I Don't Trust Men Who Are Ambitioius

 

I came to the office this morning with no plans to prepare and release another iteration of this blog. However, I find myself profoundly concerned about the state of the gospel ministry in the USA. Therefore, I beg your indulgence of a 70-year-old pastor who has served in two churches for 42 years and having just celebrated my 35^th year in my present pastorate.

A little personal background is to understand best what I am about to propose. I spent most of my life growing up on Indian reservations in different parts of the United States, my father working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the US Department of Interior for more than 35 years. Leading up to my enrollment in the United States Air Force Academy and subsequent graduation from engineering school at Oregon State University, I had observed at close quarters, among various tribal leaders US congressional leaders, the subtle and not-so-subtle nuances of ambition.

Little did I realize when I came to Christ a year after graduating from engineering school that I would trust Christ as my Savior and become a member of the Baptist Church. How surprised I was to observe ambition on full display in the two churches I was involved with before becoming a pastor. Then, at my first pastorate, I saw ambition on full display once more. The displays of ambition were easy for me to see since I had grown up observing the displays of naked ambition by bureaucrats, Congressional delegations, and in tribal politics all across America. There was very little display of ambition in my pastorate, but there was a lot of ambition on display during church pastors’ fellowship meetings.

The most brutal display of ambition I ever saw was during the struggle for control of the Bible college I had enrolled in and graduated from before entering the pastorate. Though I am on good terms with men on both sides of that struggle, my interest in the political ins and outs of pastor’s fellowships has since been very guarded. I have pastored two churches without ever making an application to a congregation to become their pastor. I distrust ambition, especially my own.

My real involvement in preacher’s meetings resulted from a group that met from time to time, apparently for the express purpose of one or two pastors of larger churches to tell pastors of smaller churches how they ought to do ministry. The pastors of smaller churches were so profoundly offended by such arrogance and presumption that they stopped attending, resulting in only nine or ten pastors bothering to gather.

As a member of this dwindling group, I decided to exercise my privileges by encouraging a group of pastors to attend and by nominating the pastor of a very small church to a position of responsibility. True to my suspicion, a pastor of a large church attempted to dissuade the small church pastor from accepting the nomination, arguing that the complexities involved in the position were ‘too difficult’ for him to understand and the expenses to attend the national meetings were too great for his church to absorb. Nevertheless, he was elected and served in his position faithfully.

During that same meeting, I was nominated by several pastors for another open position of responsibility. I declined. After the meeting, the pastors strongly rebuked me for rejecting the nomination. My reason was that I do not trust ambition. However, several years later, a significant group of pastors approached me and urged me to allow them to place my name in nomination, and I was elected unanimously. I was unanimously re-elected for two subsequent terms.

Before my election to the leadership position, the fellowship meeting typically saw nine or ten pastors in attendance. While I occupied my elected position, we never saw fewer than 75 pastors in attendance. Things seemed to be going well if being elected and re-elected unanimously is any indication until I received a phone call from the national leader.

He asked me several questions before informing me that six pastors who had not attended a single meeting during my tenure were planning what he called “a floor fight” at the national conference. When he said there was going to be a skirmish, I told him there was not going to be a skirmish. When he asked me how I knew that, I responded by indicating that I do not trust anyone who is ambitious and that I think anyone who would fight for a position such as the one I held was foolish.

I went to the national meeting with my resignation in hand. I handed one copy of the resignation to the national leader and a second copy of the resignation to the fellow who was demonstrably ambitious and likely the author of the plot to disenfranchise me. I have been happily disassociated from that dying group from that day to this.

Is it clear to you by now that I have a distaste for ambition? I was not ambitious to become a pastor. I was not ambitious to secure my second pastorate. I was not ambitious for an elected leadership position with a group of pastors. And I am certainly not ambitious at present. I have for 42 years gloried in serving God in the most exalted position available to any man, that of pastoring a Baptist Church. It doesn’t get any better than that.

However, over the years, I have noticed something among Baptist pastors that bothers me. The older I get, the more it bothers me. What bothers me is a functional hierarchy among Baptist pastors, whereby some pastors display a profoundly unscriptural eagerness to yield to and to kowtow to other Baptist preachers. There is no Scriptural warrant for this.

You know as well as I do that Revelation chapters two and three not only dispel any possible notion of a universal, invisible church (which is why the Savior communicated directly to the angels of the churches) but displays the equal footing and equal standing of the pastors of those seven churches before Christ. Does not history show us (those who read history anyway) that trouble was brewing when pastors began treating another pastor as if he is somehow superior? How do you think the Bishop of Rome came to be the Roman Catholic Pope? Yet we see this dynamic developing right before our eyes.

