THE ARBUCKLE ASSOCIATION MOTION
Last month (Oct. 16, 2007), during the annual meeting of the Arbuckle Baptist Association
(Oklahoma), Pastor Joe Elam (FBC Pauls Valley) presented the following motion from the Executive Board:
“That the Executive Board of Arbuckle Baptist Association recommend that the messengers to the Arbuckle Baptist Association Annual Meeting in October 2007, vote to request the Executive Director of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, and the Executive Committee of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, and the Board of Directors of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, take a stand against the presentation of reformed theology — often called ‘Calvinism’ — as a legitimate topic that we need to debate; and instead of recommending that we should debate reformed theology, take a public stand against reformed theology.”
There were no questions from the floor and the motion was approved. A companion motion was then offered and approved with no questions from the floor. It stated:
“That the Arbuckle Baptist Association send this motion to the President of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention and to all members of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, as well.”
CONTROVERSY IN THE SBC
These motions are being discussed just as Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and Founders Ministries are sponsoring the Building Bridges: Southern Baptists & Calvinism conference. Just last year, at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, Paige Patterson and Al Mohler debated the topic. Just prior to that debate, Les
Puryear, a well-known SBC blogger and pastor, wrote about the “campaign to remove Calvinists from the SBC.” Of course, the issue heated up long before when articles appeared in Baptist publications during the 90s, such as William Estep’s “Doctrines Lead to ‘Dunghill‘”. Numerous other writings and conferences, not to mention innumerable blog entries, have also covered the topic from various Southern Baptist perspectives. One SBC seminarian, Timmy Brister, has even compiled a chronological survey of the debate within SBC life.
It seems ironic, in many respects, that Reformed Theology is such a divisive topic considering that only ten percent of SBC pastors call themselves “Calvinists.” Deepening the irony even further is the fact that the majority view of the “founding fathers” of the SBC were themselves “Calvinists.” This has been demonstrated from both the “Calvinist” and “non-Calvinist” sides. Nonetheless, many Southern Baptists, such as the late Jerry Falwell, have declared Calvinism as “heresy” and state conventions in Texas and Florida distributed anti-Calvinistic literature to SBC churches.
Despite the criticism and antagonism of many SBC Fundamentalists, many Southern Baptist Calvinists, such as Tom Ascol, seek to remain within the denomination and work cooperatively with non-Calvinists for the sake of causes such as missions and religious education. Others, such as Bill Lollar, were once committed to cooperating within
the SBC structure but found themselves excluded from participation because of a growing hostility towards Calvinism and Calvinists. The issue is not about to go away for Southern Baptists, and it is unlikely that Fundamentalists will be willing to build bridges anytime soon to their Calvinistic counterparts.
A PERSONAL VIEW
I have declared, both on this blog and in personal conversations, that I am not a follower of John Calvin, yet I fully affirm the “doctrines of grace.” I affirm both free will and divine sovereignty, in the Edwardsean/Augustinian sense, and follow in the evangelistic tradition of Whitefield and Spurgeon. I’m quite interested in these subjects, in fact, my PhD dissertation was entitled, The Impact on Evangelism of Calvinistic Preaching as Seen in the Ministries of Leading Figures in the First Great Awakening. During my days of doctoral study I pastored two SBC churches: one during the seminar days and one during the dissertation days. I led the first to become both a Global Priority Church (IMB) and a Covenant Church (NAMB). I also began an outreach program, emphasizing evangelistic tract distribution and personal visitation/outreach in the community. Despite this Great Commission emphasis, my three-year service in that church concluded in controversy over the issue of “Calvinism.” Some claimed, with the help of local Baptist clergy, that I was a “hard-shell Baptist” who was anti-evangelistic and anti-SBC.
The same type of thing happened in the following church. During the interview process with the pastor search committee the issue of Calvinism was discussed, largely because one of my references (Dr. Roy Fish), insured that the search committee knew my theological bent. This led to the interim pastor spending a few hours with the search committee explaining the “Five Points of Calvinism.” After receiving this explanation, the committee continued the interview process and asked about my personal views. I told the committee members that I would not preach “five point sermons” every Sunday, but that I would preach from a “Reformed” view when the text called for it (e.g., Romans 9, Ephesians 1). I emphasized that my calling as a pastor was to help make people into fully committed followers of Christ Jesus, not “Calvinists” (though that might happen with some along the way). Knowing that I held to Reformed Theology and being convinced that I was evangelistic, the committee recommended that I come in view of a call.
