How to Cut the Size of Your Church in Half! by Steven Lawson
Brother Jerry Grace is blogging about Dr. Steven Lawson, Calvinist Extraordinaire. Dr. Lawson is scheduled to speak at Dr. John MacArthur's upcoming Shepherd’s Conference.Jerry writes,
Lawson was pastor of huge Dauphin Way Baptist church in Mobile during which time his growth rate was -57% (yes minus) in membership and attendance -63% (yes minus). What a great church it once was and can be again. The bottom line here is that Dr. Lawson was a Calvinist who seems to like small churches better than larger ones, so he built one. What got him in real trouble was the congregation’s evangelistic goals and desires were obviously not being addressed.The evangelistic goals might not have been addressed but I bet his congregation could recite the ordo salutis backwards and forwards!
Jerry asks, "I wonder what subject matter Dr. Lawson, who is on the board of directors of John MacArthur’s seminary, will address: How to build a well rounded small congregation?"
For the record, Dr. Lawson is a graduate of John Frame's Reformed Theological Seminary. Dr. Lawson "has authored ten books." Perhaps his next title will be: How to Cut the Size of Your Church in Half!
Charles
HT: Steve Y. Berry
posted by Charles @ 5:51 PM
25 Comments:
Well Billy Graham even said the majority of church memebers attendent on Sunday morning are not saved. Maybe Lawson's preaching scared away the goats and built up the sheep. Would this be negative? Jesus lost many of His disciples in John 6:60-69, do you want to rail against His ministry? What about the apostle Paul when "all those in Asia have turned away from me" (2 Ti 1:15)?
Overemphasis on numbers is disastrous. If preaching the gospel drives lost people away (why wouldn't it? Rom 8:7, 1 Co 2:14, John 3:19) at times should we stop preaching the gospel? The "ultimate" goal of the gospel is not the conversion of men, but the glory of God. Ephesians 1:5, 12, 14
jpm
I am so sick of you two guys and your slander.
I am from Mobile and the history of Dauphin Way is not as note
worthy as those involved would like to think. From the time of Jerry Vines the church has had problems. He cut and ran after getting them into a great financial bind and moving the church without providing adequate space when he had a great thing where he was. Of course it wasn't in the all white/affluent section of town so.....
Dr. Lawson was there for right at 9 years. The savy committee that brought him there and the mature congregation that voted him pastor took nine years to figure out that he was a man who believe in the Doctrine of Grace i.e. yes Calvinism. You will say why wasn't he upfront on it all -well- his degrees, preaching, church polity, and background/history should have given that away. Of course the question probably were the usual, which never ask Biblical/Theological or any other deep question for that matter. In fact the only one that comes near to that from most committees is "Are you a Christian?" - lame/ignorant at best. Again evidence of the condition and education of a typical SBC. Numbers and Money center and knowledge at the bottom of the list. Funny how biblical ignorance goes on and on when you would think it would go up an up but not in the SBC.
I believe I took a page from your handbook but I lived some of this out during the time of the event so I find I at least have some knowledge of the event but you on the other hand do not.
By the way all of the staff for the most part went with Dr. Lawson and he now has a church running around 1,000 (small I know by your measure???) and well Dauphin Way is reaping what it sowed!
Book title it could be these:
How to Know the Biblical Liturate from the Illiterate.
How to Know a Church with a Biblical Foundation.
How You Can Know the Sheep from the Goats.
How to Bring from the Ashes the SBC.
You guys keep cracking me up!
HOW MANY SAVED?
anonymous said . . .
Well Billy Graham even said the majority of church memebers attendent on Sunday morning are not saved.
I never heard him say that, and I don't know it has any documentation -- nevertheless, if it was said, what right does Billy Graham, or any of the others with a penchant for "spiritual clairvoyance," have to make such dire allegations?