Like you, I have been appalled and dismayed by pastors’ responses across our country to the Covid–19 lockdown mandates. That said, I recognize that each pastor of each congregation is accountable to God and not me for his decisions and actions related to his compliance with edicts handed down from on high.

What is profoundly troublesome is the silence and utter lack of leadership from those who posture themselves as leadership gurus and men who charge fees to gullible pastors, only to be told, “You need to do ministry the way I do ministry.” Really? Do we have the same spiritual gifts? Do we have the same educational background and life experiences? Are our congregations comprised of the same types of people? Yet the seminars and courses that I have attended or read over the years never include such caveats. And that is not to mention that in my state, the only leaders that I ever took note of in the first few months of the lockdown were the pastors of huge Calvary Chapel congregations. Where were the Baptists?

At this point, let me remind you of two things. First, I don’t trust anyone ambitious, and I don’t think you should either. Whether it’s an ambitious church member who tries to climb over other church members for position or advantage or ambitious pastors who seek to assert themselves over other pastors based solely on their marketing skills successes.

Second, I am a Baptist. I am a real Baptist. I have written an almost 500-page book that is essentially the most comprehensive Baptist ecclesiology ever printed. I also had the privilege of helping Gary Long (Particular Baptist Press, Springfield Missouri) organized the Baptist History Celebration 13 years ago in Charleston, celebrating the founding of the Philadelphia Baptist Association, the fountainhead of almost all Baptist activity in the Americas. Boy, did I learn a lot during that time.

I mention these things only because I believe New Testament church polity is Baptist church polity. Among Baptists, therefore, a hierarchy of any kind is a historical anomaly. Pastors are peers, and anything that detracts from that is unscriptural.

I have no interest in spending the remainder of my time on earth with pastors who believe in a hierarchy and practice a ranking when engaging or interacting with other pastors. Neither do I think pastors have any business subjecting themselves to an ambitious pastor who postures himself as an expert, demands money from those who would hear what he has to say, and then tells them how to conduct their ministries. It was better for such a person to get off his high horse, humble himself so that he stands eye to eye with his peers, and write a book for them to read, reflect on, and critique.

These things said, I have learned from reading the minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association that pastors need fellowship. They needed fellowship then, and we need fellowship now. But our fellowship is not fellowship unless it is fellowship with peers. It does a pastor little good to pay money so that someone can tell him what to do. Better for that pastor to spend time with peers who seek to minister to one another in a scriptural and wholesome fashion.

If you agree with me so far, perhaps you will agree with what I’m about to suggest. I believe pastors of churches need fellowship and that we are harmed and our ministries are done a disservice when we do not engage in peer to peer fellowship with other pastors of like faith and practice. To that end, I would like to suggest that we gather on November 17^th at 4:00 PM for an afternoon of fellowship capped by dinner. I will call it Pastors As Peers. The name says it all. If you are interested in attending, let me know by phone, text, or email. May God bless you, preacher. As church members exhort one another according to Hebrews 10.25 (without lording it over one another), so might we encourage each other, cultivate existing friendships, and make new friends.

God bless you. Pray for our country in this upcoming election. Feel free to pass this on to any pastor who might want to attend, only make sure I know they are coming

 

Pastors As Peers meeting #1 agenda

“The Encroachment Of Feminism”

 

1.  The Millennial Trend

2.  The Pre-Christian, Christian, Post-Christian Dynamic

3.  The Anecdotes

4.  The Spiritual Problem

5.  The Solution

Dinner @ Calvary Road Baptist Church, 319 West Olive Avenue, Monrovia, CA

“The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Three

 

Chapter 3 is divided into subheadings Biography, The Servetus Incident, Calvin’s Writings, The Institutes, Calvin’s Theology, and Conclusion.

Biography. I had learned decades ago that John Calvin (pictured) was French, that he had for a time studied for the Catholic priesthood, and that he then turned to a study of the law. I did not know that his departure from France was intended to move to Basel, Switzerland, to become a private scholar. He had no intention of entering the ministry when he went to Switzerland.

In Geneva, Guillaume Farel recruited him to work with him in ministry in Geneva’s Protestant church. Of course, Calvin’s doctrine of the church was never correct[1], and his resulting efforts in connection with the practice of the communion service resulted in Calvin and Farel leaving Geneva. He would be gone for three years.

While living in Strasbourg, Calvin met and married the widow of an Anabaptist who was two children’s mother. Following their marriage, she delivered Calvin’s only child, who died as an infant. After nine years of marriage, Calvin’s wife died. He never remarried and suffered from bad health for the remainder of his life.