The day after I was called to serve as pastor by a vote of 172-3 (having preached a strongly “Calvinistic”/evangelistic sermon from Ezekiel 37), the 3 began to “study” the issue of “Calvinism” and were soon passing stacks of printed internet materials to members. BaptistFire (now defunct) was a favorite source, and before long a church member and the DOM of the local association were distributing copies of “Predestined for Hell? Absolutely Not!” and The Other Side of
Calvinism. This, despite my willingness to help the association in whatever capacity I possibly could in the area of evangelism and missions and actually leading a group from our church to Mexico on a mission trip (the first adult mission trip the church had sponsored in nearly three decades). I also sought to support missions in every way I possibly could. Many people were very supportive, yet those in opposition were loud and active. Included among the complaints was that I “got rid of all the good old SBC tracts and replaced them with ‘Reformed’ ones.” The “good old” tracts really were old – having been printed in the 50s, 60s and 70s, and sun bleached from sitting in the racks for decades (no kidding!). I replaced them with Two Ways to Live (recommended by the text used in my philosophy of religion class during MDiv study – The Gagging of God), Quest for Joy (by John Piper, a frequent speaker at SBC seminaries and whose missiology book, Let the Nations Be Glad! was distributed to IMB missionaries), sermons by Spurgeon and Luther, copies of the Baptist Faith & Message, and brochures about being a Global Priority Church. In addition to the tract controversy, I was accused of attempting to “pull the church out of the SBC.” As a committed Southern Baptist, I had no intention whatsoever of trying to pull the church out of the SBC, but those in opposition refused to listen to my protests. The fact that I tried to get the church to increase CP giving and be more involved with the local association, the BGCO (even inviting the executive director to preach at the church), and the SBC were ignored by many. Another complaint was that I was “dishonest” and “deceitful” about being a “Calvinist,” and that I should have been “upfront” with the search committee and the church about my beliefs. After a year-and-a-half of needless turmoil, I stepped away from the situation.
I didn’t think I would re-enter the pastorate following that, but two weeks after leaving the FBC pulpit I found myself serving as interim pastor of Abbott Baptist Church. Fortunately, being “Reformed” never became an issue with the folks in Abbott. I loved them, they loved me, and I taught them God’s Word faithfully until they called a full-time pastor. During my time with them I received incessant encouragement to become the full-time pastor, but I was determined to work in full-time chaplaincy and refused the offer. Upon completion of interim service at Abbott I returned to my home church, Rock Creek, to serve as a teacher and pastoral assistant for the next sixteen months. The wonderful thing about Abbott and Rock Creek is that both congregations contain “Reformed” and “non-Reformed” folk. Both congregations are conservative, have a high regard for the authority of God’s Word, and are concerned about their communities hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Abbott definitely leans to the “non-Reformed” side of the aisle, while Rock Creek intentionally leans to the other side.
What have I learned from these experiences?
- That “Calvinists” and “non-Calvinists”/”Arminians” can serve together in the same congregation in a way that honors our God.
- That some people are willing to agree upon the fundamentals of the faith and work together for the sake of the Kingdom.
- That some people refuse to listen, refuse to cooperate, and refuse to love others who differ from them theologically.
FUTURE IN THE SBC?
This is essentially what Whitefield learned in his ministerial experience. Yet, the controversy over Reformed Theology within SBC life has caused me to reconsider whether or not I should remain a Southern Baptist. I remember being told during a meeting, “You aren’t Southern Baptist and it isn’t right for you to pastor a Southern Baptist Church. You should pastor a Reformed church.” I tried to explain that I am Southern Baptist — committed to the Cooperative Program and the IMB, that I affirm the Baptist Faith & Message (see Article V), that my family history (third generation Southern Baptist with a grandfather who was a deacon and a father who was an ordained minister) and education (AA, BA, MDiv, PhD from SBC schools) are all solidly Southern Baptist. The reply was to the effect that, despite my affirmations, history and education, I was not a “true” Southern Baptist.