I think many of these judgments are probably made by those who are measuring others by themselves
2 Cor. 10:12). This generates more Pharisees than anything else.
You say,
Jesus lost many of His disciples in John 6:60-69, do you want to rail against His ministry?
Are you implying that this indicated that they were not saved? What about his own disciples, including Simon Peter, who did not stand with Him at the crucifixion? Were they unsaved?
Again,
What about the apostle Paul when "all those in Asia have turned away from me" (2 Ti 1:15)?
Yes, what about them? Were they also lost?
Again,
Overemphasis on numbers is disastrous.
But isn't that the very thing you are doing -- judging on the basis of "numbers" that di not do what you think they should do?
Again,
If preaching the gospel drives lost people away
This is "begging the question," isn't it? Was Lawson preaching the gospel or Hybrid Calvinism?
Again,
The "ultimate" goal of the gospel is not the conversion of men, but the glory of God. Ephesians 1:5, 12, 14
This is ridiculous. The conversion of souls is the greatest of those things which bring glory to God. It is the only thing in the Bible concerning which the Lord said that there is "joy" in Heaven when even a single sinner is converted (Luke 15:10).
"CALVINISM"?
Anonymous said...
The savy committee that brought him there and the mature congregation that voted him pastor took nine years to figure out that he was a man who believe in the Doctrine of Grace i.e. yes Calvinism.
If Lawson was a disciple of John Frame, he was a HYBRID CALVINIST, not a Creedal Calvinist.
Teaching people that sinners get "born again" before and without believing in Christ is not Creedal Calvinism. It is heresy.
If Lawson taught that, then he probably imbibed it from John Frame's theology, for Frame teaches the "Reformed" pedo theology on which this notion is based.
See the thread on this blogsite concerning Frame's heretical "born gain before being born" doctrine:
http://calvinistflyswatter.
blogspot.com/2006/05/
southern-seminary-welcomed-
john-frame.html
Brother Bob, Hello!
While I don't know for certain that Lawson was taught by Frame, I do know that Lawson graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary which certainly agrees with Frame on the "born again before faith" heresy.
Frame was once asked, "What doctrines must one believe to be saved?" He responded by saying, "None. I hold the Reformed view that children in infancy, even before birth, can be regenerated and saved, presumably before they have any conscious doctrinal beliefs."
Frame's description of "THE REFORMED VIEW" is the same heresy as that held or promoted by R. C. Sproul, Mark Dever, Wayne Grudem, many of The Founders, and many who teach at Southern Seminary.
Bob, it's really very simple, isn't it. If a person can be regenerated before they have any conscious doctrinal beliefs then they are a REGENERATED UNBELIEVER.
And this is what many of The Founders are trying to push on the Southern Baptist Convention! What nonsense!
Charles
anonymous, Hello!
You wrote, all of the staff for the most part went with Dr. Lawson and he now has a church running around 1,000
According to the article on Jerry Rice's blog, there was a push to oust the entire staff. No surprise then that they would go with him. After nine years, he no doubt "hand picked" most of them.
Assuming you are correct as to the size of his church, Brother Bob and I have both said that much of the growth from our REFORMED brethren comes from proselyting and not evangelism. I noticed that Lawson stayed in the same city. It would be interesting to know how many members from his "new church" were his theology converts from the "old church."
Charles
SPLITS AND PROSELYTES
Charles said . . .
Assuming you are correct as to the size of his church, Brother Bob and I have both said that much of the growth from our REFORMED brethren comes from proselyting and not evangelism.
I have seen this for years, Charles, churches starting from splits over these issues, and so many of them have come to naught.
The only "successful" Hybrid Calvinists churches as to growth are the pedos, wherein they have families which are fruitful in reproduction. The babies born to them are presummed to be "heirs" of regeneration, and they are baptized and enrolled in the church. This is their primary means of growth -- adding their offspring to the church roll.
Unfortunately for the iMonk, his 20 women in that pedo church in Kentucky were evidently past reproduction years, and there was consequently no growth.