Back in service in the Geneva church, Calvin preached and taught and developed a charity and care outreach for the poor and the aged of the city. Interestingly, he also helped to create a public sewer system, as well as other projects. He helped develop what is known as free enterprise economics or capitalism to succeed the medieval feudal system of that era. Of course, I had heard of the “Protestant Work Ethic,” but had not known it was a product of Calvin’s theology and ministry.

Most people are aware of those who flocked to Geneva to be trained by John Calvin (such as Scotland’s John Knox) and escape persecution in their home countries. What was a surprise for me to learn was that from Calvin’s Geneva ministry were sent to France hundreds of pastors and evangelists and missionaries to faraway Brazil!

The Servetus Incident. I don’t think I have ever heard anyone rail against Calvinism without making mention of Michael Servetus. He was a physician from Spain, a heretic who embraced pantheism and denied both the Trinity and Christ’s deity. New to me was that before he arrived in Geneva, Servetus had already been condemned to death by the Roman Catholic Inquisition and had been warned by Calvin to stay away from Geneva or face the consequences. Geneva was as hostile to those who deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ as any Roman Catholic jurisdiction of that day.

What was also new to me when reading this book was the realization that Calvin was in no position in Geneva to decide who was and who was not prosecuted for heresy. Had Calvin not been in Geneva, Servetus would still have been arrested, tried, and executed. Therefore, any mention of the Servetus incident connected with Calvinism is entirely bogus and does not reflect intellectual honesty.

The Servetus incident was unfortunate. But it is likely that Servetus would have been arrested, tried, and executed in almost any city in Europe of that day.

Calvin’s Writings. The first edition of The Institutes of the Christian Religion was published when Calvin was in Geneva the first time, in 1533. Upon his return to Geneva, he updated, refined, and published numerous subsequent editions. Calvin was a prolific author, having written a massive commentary on almost the whole Bible (I have the set), he preached at least five times a week and lectured on theology nearly every day. Calvin also wrote 4000 letters, some of them giving advice to persecuted Christians in other countries, and some of them written to foreign heads of state.

The Institutes. The Institutes of the Christian Religion, first written in Latin, is a systematic theology centered around the theme of God’s knowledge. I have had The Institutes for about 30 years but have never gotten around to reading it. I suppose I will read The Institutes after I finish this book.

Calvin’s Theology. Martin Luther is most famous for his position on the doctrine of justification by faith. John Calvin is most famous for his position on the doctrine of the knowledge of God. Of course, he was a Protestant. He was also evangelical, stood strongly for the five solas, and accepted the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. New to me was that Calvin was one of the first to teach the Holy Spirit’s internal testimony to authenticate the Bible’s inspiration.

Conclusion. I did not know John Calvin died at the age of 55. I did not know that when he died, he was in the arms of his successor Theodore Beza. I did not know that he requested no marker to identify his grave when he was buried.

---

[1] See my book The Church of Jesus Christ: 28 Truths Every Christian Ought To Learn, (Monrovia, CA: Classical Baptist Press, 2019) available at www.ClassicalBaptist.Press

The Weekend of Anniversaries

 

On October 18, 2020, four anniversaries were celebrated at the Calvary Road Baptist Church of Los Angeles County, Monrovia, California.

Forty-five years ago, Pastor Joseph Morton officiated my marriage to Pamela Lucille Franco. Forty-five years ago on Sunday, Calvary Road Baptist Church of Los Angeles County, Harold C. Beigle established the church where I serve as the second pastor. Along about the same time, 45 years ago, God called me to the gospel ministry with a definite and undeniable call. Thirty-five years ago, God called me to become the second pastor of Calvary Road Baptist Church of Los Angeles County, Monrovia, California.

It is easy to see why last Sunday would go down as a monumental occasion in my personal life and in the life of the congregation where I serve. Despite all of the Chinese virus’s challenges and the unconstitutional abridgment of religious liberties the governor of California has imposed upon so many congregations, our church people did a fantastic job, and we had a wonderful time of rejoicing and fellowship.

Because of the transportation difficulties imposed upon us, I had initially thought that we would not have a special guest speaker for our anniversaries Sunday. However, Pastor Tom Burns informed me that Dr. Jack Baskin and his wife Shari would be conducting a ministry strategy seminar at his church in Norwalk on October 15. I then reached out to Dr. Baskin to invite him to preach for me. I first met Dr. Baskin in 1976 when I enrolled as a recent engineering school graduate, then employed by Hughes Aircraft Company in El Segundo, California (the city that won the Cold War), working on an intelligence-gathering satellite design. I had only recently married.