Recent articles, such as Malcolm Yarnell’s “The Heart of a Baptist” and “The TULIP of Calvinism,” appear to support that sentiment by implying that Reformed Theology is less than (Southern) Baptist and nothing less than “man-made” doctrine. Ergun Caner has gone so far as to say that “Calvinists are worse than Muslims,” and refuses to withdraw that assertion. There comes a time when people tire of being in the midst of denominational
warfare. Fundamentalists in the SBC are still gunning for the “Liberals,” but now the “Charismatics,” “Calvinists,” and “Antinomians” (beer and wine drinkers) are also in their sights. I’m uncertain as to my future in the SBC, but I’m certain that I am more concerned for the Kingdom of God than I am the Southern Baptist Empire and that I would rather cooperate in Kingdom endeavors with gracious non-Baptists than with non-gracious Baptists. It seems I’m not the only one frustrated with the tendency of some to “bomb the rubble” while ignoring the vast amount of Kingdom work needing to be done. Perhaps some Southern Baptists should stop spending so much time being against so many of their brothers and sisters in Christ and start standing with them for the sake of Christ and His Kingdom.
31 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment



Brother, you indeed are not alone.
It’s disheartening to be told you’re not wanted/welcome by your own.
At the end of the day, all the bogus witch hunts with regard to Reformed theology and trumped up allegations and faulty exegesis and denial of historical facts aren’t the heart of the issue.
The fact is they don’t want us and they’re more concerned with not wanting us than they are with the advancement of the kingdom.
Your track record and pedigree give you great credibility and a voice that I think needs to be heeded.
Well said, brother.
Friend,
If the discussion between Paige and Al showed anything, it showed that we can peacefully serve God with those who disagree with us on this point. Don’t leave the fold! You are needed!
Dear Dr. G,
Your story sounds eerily familliar!
I have found, as I’m sure you have, that the joy of preaching the Gospel outweighs all the ugliness that church people can sometimes throw at us.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Never in my life did I think that I would be getting hit by “friendly” fire. My heart literally HURTS b/c of these issues. James I don’t know if you remember me or not, but I’m Ray Earley. We met when you were in Oklahoma. Hope all is well.
Ray
Gunny: Yes, it is disheartening and the heart of the issue is the fact that “they” don’t want “us” and are more concerned with that than with Kingdom advancement.
wap: I do hope for peace (though somewhat cynically) and appreciate your kind and encouraging words.
Jeff: Yes, eerily familiar. Keep pressing on, bro!
Ray: Of course I do, my friend. I was thinking of you yesterday, believe it or not, wondering how these things are affecting your association in particular. Hope things are going well with you. Let’s stay in touch, bro!
Very insightful post about a classic overreaction. It’s a pity that some non-Calvinists are so militant in their view of those of us who hold to the profoundly biblical “doctrines of grace.” Notice I said “some.” I am an eternal optimist and thus, it is my hope that these folks are in the minority of SBC life.
Thanks for the link. I’m glad I discovered your blog. I’ll be a regular reader from now on.
Regards,
Les
Thanks, Les. I look forward to conversing/inter-blogging with you.
We have several churches in our association that are trying to have our DOM removed from his ministry. However out of approximately 40 churches in the association 30 or more are firmly supporting our DOM. Sadly one church has pulled away from the association because of “calvinistic leadership”.
Hold to the Truth,
Earl O’ Cartwright..
DJ
I don’t care who is against you, I am for you! I am forever grateful for you teaching me the “correct” doctrines. Those are Christ’s doctrines, who is that Calvin guy anyway? You are a great minister and teacher.
Salute!
David Grant
I’m going to ask a couple of stupid questions. Please don’t think me a willing dissenter or someone that is trying to initiate a split, but w/ this pathetic opposition and unwillingness to cooperate should we not at least consider that there may be a time coming when we may have to leave? I don’t want to leave and should not have to leave since my denomination was started by Reformed theologians, but what do we do from here? Our convention has been apprehended by the doctrine of emotion and good ol’ boy standards. It appears to be getting much worse…
Ray
Brothers,
A simple question – Does the influence of the SBC upon a local church work against or for biblical reformation?
What are you thoughts?