The primary way that "Reformed" Baptists grow is by proselyting the already saved "Arminians," who "see the light" on "grace," but even this is not very satisfactory. They frequently get to controverting about theological novelties and wind-up splitting over certain differences of doctrine or practice. I knew some churches in a small "association" of "reformed" churches here in Texas, but after awhile they disbanded over some of their differences.
bob l. ross:
i disagree with about everything you said in your response to me...
First: about numbers/unsaved church attenders/ and Christ-forsaking disciples
"they went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us..." 1 John 2:19
I'd say in the example of Jesus' disciples and the people who forsook Paul they were not saved....
Since Peter even said afterwards in the John 6 incident, "to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life"
"For we have become partakers of Christ IF we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end." Hebrews 3:14
Peseverance of the saints: its a doctrine people used to believe before all this creme-puff grace with no substance invaded the SBC and we held conversion to be more than taking a "public bath" on a Sunday morning as a kid...
Secondly,
Conversion of souls does bring glory to God...you are right. But something else does too...Romans 9:22-23 says that God's wrath reveals more gloriously the greatness of His mercy to the objects of mercy "which He had prepared beforehand for glory."
In Matt 11:25-30 Jesus also praised His Father that He had "hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes" speaking of the call to repentance. "for it seemed good in Your sight."
Whether a person is "saved" or not by the gospel, the result, whether wrath, hardening, or mercy, glorifies and pleases God.
jpm
You seem to be on a tangent of proclaiming that large churches have the correct Gospel, am I right? The only obvious answer is "yes" being that its the subject matter for your recent "blogs" as well as your flow of "logic." I use the term loosely, in fact, saying "logic" with reference to your blogs makes me want to commit seppuku again.
I would seriously like to see you address subject matter, as opposed to numbers and growth, magically (and rather unBiblically) connecting that with the evangelistic success rate of a given church.
You seem to make it sound as if the pastor of a given church has the power to save all those he encounters, as if just by his words he can save souls and draw huge crowds to his assembly, is that your position? It seems to be, theres nothing else to glean from your posts that Biblical, and I dont wanna jump ahead to any rash conclusions about your theology, I'd like to let you define what it is you're saying here and why, because all you've given me is "Calvinist churches are small!! Therefore obviously they dont have the correct Gospel!!!"
I'm sure you're familiar with Unity churches, the ones that say the Bible is a huge myth, that none of it ever happened, that its all just a moral guidebook, no? They're pretty good sized, are they correct? Or how about any and all mega churches that you or I could point to, do they have the correct views on the Bible? Please, again, both you and I would say "no" so stop this rant on church size, one more and I'll actually (because I lack the time and overall interest) look up SBC church numbers from all over the country and start posting those. Theres bound to be at least hundreds of SBC churches with the numbers and statistics you've spouted off this week.
I find it inersting you didn't allow for my last comment, any reason why??
SOMETHING IN COMMON
Anonymous said...
bob l. ross:
i disagree with about everything you said in your response to me...
We have something in common . . . I have the same opinion about what you have said.
NO, YOU ARE NOT RIGHT
Rev said...
You seem to be on a tangent of proclaiming that large churches have the correct Gospel, am I right?
No, that is not our tangent. Our "tangent" is that we observe that Hybrid Calvinist Baptist churches tend to "grow" smaller and smaller, since they do not have a strong interest in evangelizing the lost, and occasionally get a few additions from proselyting.
Other Baptist churches, where the Gospel is preached and there is a dedicated effort to reaching the lost, generally grow, some of them becoming large in number.
If it were not for the latter kind of churches, there would probably be far fewer of the Hybrid kind, for most of the pastors of the Hybrid kind were saved in churches of the evangelistic kind.
After getting saved, they unfortunately were lead off into Hybrid Calvinism and the "norm" is they do not have growing churches due to their antipathy to evangelism.
