One misconception about Calvinism that seems to be prevalent is the idea that Calvinism somehow ruins missions and evangelism. My answer to this, however, isn’t necessarily a negation, but it’s also not an affirmation. In a way, Calvinism does ruin the modern understanding of evangelism and missions. At the same time, it upholds the call to go into the entire world and proclaim the Gospel.

Calvinism does defeat the modern understanding of evangelism and missions[i]

At some point in American history Evangelicals became pragmatic in their approach to missions and the Gospel. This has led to a “bag ‘em and tag ‘em” mentality in both the missions and the presentation of the Gospel. Some current and past trends:

·      Using a methodological approach to witnessing – there are multiple methods that people use that treats the Gospel as something that has no need to be personalized. I remember a friend going through a method that went so far as to teach that if someone began to ask questions that were not relevant to the material presented (e.g. “Why does God allow evil?”) the presenter was to side step the question and get back on track with the approach. When I was in sales people at the church would sometimes ask me if I had picked up any methods that would help in the presentation of the Gospel. The problem with this way of thinking is that it treats the Gospel as something that has to be “sold” rather than allow the Gospel to actually interact with the person. We are not just presenting a concept to a person – we are presenting a real living person to the person. How many of us would use these methodological approaches if we were introducing a girl to an amazing guy? How much more absurd is it that we do the same with Jesus?

Calvinism, generally speaking, tends to avoid this type of an approach. Most Calvinists realize there are presuppositions that people have before hearing the Gospel (such as Van Til states). Some Calvinists – those that have not bought into presuppositional apologetics (for an explanation of this, please view my “Apologetics” explanation) – believe that these barriers must be broken down before the Gospel can be presented (Schaeffer is a master at this). Such an approach requires two things

1)   That the person presenting the Gospel knows what barriers prevent a person from even listening to the Gospel. This means that the presenter must take the time to understand the person’s background with the Gospel, understanding of the world, personal beliefs, etc.

2)   The presenter cannot rely on a method, but instead must rely on the power of the Gospel alone. Knowing what the person struggles with and the background of the person, the presenter must present the full Gospel in a manner that the listener will understand. A pre-packaged method simply doesn’t work in this instance as individuals are different and learn in different ways. The way one explains the Gospel to the typical American (through presentation of factual statements) is different from the way one presents the Gospel to a typical tribal African (through story telling).

·      Focusing on conversion rates and church growth – the modern church is really famous for bragging about its numbers. If a church hasn’t used the baptistery in two months then, according to the popular view, something is wrong with that church. I once heard a pastor say that if someone wasn’t walking down the isle every single week, then the church was dying. Churches that believe high numbers of conversions show success are more likely to do what it takes to get people to come to church. They often play music that has watered down lyrics but is appealing to the ear. The message is either a play on emotions, putting people in the “hot-seat” and demanding a conversion, or alternatively it presents a feel-good seeker friendly message. In both instances, the church attempts to appeal to the lost in the belief that this glorifies God.

While it is true that a low conversion rate can often be the sign of an inactive congregation, it does not follow that this is the case every time. Likewise, God is obviously not impressed with big numbers or anything we accomplish on our own. In fact, God violated much of the church growth principles of the modern age when He ordered Gideon to cut his army from tens of thousands down to three hundred. What was God’s intention in this? He lowered the numbers so that Israel wouldn’t boast against Him or in their own power (Judges 7:2). It seems that God did not listen to the modern practitioners of Christianity because when He was later given a chance to have a big following, He taught a message that caused people to walk away from Him…so many so that only the disciples were left (John 6:66 [ii]). In other words, it seems that when it comes to evangelism and missions God is not so much concerned about the quantity, but is more concerned about His glory being displayed in the process and His Truth being taught.