Grace to all,
Steve
Ray:
You haven’t asked any stupid questions. Personally, I think it wise to consider other options. Why waste time with those who want to fight against you and expel you when you could spend your time, which is limited here on this earth, working with more like-minded people for the sake of the Kingdom? I know some won’t leave unless they are forced to do so. Others hope for the best and believe that everyone will eventually be able to work together. To me, this sounds eerily familiar to convention life in the 80s. To be quite honest, I don’t see this situation improving. I think it will only become more heated. My reasons for viewing this situation this way are denominational history, personal experience, personal observation (what I’ve seen and heard about the experiences of others), and the personalities involved. You are asking questions that many others have been asking for quite some time now.
Steve:
Let’s ask another… what kind of influence does the denomination generally have upon the local church? From where does that influence come (e.g., mission board presidents, seminary presidents, mega-church pastors, state convention leaders, DOMs)? My opinion (which will get you a free cup of coffee at Starbucks with the right coupon) is that denominational influence has been a significant factor in producing congregations in which biblical illiteracy and the number of unregenerate church members is high while the concern for biblical polity and exercising biblical church discipline is low. Such influence makes it difficult for a local church to work for biblical reformation. BTW, by “reformation,” I don’t mean turning members into “Calvinists.” I mean, by that term, having a church which believes and practices regenerate church membership and is concerned with proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ in word and in deed to the community and to the world.
That’s really not a simple question.
[...] the associations annual meeting last month. I know nothing about this brother. I found this out at 2 Worlds Collide, which went on to say that there were no questions from the floor, and the motion passed. I [...]
Hey Rev,
I would be happy with just seeing the 9Marks practiced in the churches. But I do not see that happening anytime soon.
Great blog!
Grace to you,
Steve
Steve:
How many of the 9 do you think are typically found in the “average” SBC church? For those of you trying to keep score at home, here are the 9Marks to which Steve is referring:
1. Expositional Preaching
2. Biblical Theology
3. Biblical Understanding of the Good News
4. Biblical Understanding of Conversion
5. Biblical Understanding of Evangelism
6. Biblical Understanding of Membership
7. Biblical Church Discipline
8. Promotion of Christian Discipleship and Growth
9. Biblical Understanding of Leadership
Rev,
I must regretfully say none. : (
It really is a sad state in the “average” SBC church. There is a very small minority of churches like Capitol Hill Baptist Church and some other Founders Friendly types, but they are not your average SBC church.
My experience has been along the lines that if a pastor tried to implement the 9Marks the “average” SBC church would probably dismiss the pastor.
For His Supremacy,
Steve
Steve:
I would concur. While I was in seminary I had friends who were also pastoring in local SBC churches. We shared our stories, tried to bandage each other’s wounds, and prayed for one another. All of these friends had something in common… they were conservative, Bible-believing men who believed that faith should be lived out in both individual lives and in the life of the congregation. All of them got beat up for it. And no, it wasn’t a “Calvinism” issue with these guys. The problems always centered around biblical leadership (”Will the men please stand up?”) and regenerate church membership (”Faith without works is dead”). Even the problems I experienced in the two churches over “Calvinism” were tied to these issues. Of course, pastors will *always* have problems related to the pastorate (just read the NT epistles). Nonetheless, I’m convinced that nearly all of them are interwoven with biblical leadership and membership. Just my 2 cents.
Rev,
I may get hammered by some for even suggesting this, but should we really be investing so much of our ministry in attempting to revive the SBC? Life is so brief and we will give account. Are we not called to be churchmen, rather than denominational men?
Steve
That is a lot of where I am too Steve. I am so sick of this bickering in the SBC and on the other levels of the convention that I want to be deleted out of the SBC equation. However, the support and love for the Cooperative Program keeps me in there. I wish there was another convention that had a cooperative program, that held to many of the SBC’s views, and was totally reformed.
(Jokingly)..Earley suggests the following..
1. Reformed Baptist Convetion
2. James Galyon for President of the RBC
3. Gunny Hartman for VP
Any takers?…
Earl O’ Cartwright
Steve:
You won’t get hammered here, brother, especially since I’ve asked the same question on several occasions.
Ray:
1. There is ARBCA and FIRE. Several churches have gone these routes already.
2. No thanks!
3. Gunny for Prez!
Which views of the SBC do you want to see upheld?
A question for meditation: While the CP provides the world’s most excellent support for missionaries, has it made us reliant upon the system rather than upon God?