That is our "tangent."
Yes bob l. ross, we both disagree with each other. But at least I quoted some verses (in context I might add). The only biblical ounce of insight you even put into the topic was that there was "joy" in heaven over a converted sinner and I showed how there was "joy" in Jesus over God's closing people's eyes to the gospel in Matt 11/Luke 10. Could it be that you disagree with the Bible ultimately and not me? I haven't said anything speculative or abstract, just plain passages that speak of God's complexity and glory.
This flyswatter has an awful lot of large, gaping holes in it. I think most of the "flies" that come here get away unscathed. If you want to confront the doctrines of grace why don't you exegete a text or something. That must be a rhetorical question since I doubt it will happen.
Heresay, sob stories, and church statistics don't change the Scriptures.
HEARD THAT BEFORE?
Anonymous said...
Could it be that you disagree with the Bible ultimately and not me? I haven't said anything speculative or abstract, just plain passages that speak of God's complexity and glory.
Now where have I heard this type of talk before? O, yes . . . now I remember --
I've heard it from just about every Campbellite and Hardshell who has ever contacted me to inform me of how wrong I am. I will just file you in their folder.
anonymous, hello!
Re: Matt 11. What Jesus said was, "thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."
In Matthew, it sounds as if Jesus is rebuking the "wise and prudent" for not believing the simple gospel because in verse 20, Jesus "began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent.
Jesus thanked the Father for revealing to "babes" when the "wise and prudent" "did not repent."
However, if you take Luke 11 into consideration, it seems that when Jesus is speaking of the "revealing," he means revealing it to the seventy. He is directly speaking to them in verses 18, 19, and 20 and therefore, verse 21 may be referring to them as well.
If I assume that you are correct about Matt 10/Luke 11 it doesn't nullify what Brother Bob said. He wrote, It is the only thing in the Bible concerning which the Lord said that there is "joy" in Heaven when even a single sinner is converted (Luke 15:10).
There is nothing in Matt 10/ Luke 11 about rejoicing in heaven. Jesus was glad when revelation came to babes over the wise and prudent. What you have done, anonymous, is completely refute Mark Dever and his "no baptism for children" policy! Thank you.
If you say these verses involve rejoicing in heaven, that is worse than James the Exegete saying Paul fell off his horse. Did you attend the James White School of Exegesis?
You said, If you want to confront the doctrines of grace why don't you exegete a text or something
You mean like James the Exegete saying Paul fell off his horse? Wouldn't that be something?
Brother Bob has pointed out the differences between the creedal Calvinism as believed by Spurgeon and the hybrid Calvinism of James White and many of The Founders who teach a "born again before faith" heresy. It has nothing to do with "confronting the doctrines of grace" I suggest you read his overview of the issue.
Remember, "regeneration before faith" is a heresy that not even John Calvin held. It has nothing to do with "confronting the doctrines of grace" unless those doctrines go beyond creedal Calvinism into the heretical view that a person must be born again before placing faith in Jesus Christ.
Charles
On Matt 11
Those verses refer to what I originally stated them as referring to: God is glorified by the gospel whether or not a person is saved by it, or hardened by it.
I have given biblical examples of that to prove it, Matt 11 being quite clear that it pleased God (11:27 says part of that is that no one knows the Father except the Son and whom He chooses to reveal Him to..) Other verses are still up there.
Bob L. Ross disagreed.
Don't start slandering James White just to change the subject. Paul probably would fall off his horse if he heard half the stuff you guys claim about church size and Al Mohler decreasing baptisms...
Is God glorified by the gospel or not when it is rejected by man? Is not His justice, mercy, grace, and long-suffering still upheld? Is not His wrath also glorious because it is the perfect reponse against an infinite sin?
jpm
"DOCTRINES OF GRACE"?
Charles said...