Growing up among leaders and having observed military leaders, I recognized in Dr. Jack Baskin his evident leadership qualities. Since then, I have never been disappointed. You can imagine how delighted I was when he accepted my invitation to preach Sunday morning at our special anniversaries service.

A year and a half ago, our church was privileged to authorize two of our members, Kreighton Chan, M.D., and his wife Winnie, to establish the All of Grace Baptist Church of Atwater Village. Dr. Chan was not only my physician and close friend for years but is also much loved by our church. I wanted his involvement with our anniversaries service but did not want to disrupt a young church’s Sunday services. The solution was to invite him and his people to a Friday night fellowship on October 16. It was super! We sang, ate catered Mexican food, and then had a wonderful time giving testimonies and praising God for Dr. Chan and his congregation.

A special treat was Karla Khammar and her niece showing up.

Saturday was a relatively slow day, punctuated by Christian Butler and deacon Rick Raymundo hanging the auditorium banner that would serve as a backdrop to our anniversaries celebration.

When I picked up Dr. Baskin and his wife from the hotel, I dropped them off at the front door and drove around to park in the back. When I walked into the auditorium to begin the prayer meeting, we conduct ½ hour before every Sunday morning worship service, who should I see but Clarence and Olga Patterson, our beloved friends from Kearny Nebraska, and classmates from our days at PCBBC? Were he not such a mountain of a man, I hugged him so hard I would’ve squeezed the life out of him.

Needless to say, it was a wonderful Sunday morning worship. Dr. Baskin preached a touching and strategically significant message from God’s word after Shari Baskin’s testimony about women’s ministries. The service can be seen at https://youtu.be/te5XIJuUPkA 

The deacons assembled around my wife and me to present us with tickets to Zakynthos, Greece, as a 35th anniversary as the pastor’s gift.

We are obviously overwhelmed and profoundly grateful.

Pictures with our friends will be treasured.

With Dr. Baskin and his wife departed to a service at another church in the evening, we enjoyed a service wholly given over to singing gospel hymns and rejoicing in the Lord. It was a good day. God is gracious, merciful, kind, wise, and sovereign. My wife and I rejoice.

“The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Two

 

What in the world am I doing at 12:15 AM and getting ready to prepare another Ministerial Musings? The answer is quite simple. When you listen to Dr. Jack Baskin speak for two hours about strategic planning and post-Covid-19 locked down ministry after telling a group of seasoned pastors their ministries will never be what they were before the lockdown, how does one settle down and go to bed? The man has the same broad vision and dynamism at the age of 89 when I first met him in 1976. His passion, zeal, and vision have not diminished at all. That’s why I’m still awake.

Chapter 2 is titled The Reformation. In this chapter, the author’s subheadings are Martin Luther pictured), Lutheranism, The Anabaptists, The Swiss Reformation, The German Reformed Reformation, and Conclusion. In this chapter, I will continue my focus on the author's new facts, with comments that are called for. 

The chapter begins, “The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century was the greatest revival in the history of Christianity.” I cite this verse because many of the gospel ministers I have known over the last 45 years have expressed doubt that the Protestant Reformation was a revival at all. Such a sad conclusion about an astonishing work of God is a reflection of profound ignorance.

Are you interested in revival? Recognize that no scheduled services are ever rightly called a revival. I suggest you read The Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards, Lectures On Revivals Of Religion by W. R. Downing, Handbook Of Revivals by H. C. Fish, The Revival In Indonesia by K. Koch, Revival Of People Saturated With God by Brian H. Edwards, Lectures On Revivals by W. B. Sprague, Revival Sketches & Manual In Two Parts by Heman Humphrey, Flame Of God - Distinctives Of Revival by Gilbert Edgerton, The Welch Revival: Its Origin And Development by Thomas Phillips, The Revival Of Religion: Addresses by Scottish Evangelical Leaders Delivered in Glasgow in 1840, The Great Revival In The Southern Armies by W. W. Bennett, Pentecost Today? The Biblical Basis For Understanding Revival by Iain H. Murray, Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism 1750–1858 also by Iain H. Murray, The Great Awakening: A History Of The Revival Of Religion In The Time Of Edwards and Whitfield by Joseph Tracy, Revival by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Revival by Richard Owen Roberts.

Once you’ve read most of those books to find out what revival is from a biblical perspective, then you might want to read Lectures On Revivals Of Religion by Charles G. Finney to find out what revival most certainly is not!

There is no doubt among the informed and interested that the Protestant Reformation was a great revival. Jonathan Edwards has forever resolved the naïve belief that doubts, even during an incredible outpouring of God, the devil is around and about stirring up controversy, seeking to discredit, and producing false hopes in some.