Those who truly adhere to a Calvinistic understanding of evangelism and missions will seek to put God’s glory first. This means that the glory of God will be the centerpiece of evangelism, that the truth will be at the forefront, and all methods that abandon the aforementioned principles will be abandoned. Under the Calvinist understanding, it is better to preach the truth and lose a potential convert than abandon the truth in the hope that someone will take on the title “Christian.” What this means is that under a Calvinist view, if a church is actively engaged in missions and evangelism yet is still having a low conversion rate, it is completely acceptable – God calls people to Himself, not man, so it doesn’t matter. In fact, it shouldn’t surprise us that many aren’t coming to Christ, considering we are fallen.

·      Pragmatic missions is the best approach to the mission field – too many missionaries are going over seas in an attempt to bring people to Christ through any means necessary. This is merely an extension of the previous two methods, only in some ways worse. I have heard stories of people in Asia not being allowed to receive aid until watching the infamous Jesus Film.[iii] The missionaries are often guilty of attempting to assimilate Christianity with the other beliefs in the culture, in an attempt to create a hybrid.

This is all wrong because it presents the idea that God cannot transcend cultures, likewise it fails to acknowledge that these people have real physical problems. Though we must always present the Gospel, what sense does it make to not address a person’s physical need along with his spiritual need? Furthermore, since God can transcend cultures, what sense does it make to attempt to bring pagan beliefs into Christianity when it is not necessary?

Calvinism acts as a response to such attitudes by, once again, realizing that God’s glory and truth are to hold the center of all Christian thought and practice. In going along with this way of thinking, Calvinists often hold to the traditionally Reformed (and I belief Biblical) view of life as holistic; the physical and spiritual needs are equally important. The Bible often talks about how we are to feed the poor, take care of the widowed, and share the Gospel. Though we are called to share the Gospel, we are also called to take care of the entirety of the person, from spiritual to physical needs.

Calvinism doesn’t prohibit evangelism or missions.

In the above ways, Calvinism acts as a response to what has, unfortunately, become all too common within the evangelical community. If someone says “Calvinism is an affront to evangelism and missions” and has the previous ideas in mind, then yes, Calvinism is an affront to these types of ministry. However, this does not mean Calvinism is opposed to proper evangelism and missions. As seen above in the explanations of Calvinism, it should be seen how Calvinists evangelize. The question most often asked, however, is why? If Calvinists believe that God chooses who will go to Heaven, why waste our time evangelizing or going overseas? I offer the following answers:

1)   Evangelism isn’t about conversion, but instead about a declaration of God’s glory and what He has done – under this view, the purpose of evangelism isn’t necessarily to “save” people, but instead to proclaim and display God’s glory and love. From this proclamation, those that have been called will come forward while those who have not been called will remain in their hardened state. We do not evangelize in order to get people converted, but instead to proclaim what God has done.

2)   We don’t know who is called and who is not – Jesus says that His sheep know Him and He knows His sheep (John 10:14-27), but never once says that we know who the sheep are. Since we do not know who the sheep are and we are called to proclaim what God has done in this world, our prayer during this proclamation is that one of His sheep hears His voice and follows. Calvinism still believes that one must hear the proclamation of the Gospel and respond to it before coming to Christ (this is, after all, what Paul says in Romans repeatedly) – but we also believe that God will guide this verbal proclamation to the person in His due time.

3)   We are to bring a taste of the kingdom to come – Jesus told us to do the acts that He did, to help the poor, the blind, the lame, the mute, the widows, and those dejected by society. It is no coincidence that that Paul continues this message in his “pastoral epistles,” telling Timothy to watch out after the widows and orphans and to take care of them.[iv] This is a taste of the Kingdom to come and our job is to make sure people get a taste of this. This means going overseas (and into our own communities) and helping those who are in need while proclaiming the One who makes such good deeds possible.

It is my hope that people can see why Calvinists believe in evangelism and missions. It is no coincidence or stroke of luck that some of the first missionaries to the Americas were all Calvinists. It is no accident that the First Great Awakening (America’s only true revival) propagated and was supported by Calvinism. It should not baffle the believer to discover that a truly Reformed and Calvinistic church puts a heavy emphasis on missions and evangelism.