Brother Bob has pointed out the differences between the creedal Calvinism as believed by Spurgeon and the hybrid Calvinism of James White and many of The Founders who teach a "born again before faith" heresy. It has nothing to do with "confronting the doctrines of grace."
You are exactly right, Charles. The Hybrid Calvinists violate just about every rule of logic, and they are notorious for the "Either or Or" fallacy -- that is, if you don't accept Hybrid Calvinism's "doctrines of grace," then you must deny the Bible's "doctrines of grace."
The fact is, "the doctrines of grace" as taught by Hybrid Calvinists might be more appropriately called "the heresies on grace."
For example, their doctrine of "born again before faith" is a logical DENIAL of MONERGISM, for they have an alleged "regenerated" unbelieving person being the source of faith rather than the source being the power of God by the Word and Spirit.
True monergism, as the Baptist Confession says on "effectual calling," attributes the begetting of faith to God's Word and Spirit (James 1:18; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:23), and by this means God creates, produces, and generates faith in the "dead" sinner, -- whereas Hybrid Calvinism has faith being the exercise which arises from the UNBELIEVER who is supposedly already "born again before faith," and thereby made "able" to exercise "saving faith" AFTER the supposed new birth.
This makes MAN the source of "saving faith" rather than the Word and Spirit of God! This excludes "saving faith" itself from the prior "new birth," and makes "saving faith" an act subsequent to a supposed previous "regeneration."
But as we have seen in Spurgeon,
"Life comes WITH believing . . . it really comes WITH believing, apart from any other necessary circumstances. . .
Faith in Jesus begets life, and this life will flourish or decay very much in proportion to our faith. . . . This sacred Book was written on purpose to make you believe; the Spirit is given to lead you to believe; the object of every preaching of the gospel is that you may believe; therefore come and welcome, and at this hour believe on the one saving name, and live thereby. God grant it for his name’s sake. Amen.
>>
Contrary to the "born again before faith" heresy, Spurgeon says that "Life comes WITH
believing,"and that believing is attributed to begetting power of the Word and Spirit in the "dead" sinner, not the already "born again" sinner.
Bob what does John Frame have to do with my comments?????????????
I said nothing about this gentlemen but was sharing my knowledge of Dr. Lawson. You need to learn to stay on subject point and not wonder off when the comments don't suit you.
We who are true Christian should be discerning when conversating with these men - even the demons believe but they aren't born again!!!!!!
since they do not have a strong interest in evangelizing the lost
Your argument hinges on this, and it simply isnt true. Quote statistics and post satelite photos (LOL) all you want, you simply cannot prove the above statement.
You cant find statistics that look at peoples hearts, nor can you google a satelite photo of someones desires.
Do you know how many countless times Dr.White has to gone to Mesa and/or Salt Lake City to witness to Mormons, or how many Roman Catholics, Muslims, etc, that he has debated? Call it what you want, you cant say its not evangelism.
FRAME & LAWSON
Anonymous said...
Bob what does John Frame have to do with my comments?????????????
If Lawson studied and accepted the "theology" at the Reformed seminary with which Frame is affiliated, then he has been victimized by Hybrid Calvinism.
We who are true Christian should be discerning when conversating with these men - even the demons believe but they aren't born again!!!!!!
Demons did not have faith which is begotten by the Word and Spirit (James 1:18; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:23), otherwise they would have been born of God and therefore children of God.
"Believing" something does not always refer to faith which is begotten by the Word and Spirit.
WHITE'S EVANGELISM
Rev said...
Do you know how many countless times Dr.White has to gone to Mesa and/or Salt Lake City to witness to Mormons, or how many Roman Catholics, Muslims, etc, that he has debated? Call it what you want, you cant say its not evangelism.
Just face it -- James simply loves to debate, and he will compass land and sea if he can find one who will debate with him -- IF he thinks he has an edge.
As for his debates with these cults, how many professions or converts did he make? Did he give an invitation for these folks to come out openly and confess Christ as the Son of God? How many responded? Did he baptize any of them?