In that portion of the chapter under the subheading, The Anabaptists, the author opines that Anabaptism began in Switzerland and spread throughout Europe to the Netherlands. My understanding of Anabaptist history stands in disagreement with the author. However, I believe that the author’s knowledge that Anabaptists focused on three primary issues is correct. First, they rejected all infant baptism. Second, they taught that the only true believers are part of the true church; a person must give a valid testimony in Word and life to become a local church member. Third, they rejected all notions of a state church.

I conclude my remarks in chapter 2 by mentioning something that I am surprised to discover is missing from the chapter, especially discussing the differences between Lutheranism’s view of communion and the Reformed view of communion. The Swiss Reformers believed that the communion of the Lord’s Supper was a symbolic ordinance. Luther, being the very conservative man that he was, could not completely leave behind his Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation and proceed all the way to the elements of communion being purely symbolic. Therefore, he contrived consubstantiation, the view that the bread and wine remain physically what they appear to be. At the same time, spiritually, they are somehow transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

The Swiss Reformers would have none of this. The dispute gave rise to the controversy known as the ubiquity of Christ. Ubiquity has to do with Christ being everywhere simultaneously, something that is required if the elements of the Lord’s Supper are spiritually the body and blood of Christ. The Swiss Reformers, to support their view that the elements consumed in the communion service are in every way real bread and real wine, and in no way other than symbolically the body and blood of Christ, pointed out that the Word of God shows in 28 places that the risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, and enthroned Son of God is physically in heaven.[1] Obviously, the Swiss Reformers won the day because their position reflects the Bible. Only Lutherans embrace the compromise view of consubstantiation.

The practical application of this dispute that was not pointed out by the author of this book? The Lord Jesus Christ’s glorified resurrection body is presently enthroned in heaven. That means He is not, not even spiritually, in the elements of the Lord’s Supper. He cannot be physically here with us and physically at the Father’s right hand on high at the same time.

A practical evangelistic consequence of this old Protestant Reformation fight? It is inappropriate for an evangelist to encourage a sinner to ask Jesus into his heart. The Lord Jesus Christ, though He is the God-man, He is a man. As such, He enters no sinners heart to save but dwells in the justified person’s heart in the person of the Holy Spirit to sanctify. As well, I have found by carefully interviewing; some sinners think asking Jesus into your heart is equivalent to eating the host during Roman Catholic mass. Why suggest that a sinner do something not called for in God’s Word? There is no benefit and somewhat increased risk of confusion.

My next installment of ministerial musings will be chapter 3, John Calvin.

---

[1] Psalm 16.11; 110.1; Matthew 26.64; Mark 12.36; 14.62; 16.19; Luke 20.42; 22.69; John 3.13; 13.1; 14.2-4; Acts 1.9-11; 2.33, 34-35; 7.56; Romans 8.34; Ephesians 1.20; 6.9; Colossians 3.1; Second Thessalonians 1.7; Hebrews 1.3, 13; 8.1; 9.24; 10.12-13; 12.2; 1 Peter 3.22; Revelation 19.11

“The History & Theology of Calvinism" by Curt Daniel, Chapter One

         I have decided that I’m going to devote my Ministerial Musings to a chapter by chapter review of the history and theology of Calvinism by Curt Daniel. My main focus at this point as I begin the book will be to relate information included by the author that I did not previously know about either John Calvin or the history and theology of Calvinism.

First, let me point out that there are three endorsements on the back of the hardback edition. The endorsements are from John MacArthur, Steven J. Lawson, and Phil Johnson. The book has two forwards, written by the prolific authors, pastors, seminary presidents, Joel Beeke and John MacArthur. I have met both men several times, have read books written by both men, and am aware that despite their agreement on matters of soteriology, they differ on matters of eschatology.

Chapter 1 is titled Pre-Calvinism. The author deals with the Early Church, Augustine, the Pelagian Controversy, Augustine’s Reply, Semi-Pelagianism, The Dark Ages, Gottschalk, and concludes the chapter with Medieval Debates.

Under Augustine’s Reply's subheading, the author touches ever so slightly (a single sentence) on Augustine’s view of justification through infused righteousness rather than by imputation. What the author does not point out, but which I have learned from other sources, is that Augustine’s error on this point (which was a common mistake in his day made by those who had no facility with Greek) was related to a misunderstanding of the Koine Greek word dikaioo. Though the Greeks, without exception, used the word to refer to declaring righteous, Augustine and others mistakenly believed the term to mean to make righteous. That error resulted in catastrophic consequences.