The first presupposition that must be acknowledged is that though man does take some part in the acquisition of knowledge, most knowledge is revealed by God and all knowledge is only obtainable because of His design plan (see “The Necessity of God in the Acquisition of Knowledge“). Calvinists would tend toward the idea that all “spiritual knowledge” (knowledge about God, salvation, sanctification, etc) is illuminated by God and that this illumination does not occur for all. In other words, though common knowledge or natural knowledge can be gained through the faculties God has supplied us with and can aid in spiritual knowledge, we can only know spiritual truths through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

The second presupposition is that all truth is external, thus we have no influence on the formation of truth. Though our cultural backgrounds, educational backgrounds, family backgrounds, and other backgrounds can influence our understanding of the truth, truth itself is external to human experience. It is propositional, objective, and external to human thinking and experience. This means – tying in with the last point – that truth is imparted onto humans rather than coming from within humans. Any knowledge gained is merely the acknowledgment of what is already there, an acknowledgment that was also imparted onto the discoverer of the truth.

The third presupposition is that in all knowledge, humans are to keep the glory of God at the center. The first two chapters of Proverbs explain that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge and that it is God who reveals knowledge to humans. This means that when knowledge is revealed to us, we are to use it in some way for God’s glory, not our own.

With the above three things in mind, I have come to the following conclusions:

1)   Calvinist beliefs shouldn’t constantly debate the issue- it doesn’t make sense to constantly debate, berate, and even mock those who do not accept Calvinism. If Calvinism is true, this means those who believe it have had such knowledge imparted onto them by God, with very little influence from their own faculties. In light of thing, it makes no sense to try to debate an issue and make it the central point of one’s theology when its something that has to be illuminated by God.

2)   Calvinists should always be humble – all knowledge gained is only through the design of the mind by God and by the grace of God. Even when we use our minds to gain knowledge or understand knowledge this is only possible because God has both designed it and allowed it. This should humble the believer, realizing that he can take no pride in the acquisition of knowledge.

3)   Calvinists should never become furious with someone who does not believe – this really goes for any issue. Whether the debate is over postmodernism, Calvinism, politics, church politics, or any wide variety of things, Calvinists shouldn’t become irate or furious. They should accept one of two truths. Either (1) the Calvinist is wrong in his view of the truth and needs to reform it or (2) God has simply chosen not to reveal a truth to a person, or the person’s fallen nature is preventing them from understanding the truth. In either case, though firmness might be needed at times, patience, kindness, and love should dominate the approach to discussion and/or correction.

4)   Calvinists should look past distinctives and instead fellowship on what is necessary – as a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, what has bothered me as of late is how people are seemingly beginning to break fellowship over the issue of Calvinism. We have some on the non-Calvinist side saying Calvinists are worse than Muslims, while those on the Calvinist side are mocking non-Calvinists. This way of thinking simply has to cease, especially for Calvinists. If God is truly sovereign and has called people to salvation, then we must accept that some people have been called to salvation that don’t believe in Calvinism (and who knows, maybe Calvinism isn’t correct, thus validating a denial of Calvinism). What sense does it make to ridicule, look down upon, or break fellowship with those who don’t accept Calvinism? We should accept brothers in the Lord, not based upon their views of predestination or upon their denomination, but upon the fact that they are saved in Christ and hold to an orthodox faith.

Though it seems I have come down on Calvinists, I must stress that I do fall into that camp (I accept all 5 points and consider myself a Calvinist). I am starting the series in this way as an attempt to show where my own heart is and where I hope the discussion goes. There is no reason this issue should be splitting churches or conventions, but for some reason it is. I feel the first step that must be taken to solving this problem – at least on the Calvinist side – is to humble ourselves. 

The goal of this series is to dispel myths about Calvinism and also confront many of the social norms within the “Calvinist community.” The goal is not to prove Calvinism or non-Calvinism, but merely to show there are some wrongful actions on the Calvinist side and misunderstandings about Calvinism on the non-Calvinist side.