molinist of the Arminian variety, I do not share their presupposition (that they ironically share with Calvinists!) that knowing the future means determining the future. I reject compatiblism in that it implicitly makes God the author of evil. We may be responsible for our own actions in such a scheme, but so is God. Since “predestination” means bringing everything to pass without any conditions in your view it follows that not only are the good things we do from God, but ultimately the bad as well. God’s character–not human autonomy–is at stake.
Again, I think the names you site show Calvinists can be missional, but I do not think that means that Calvinism is missional. There are plenty of Calvinists I’ve met (since I was one) who take comfort in not having to wrestle with questions about “those who have never heard” because God did not “choose them.” The logic is consistent: God doesn’t want to save everyone so don’t worry about it when people die in their sins. It is God’s will for his glory. Historically, mission movements have thrived on the belief that God wants to save people, not merely in the belief that he can. I am thankful for those inconsistent Calvinists, like Spurgeon, who believe God desires to save everyone (1 Tim 2:3-4) when they clearly hold to a theology that teaches he does not.
Last word is yours.
March 17, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Adam,
First let me say that I appreciate your response and willingness to discuss the issues in a rather irenic manner. It is clear that we have substantial disagreements with one another, but of course this does not afford us to be pejorative or condescending, so thanks for your level-headed response on a tough topic.
Regarding compatiblism and molinism, I think we need to save that discussion for another day, as I am sure it would lead us into a very long thread (and a little off topic). I see what you mean by conditional and corporate election and where, like McKnight, you find the warning passages to lead you away from the classical Reformed view. Regarding God’s nature in regards to his sovereignty of all things, including evil, I am curious what you do with, say Isaiah 45:5-7 which says:
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7 I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the Lord, who does all these things.
Can you agree with the biblical testimony that God creates darkness and calamity inasmuch he makes light and well-being? I would argue that, since God is good, all goodness is directly related to his nature; on the other hand, God is not evil and cannot be tempted by evil, but that does not mean that there is an indirect asymmetrical relationship there. In other words, God’s relationships to good and evil are not parallel or equal.
I do not see how someone can be an “inconsistent Calvinist” in believing that God wants to save people. I do not know of any Calvinist personally who believes that God merely can but does not desire to save people. Rather, I would argue that God’s desires to save people are grounded in his foreknowledge (fore-loved/fore-desired) and predestination, rooted in his divine purposes in grace from all eternity (before the foundations of the world).
Regarding the unevangelized and those who have not heard, I have wrestled with that for four years and happened to have made that my central topic for research and writing outside class. I am hoping to delve into that discussion more in the future here as I talk about the mission of the Holy Spirit in regards to the fate of the unevangelized.
Anyway, I understand your position, though I disagree. I do not think that a Calvinist is inconsistent when he believes that God wants to save people; rather I would call that person a hyper-Calvinist. It would be utterly foolish for me to believe in unconditional election if I did not believe God loved them and desired for them to be saved, for God has ordained the means (i.e. personal witness and preaching of the gospel) to communicate His desire and love to them that they may be saved.
One last question, though: Does God have libertarian free will. If he does, then how can he bring about what he desire the most? Would God’s will no longer be grounded in his character but rather capricious and arbitrary?
March 19, 2008 at 10:39 am
Timmy,
I definitely agree with you about the complexities of foreknowledge, Molinism, and compatiblism! Those are long drawn out topics. I also am grateful for this irenic exchange.
To answer your questions about God’s creating darkness and calamity, I think we have to remember that such actions are brought about as God’s judgments. The passage in Isaiah is particularly embedded in such a context. Isaiah 45:5-7 certainly doesn’t prove that ALL evil comes from God, otherwise verse 9 wouldn’t make any sense. Why would God bring woe upon those that quarrel with their maker if he made them to quarrel with him in the first place? God certainly has the right to bring judgment through calamity and even takes responsibility for the actions of the human actors (see Cyrus in the same passage) up to a certain point, though he subjects them to judgment in others (see the Babylonians elsewhere in the Isaiah).
As to the question over the meaning of foreknowledge in passages like Romans 8:29 I am convinced that it means “to know beforehand” rather than “fore-chosen/loved.” The rationale is spelled out nicely in this article:
http://www.chafer.edu/journal/back_issues/Vol%209-1%20ar3.pdf
Good question about the kind of freedom God has. I have been working through some the philosophical issues of both libertarian and compatiblistic views of freedom, and while I hold to libertarianism officially, I see both beset with certain difficulties. However, I believe compatiblism has more difficulties. Compatiblism simply states that free will is compatible with determinism. Determinism simply means that for every action there is an effectual cause antecedent to the action. Applied to God, this would mean that, while being “free” insofar has fulfilling his desires, he was determined to create the world. He could have not done otherwise. But this seems to fly in the face of the common belief that creation was a free act of God and that it was not necessary. He did not have to make it. Therefore, I reject the antithesis between determinism and capriciousness. God’s actions are influenced by his character, but he also has the capacity to deliberate between options rationally, which in turn gives ground to the reality of rationality. If determinism is true (as compatiblism affirms) rationality is an illusion. We are only able to arrive at our decisions via the outcome of antecedent causes, and the rationale for those decisions, is only rational (or not) in an incidental fashion. Libertarianism allows for a rational deliberation that gives plausibility to attending to different options avialable to us that are not determined. Thus self-determination becomes a coherent concept.
Anyway that is a very brief introduction into a vast subject (I am more of a philosopher than an exegete if you can’t already tell!). I hope this helped in some way. Thanks for the good discussion.
April 2, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Hi Timmy. Bill Wagner recently participated in a conversation with a Dr James Galyon, who holds strong Calvinist beliefs and dialogged with Bill about it. It might be of interest to you: http://drjamesgalyon.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/a-conversation-with-dr-bill-wagner/.
Mark
July 11, 2008 at 9:18 am
[...] Timmy Brister has a great response to this claim that’s worth reading. I’ll only add that I think the brother who made [...]