New to me in the prehistory of Calvinism, or what Daniel calls Pre-Calvinism, was a ninth-century German monk and poet named Gottschalk of Orbias (c.804-c. 869). He was a strong advocate of Augustine’s theology of grace. The author identifies him as the most explicit and emphatic pre-Calvinist between Paul and the Reformation. The Roman Catholic hierarchy came down hard on him, burn his writings, and imprisoned him for the rest of his life in a dungeon.

In the last paragraph of the chapter before his conclusion, the author mentions John Wycliffe (c.1330-84), who I knew translated the Latin Vulgate Bible into English before the invention of the printing press. I was unaware that John Wycliffe held to what the author describes as an “emphatic Augustinian view of grace,” that paved the way for the Reformation.

The next installment of ministerial musings is anticipated to be a review of the things I have learned in chapter 2.

"The History & Theology of Calvinism" by Curt Daniel

          I am an inveterate reader. I have the great benefit of growing up in a readers’ home, with my dad very typically reading one entire book a day. The result of his lifelong passion for reading (his sister taught him how to read when he was four years old) was that my dad was always the most well-informed person in the room. Always.

I bring all of this up because I have decided to read a book sent to me in the mail about a week ago, having no idea who sent it to me. Having caught the reading bug from my dad following my conversion, I am presently reading 30 books, usually a chapter from each book per day and at least three chapters from the Bible each day. The book that I received in the mail, written by Curt Daniel, is titled The History & Theology of Calvinism, 906 pages. Yesterday I decided to read it, adding it to the many books I am already reading.

Upon reflection, I find it interesting that at my age (I am now 70), I have never read a book written by John Calvin. I have the 22 volume set of Calvin’s Commentaries, though I have only rarely consulted with them and have not purposefully read any of them. I also have Calvin’s Christian Institutes, without having read that work either.

As I prepare to read this massive book, I think it would be good to reflect on a few things before starting:

Number one, it must be incredibly stupid to form an opinion about a man without having read any portion of his body of work. I know many people have unjustified and unwarranted thoughts because the basis of their views is a rumor, innuendo, and gossip. It should be every gospel minister’s posture to avoid, whenever possible, having a decided opinion about anyone or anything he has not personally studied. To have an opinion about John Calvin or his doctrinal position without reading John Calvin is not just stupid and ill-advised; it is lazy. There is no room in the gospel ministry for intellectual laziness. We have too much of that already.

Number two, it isn't very reasonable to evaluate someone who lived long ago by modern-day standards. An example of this came to me yesterday when I learned that late-night talk show host Jimmy Fallon performed a black face comedy routine 20 years ago when he was on the cast of Saturday Night Live. Of course, the cancel culture wants him fired today for doing something 20 years ago that was at that time acceptable to everyone in the entertainment industry. However, gospel ministers have long been guilty of the same kind of cancel culture thinking.

I bring this up concerning the universal condemnation that I have heard throughout my Christian life regarding John Calvin’s connection with a man named Michael Servetus (1511-1153). The incident almost always comes up in a discussion about Calvinism. It is referred to by my Baptist brethren as a cudgel against John Calvin and his doctrinal stance for supposedly being an accessory to the murder of a Baptist.

Not so fast. History shows us that Servetus was a Spaniard, an Anabaptist, and a heretic who denied the Trinity and Christ’s deity. Before he arrived in Geneva, he had been condemned to death by the Roman Catholic Inquisition and had been warned by Calvin that it would not be a good idea for him to come to Geneva. Once he was in Geneva, he was arrested, prosecuted, and executed by burning.

Contrary to what many of my Baptist brethren claim, John Calvin was not a judge at the trial, nor was he the prosecutor. He was called a witness for the prosecution, and he testified, but he exercised no role other than that in either finding Servetus guilty or executing him. Not only did John Calvin have no authority to stop the execution of Servetus, but it is almost sure that whatever city he had gone to Servetus would have been arrested, tried, and executed, whether the town was a Protestant city or a Roman Catholic city.

My Baptist brethren should be reminded that we would recognize not all Anabaptists as our spiritual forebears. Are you a Baptist if you sprinkle rather than immerse? Are you a Baptist if you deny justification by faith? Are you a Baptist if you repudiate the doctrine of the Trinity? Are you a Baptist if you deny the deity of Jesus Christ?

I am not for one moment communicating approval of the execution of Servetus. However, let us recognize that no city on earth in John Calvin’s day tolerated religious dissent. And there were many offenses dealt with harshly in that day, which we allow to pass without comment in our day. Let us also recognize that John Calvin did not occupy the same relationship with Geneva’s government or religious institutions that a Baptist pastor enjoys in the 21^st century. Never forget that John Calvin was a foreigner, a Frenchman living and serving in Geneva, Switzerland. He had neither the freedom of action nor the freedom of speech that every Baptist in America takes for granted.

