I can’t recall a time in my adult life where the subject of Calvinism wasn’t a hotly debated subject, and I’ve been involved in a number of those debates. I’ve seen enough of them to know: (1) the word “Calvinism” means very different things to different people; (2) those of Calvinistic leanings are continually surprised to find out what they believe as described by those who oppose Calvinistic teachings; (3) those who oppose Calvinistic teachings get very bothered when told by Calvinistic men that they don’t really understand Calvinistic teaching; and (4) things can get ugly quickly.
I am sure, at some point, it might be profitable to address the specific complaints made by Pastor Dan Sweatt against Calvinism, but I am not really that concerned about them right now. For one thing, no full blown Calvinist would consider me one anyway. He’d probably throw the label Amyraldian on me—so I am a little ticked at everybody for the inaccurate use of labels. Also, some other people have, and no doubt will continue, to point out errors in his message, so I’ll approach this from a different angle. An angle which I think it is more important in relation to fundamentalism.
The burden of Pastor Sweatt’s sermon was focused on young men who are abandoning fundamentalism, hence the title “Young and Restless.” (I will assume, for discussion purposes, the premise that young men are actually leaving even though I think that is a claim that needs better definition.) It seems clear to Pastor Sweatt that Calvinism is a (the?) major reason why young men are leaving fundamentalism. I think that assessment is very short-sighted. By framing the issue in terms of Calvinism, he both distorted the history of fundamentalism and shifted the subject in a counter-productive manner.
There have always been Calvinistic fundamentalists. That point is irrefutable. There are very clear examples of present day Calvinistic fundamentalists. My guess is that many, if not most, of the pastors in fellowship with the FBFI serve churches which have doctrinal statements heavily influenced by the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith, a clearly Calvinistic statement of faith. (That also, by the way, means it’s goofy to try to argue that Calvinistic men can’t be good Baptists either.) Historically, this matter has been a non-issue in terms of fundamentalism. Pastor Sweatt reveals the provincial nature of his thinking about fundamentalism when his list of great fundamentalists is composed mainly of men who were strongly anti-Calvinistic. This was a real weakness of his message that revealed a very lopsided understanding of fundamentalist history. This goes deeper than merely the historical presence of Calvinists in fundamentalism—it cuts to the very definition of fundamentalism. If the fundamental in fundamentalism means anything, it means that the doctrinal center of fundamentalism is those doctrines which cannot be denied without denying the Faith. I doubt that Pastor Sweatt is prepared to say that Calvinists are apostates, so a basic premise of his message really doesn’t make sense. His argument is based on a serious misunderstanding about what is fundamental and what is not.
And if that weren’t bad enough, by making Calvinism the central issue, he distracts us away from the real question that should be in front of us. What we really need to ask, it seems, is this, “If young men can find Calvinism within fundamentalism, then why are they leaving?” The answer to that question is where the message should have gone. And the answer to that question is far more complex that Pastor Sweatt seems willing to allow. It’s easy to say it’s about the seductive allure of big names and an obsession with Calvinism, but the shallowness of that answer belies its truthfulness. Clearly, there are young men leaving who have no interest in Calvinism and no affinity for the men that Sweatt mentioned. Calvinism is not the cause for their departure. Some young men who have wandered away from the fundamentalist circles of Pastor Sweatt were Calvinists well before they wandered, so one might be able to offer the argument that they were chased away by anti-Calvinists rather than lured away by Calvinists. I could keep supplying counter-examples, but don’t think I need to do so to show the point I am making.
In technical terms, Pastor Sweatt has fallen prey to a cause-effect fallacy (of the post hoc propter hoc family for you Latin and logic buffs). In other words, he sees men who (a) are Calvinistic in their thinking and (b) are departing from his brand of fundamentalism, so he concludes (c) that Calvinism is the cause for their departure. My point is that there is no proof that the connection between (a) and (b) leads to (c)—in fact, there is significant evidence to the contrary.
If we are concerned that young men are leaving fundamentalism, then we better look for a better analysis of the problem than the one offered by Pastor Sweatt. Calvinism is not the culprit. This is not the post to delve into this deeply, but I would suggest that the answer to the question lies much closer to home.