Dear Steve and Others,
Since I was shoved by God out of an SBC church to an independent church, I have considered the SBC question quite a bit. So far, the words of a NAMB missionary who was featured in a VBS missions video have kept ringing in my ears. “The most important thing we try to do is just let everyone know that God loves them.” Why should I lead my church into the SBC to participate in the CP to fund this kind of nonsense? We are considering ARBCA instead, and supporting mission organizations such as Heart’s Cry.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Jeff:
You might want to clarify a bit. After all, the Scripture does speak plainly about God’s love for sinners. However, when some speak in general about God’s love they seem not to get around to the topics of God’s wrath, justification, the cross, etc. Care to spell out what you would have liked to have seen and heard in that video?
Bro.James,
I was referring to the SBC views on missions, conservative issues, i.e. abortion, opposition to homosexual agenda, etc..
Looking into ARBCA and FIRE…
Thanks,
Earl O Cartwright
Ray:
Thanks for pointing out those particulars.
There is a question that I have asked SBC brothers before and I NEVER get an answer – just silence.
The question is this:
“Is the SBC Cooperative Program biblical?”
What I mean by this is that we are to subscribe not only to the inerrancy of Scripture but also to the sufficiency of Scripture. Does the NT Scriptures lay out before us the means or method to fulfill the Great Commission? Personally I believe it does and I do not see this monstrous ecclesiastical federal government like thing called the SBC Cooperative Program.
In light of the sufficiency of Scripture, what is the model for missions found in the New Testament? This would be a great topic for discussion on this blog.
For His Supremacy,
Steve Clevenger
Steve:
Stick around, we’ll discuss it shortly!
Hi — I found your blog while cross-referncing something.
I pastor with the Evangelical Free Church. The story you relate is the biggest reason why I won’t pursue a D.Min at the Lousiville seminary. Nothing bad about the seminary — I just don’t see any value in becoming connected to an organization (the SBC) that I know I wouldn’t want to belong to even as a church member, and would never be accepted as a pastor because of my Reformed beliefs. Part of the value of a good D.Min experience is the greater ministry network to which a program introduces you. I know there are some good SBC churches around, but I could never pastor one, so why get a D.Min from any SBC seminary? Even one that is close and convenient…
Jack:
Thanks for stopping by 2WC. Hope you’ll visit again. I would actually encourage you to consider D.Min. work at SBTS. A good friend of mine went through the program and it was a tremendous benefit to him. Although the seminary is SBC, each student’s program is based upon the ministry in his own local church/setting. SBTS is the most “Reformed friendly” institution in the SBC, and several of the SBC congregations in that area are Reformed-minded. You certainly bring up a good point with the networking aspect, no doubt. I think you would find some solid fellowship with other believers there, both SBC and non-SBC.
Where is the line drawn at “getting along”?
I recently resigned from teaching a sunday school class and subsequently left this particular church because my reformed teaching in the Sunday School class was directly opposed to what my (now former) pastor was teaching from the pulpit. We can say that “Calvinism” only effects one’s Soteriology, but I find this being dishonest for the sake of amity. Being “mercied” by God with the understanding of His plan in my salvation has changed the way that I view, not only how I became “saved”, but it has changed my understanding of God, and consequently effects how I understand His Word and what it says.
I still consider the people in my former church brothers and sisters in Christ, (for perfect understanding is not a requirement of salvation) but I can no longer suffer under the teaching that God is constantly being trumped by Satan in the salvation of men’s souls.
I am now visiting a church in which the pastor is a reformed brother, but the associate pastor does not hold this belief. Is it wrong of me to have a problem with joining this congregation? The associate pastor has no qualms with asserting his view of “God’s election based on our selection” while the pastor’s teaching is diametrically opposed to this. How do we co-exist in this environment? We can say, “well the associate pastor should just keep his opinions to himself”, but his biblical job description is teaching.
I believe that the teachers (not the congregation necessarily) of the church should be unified in essential doctrines (and I believe the doctrines of grace are essential) to prevent confusion and divisions within the local body. I believe these doctrines are essential because of the way that the doctrines of grace have changed the way that I view God and His Word. Essential for salvation: No (thus we do not break fellowship with our Arminian brothers). Essential for proper theology: Yes (therefore we do not corrupt our worship by corrupting our understanding of God)
Spurgeon argued that it was a “departure from Calvinism” that lead to the downgrade of the Baptist church in England and I fear the same thing has happened to our convention.