Let us be very careful that we do not practice our own form of cancel culture. Most people I know would decry the attempt to have Jimmy Fallon fired today because of something he did 20 years ago that no one then disapproved of. Let us apply the same kind of standard to one of the most prominent Christian leaders of his era who lived five centuries ago, who exercised no control over whether Servetus was arrested, tried, convicted, or executed.

I am not going to make up my mind about this man and his doctrinal position before I read what he wrote. I advise the same for others. I am sorry for any church member whose pastor has such a pygmy mind that he is willing to decide and speak about his decisions without giving the man a fair hearing.

THE COURAGE OF FAITH

 

“THE COURAGE OF FAITH” 

We are living in an era of scarce courage. Few pastors display anything like the courage they sometimes preach and teach about from God's Word. Instead, there is terrified compliance with the illegal, unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, and certainly antichristian edicts demands that we not worship according to the dictates of our consciences.

Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines courage as, “The quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.”^[1] This is a clear instance of a supposedly authoritative source being wrong.

From the time I was a little boy, from movies that I watched to books that I have read I have always known that courage is almost never displayed in the absence of fear. Quite the contrary, the admirable characteristic about courage, real courage in the face of danger and adversity, is that courage overcomes fear. I have never met a soldier or sailor who met the enemy in battle who did not admit to fear, even those who have been highly decorated for acts of heroism and bravery at the risk of their own safety. Therefore, even so well known an expert as Webster’s Dictionary can get it wrong sometimes.

Let me amend Webster’s definition to a working definition that I will use. Courage, being synonymous with bravery, is that quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., despite fear.”

That said; let me now admit that I have a topic, an issue, a theme to set before you that has been brought on by observations I have made along the way in my ministry.

What would you say about a young man who is terrified at the thought of discussing spiritual things with a pastor, but is willing to join the military and lay his life on the line in combat? What would you think about a guy who is willing to face bad guys every shift as a patrol officer, but breaks out in a cold sweat at the thought of a low-key discussion of spiritual matters? I once had a discussion with a gang-banger, who was seemingly unafraid to face guys with loaded weapons, but who could not bring himself to carry a Bible to school, so intense was his fright.

You might be tempted to label the person who is fearless in the face of life-threatening danger courageous, if you did not also consider the complete absence of moral courage to tote a Bible or discussion spiritual matters. So, what is a soldier, if he will face shooters and IEDs in Iraq or Afghanistan, but is scared witless of a conversation with the only pastor he has ever known over a cup of coffee? Is such a man brave, or is such a man a coward? Is he courageous, or is he gutless?

What about the pastor of a Church who bows in terror before a government official who dictates against reason and righteousness that he may not lead his congregation in public, gathered, worship without risk of fine or arrest? Is that not fear of man rather than fear of God, even when he disguises his fear as "following the leadership of the Holy Spirit"?

I submit to you that there are two entirely different realms of conduct in which courage and cowardice can be displayed. There is that realm of existence where the challenge to be faced is a threat to physical safety and well-being, and then there is that realm of existence where the challenge to be faced has to do with spiritual safety and well-being. To be sure, these two realms can easily overlap and intersect, such as when a Christian is threatened with torture or martyrdom in an effort to coerce compromise or apostasy. However, the cowardly refusal to so much as carry a Bible to school begs the question of physical danger so much that a bully’s fear of someone’s questioning look or a sniff of laughter exposes his true nature.

Shall we grant, then, that there are some big bad boys out there who are courageous in the face of weapons fire, courageous in the face of unseen threats to life and health, but who are sadly lacking what we might refer to as moral courage? As well, are there not people who are small and frail who are quite timid in the face of physical danger, but who display incredible moral courage to stand up for what is right and to speak up for God when opportunities present themselves?

Therefore, while we must always show proper respect to someone who has displayed physical courage in defense of the helpless at great risk to their own lives, I believe I can establish the greater worth to mankind, to our nation, and to the cause of Christ, of those who rather display moral courage. These are those who display courage in the classroom, who stand up for what is right in the public square, who are willing to suffer the verbal attacks of the faceless mob, and who are willing to face jail time for conducting public worship.

Among those who display what I term moral courage are those who exhibit the courage of faith. I am not sure I have ever seen or read any treatment of the courage of faith by a preacher or commentator, but it is a topic that has weighed on my mind for a number of months now, particularly as I have contemplated the obvious terror that some display at thought of discussing spiritual matters or standing up to government prohibition to worship according to the dictates of our consciences. Oh, I am sure that many who are lacking the courage of faith conveniently conceal their fright from themselves in a ballet of self-delusion and rationalization. However, what other explanation can be advanced to explain what appears to be a complete lack of courage?