I'm sorry, engaging in debates and arguments does not equate to evangelism. They may very well do some ultimate good, but I don't put them in the category of evangelism. I have had some good "results" in debating Campbellites, but I do not regard those debates as "evangelism."
Lawson received his degrees from schools that teach theology properly.
I thought you believed that saving faith was an act of man and man must first believe before God had any part in salvation - Bob.
If the Spirit is the bestower of the gift of faith then God saves first. Regeneration yeilds Justification. I think you are on to something. We Reformed gentlemen seem to be making way with you.
Oh, I know the Demons did not have the gift of saving faith and so it is in many of our churches. We claim what we have not yet received for God. God the one who saves and he did so before the foundations of the world.
CARELESS READER?
Anonymous said...
I thought you believed that saving faith was an act of man and man must first believe before God had any part in salvation - Bob.
You have a misunderstanding. This matter has been covered, and I think you would know better had you read carefully; so I reply here for the sake of new readers.
"Saving faith" is simply the faith that believes into Christ (John 3:14-18), or as the London Confession puts it, "the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls" (chapter 14).
How are they enabled? "By His Word and Spirit," by which means there is "enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God" . . . "revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to believe and obey" etc. (chapter 10; chapter 8).
Once the sinner has been brought to faith by the Word and Spirit, it may be said he is "born again." See 1 John 5:4, 5:1.
No one in Scripture is said to be "born of God" before faith has been produced by the Word and Spirit. The creation of faith in Christ by the Word and Spirit is what constitutes the new birth (John 3:14-18; 1 Peter 1:23).
As Spurgeon put it, "Life comes WITH believing . . . it really comes WITH believing"
(MTP, Volume 27, #1631, page 662).
You say, Oh, I know the Demons did not have the gift of saving faith and so it is in many of our churches.
If you knew that, why did you introduce such a superfluous matter? If you are simply here to "play games," you might find another "playground" more conducive to your penchant.
Dear Authors,
I have never been to you website, and was shocked to see such a huge misrepresentation of Dr. Steve Lawson on it.
I have had the great privelege of knowing Steve well, as a matter of fact I was saved under his preaching at Dauphin Way. He is a wonderful man that loves the Lord and is passionate about evangelism. What happened at DWBC was something that brough tears to his eyes on many occasions.
God has truly blessed Steve in the new church he is pastoring. He left DWBC and was not planning on staying in the area, but the sheep that he was shepherd over begged him to stay. You should really check into the work that Christ Fellowship in Mobile is doing. I believe you would have a different attitude towards Steve. If you ever met him, you would find a man that is loving, funny, and most of all God-saturated!
Gentlemen, it is very easy to take an article and a small snapshot of the situation and not get the complete picture.
Hayden
PS Steve also grew up in the church that Adrian Rogers pastored and they remained friends all of their lives though they did disagree on some issues of doctrine!
LAWSON
Anonymous said...
I have never been to you website, and was shocked to see such a huge misrepresentation of Dr. Steve Lawson on it.
I am not sure how we have misrepresented Dr. Lawson. He apparently is identified with the Hybrid Calvinist theological camp, and the "born again before faith" theory of that camp has been the primary focus of our comments here.
If Steve was trained by a Hybrid Calvinist seminary and imbibed their theology, that representes the view on the new birth which have critiqued.
I notice that Steve is appearing with two pedo regenerationists at a Conference in Lake Mary, Florida. October 23-26, 2006, namely, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Dr. Ligon Duncan.
These pedos advocate "baby regeneration" and "born again before faith." This association does nothing to embellish Steve as being a Baptist on the new birth.
Sproul and Duncan replenish their churcb membership by baptizing babies on the presumption that these babies have interited "regeneration" based on their "covenant" doctrine.
We do not believe Baptists should render aid and comfort to those who promote this view of "regeneration."
Post a Comment
<< Home