If you believe that I am in error in my conclusion, I humbly ask that you help me to understand why I am wrong.
abclay:
You aren’t the only one asking, “Where is the line drawn at ‘getting along’?” “Calvinism” does affect much more than one’s view of soteriology because “Calvinism” is a world-view which sees God as God… the Lord over history, providentially guiding it and working all things according to the counsel of His own will (Is 48:9-11; Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11).
You are right to still consider the people in your former church brothers and sisters in Christ, for if they have trusted Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins, they are. I dn’t blame you for removing yourself from under the preaching taking place, namely, that the evil one trumps the Almighty in some form or fashion. That certainly isn’t Christianity, but a form of dualism from which every orthodox Christian must shirk. I’m glad to hear that you are visiting a congregation where the pastor is Reformed. Is it wrong for you to have a problem with joining this congregation? Not necessarily. I think you should weigh the decision carefully. Is the congregation sitting willingly under the pastor’s preaching? Is the associate creating unhealthy division over the issue, trying to gain a following against the pastor? Is he being successful? If he isn’t attempting anything like this, and he is able to work peaceably with the pastor, and if the congregation is joyfully sitting under the preaching of the pastor, then I would encourage you to prayerfully consider being a part of the church. How do you co-exist in such an environment? Grace and love and patience. I’ve pastored a church in which one of my associates became Reformed under my teaching and preaching (though he was “kicking and screaming” for a while) and in which the other associate did not. Despite our differences, I sought to always treat these men with respect, kindness, care and fatherly affection. *Both* of them (one now Reformed, the other not), both count me as their mentor. We worked together for our Lord and His Kingdom.
Like you, I believe that the teachers of the church should be unified in essential doctrines. I would argue, however, that the essentials would include such things as the authority of Scripture, Trinitarian theology, substitutionary atonement, justification, sanctification, and regenerate church membership. I think election and predestination are “secondary” in the sense that one may indeed be a faithful Christian and not embrace them. Of course, I also believe that not believing in election, etc., leaves one with a very incomplete understanding of Scripture and therefore a less than complete picture of God. Even when that is the case, our Lord calls us to love our brothers and sisters, to bear with them in their weakness, and to labor for their well being.
Confusion and division within the local body will occur when love is absent and when
clarification isn’t offered graciously (e.g., “Pastor John and I view this differently. Here’s why. Despite the differences, we both agree on these essential issues, which is important and right.”)
I hope this helps some. Please continue to drop by and interact. I think we’ll probably agree on many, many things, and trust that God’s grace will preserve respect if and when we don’t.
No one ever said it would be easy. In fact, our Lord spoke of a cross, trials, etc. We just have to let these things make us sweeter. These folks so much opposed to Sovereign Grace must choose to ignore historical facts, evidence that cannot be denied, but a blind person can’t see and all the fussin in the world will not help him to see one bit. Mr. Caner’s ignorance of Baptist History is inexcusable for the head of a seminary. Still it is easy to shoot from the hip. Hey, folks we are going to win by being sweeter, kinder, better, more winsome. And by suffering, being defeated, dying, if necessary. We can infect them. Most of the tme I have found folks afraid of the truth. It is when they began to grasp its value and power that they change. Remember, it is this theology which produced the First and Second Great Awakenings and the beginning of the Great Century of Missions. And it is this theology which will produce the Third Great Awakening, the one which takes the whole earth in one generation and perhaps for a 1000 generations. “You ain’t see nuttin yet!” Let us plead all those promises for such a visitation that Edwards compiled in his Humble Attempt which Carey and others did plead which led to the Second Great Awakening and the beginning of the Great Mission Movement. My research into the nature an application of biblical doctrines as demonstrated in church history reveals that such teachings make people balanced, flexible, and creative. The greatest outburst of creativity in world history after the first century occurred in American from 170-1820. Just look at what happened….and that inspite of the charade that we observe in our nation’s history at that time. Yes, a real work of God can take place in the presence of a terrible work of deception. In the end the Gospel shall triumph. The earth shall be filled with His knowledge and glory as the waters that cover the sea (Isa.11:9; Hab.2:14; Ps.72:19).