If you will consider Hebrews chapter 11, there are a few verses that reasonably show what we would call the courage of faith:

Notice Hebrews 11.8: “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.” No one is saying that Abraham was the only man who ever left home with an uncertain destination. However, the Bible does point out that what Abraham did he did by faith, and our own reason suggests that such a move in the face of danger and uncertainty displayed courage. I think this is an example of the courage of faith.

Look at verse 17: “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.” Though Abraham was not concerned for his own safety, there is no doubt that he feared for the life of his son Isaac. Only the courage of his faith could overcome his undeniable fear for his son’s safety.

Verse 23: “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.” This verse clearly attests to the courage of the faith of Moses’ parents.

Verse 27: “By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.” What overcame his fear of the wrath of Pharaoh? The courage of his faith.

Did not David’s faith show itself as courage when he faced Goliath? Did not Daniel’s faith show itself as courage when he stood up to Nebuchadnezzar and told him the truth, when he stood up to Belshazzar and told him the truth, and when he held fast and unwavering in the lion’s den? As well, what about the courage of those three Hebrew’s faith in the fiery furnace?

Then there was Paul, and Peter, and James, and John in the New Testament, along with Stephen. Down through history there are so many thousands whose names we will not learn this side of heaven, whose courage of faith greatly glorified God and exalted the Savior. There was Martin Luther, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Bunyan, John Knox, and Obadiah Holmes, beaten in Boston on September 5, 1651, when he was given thirty lashes with a three-corded whip, the executioner applying all his strength, for being a Baptist. Those men displayed the courage of faith.

Faith is not always displayed by courage, though it is frequently displayed by courage. Sometimes it is displayed by the moral courage to stand up for what is right, to withstand the facial expressions, the taunts, and the disapproval of those who are enemies of the gospel. At other times it is displayed by the physical courage to stand up to threats of torture, imprisonment, or even martyrdom. At other times it is displayed by disobeying a governor's order forbidding gathering for public, Scripturally mandated worship.

We must not presume that only the saints display the courage of faith, for we have good evidence that not only do some who are lost have a kind of genuine faith, but that they display what can only be the courage of their faith. However, before I show you the courage of faith in the life of someone who is not a child of God, I want to contrast the courage of faith with a complete absence of such courage, because of the complete absence of faith, in the lives of two people you are very familiar with.

Adam and Eve sinned against God by eating the forbidden fruit. You are familiar with the Biblical account of the Fall in Genesis chapter three. Have you considered their motivation for hiding in the bushes and attempting to conceal themselves from discovery? When God asked him where he was, Adam responded in Genesis 3.10, by saying, “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” Therefore, Adam’s motive for hiding, and presumably Eve’s as well, was fear. However, it must have been fear in the absence of any courage, because courage enables a person to do the right thing even when he is afraid.

On the other hand, there is the example of Abram, in Genesis chapter 12. Though there is no direct comment in Scripture indicating Abram was fearful, I think it goes without saying that a long journey for an old man to a place he has never been before, facing an uncertain future, would require courage. Since Hebrews 11.8-10 declares to us that his journey as well as his sojourn there was accomplished by faith, it is easy to see the evidence of the courage of faith. Keep in mind that Abram was a lost man at this time in his life. From Genesis 15.6, Romans chapter 4, and Galatians 3.6, we know he did not come to saving faith for at least ten years. Thus, Abraham’s journey, his compliance with what he knew to be God’s will for his life, was prompted by the courage his faith displayed to go where God wanted him to go, and to do what God wanted him to do, even before he was justified in the sight of God!

This brings me to the lost who attend Church. Is it not amazing that the lost are comfortable in their damnation, while at the same time they are fearful of delivery and salvation? This is the deception of sin and delusion of the devil to believe a lie. That said, it is undeniably true that when a sinner comes under the sound of the Gospel and is given enough faith by God to begin seeking the Lord while He may be found, real courage is required to overcome the fear that exists, to negotiate the formidable issues that each lost person has to deal with in order to simply come to Christ.

So, why is it the sinner will not seek the answers to the questions that plague him? Why will she not ask the questions that must be both asked and answered before she will come to Christ? No courage. It requires courage to do scary things. It requires bravery to overcome terrors. And it is the courage that results from God-given faith that makes it possible for a sinner to forge ahead to the finish, to actually close with Christ.

The courage associated with faith is scarce these days. I had hoped to see more of it from pastors of Churches in the face of government bullying. I am sad to say that I have been very disappointed.

---

^[1] Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1996), page 464.