This election doesn't need to be about Calvinism...and I hope it isn't.

All the candidates were asked about Calvinism by B21. Here is what they said. Crosby gave a short answer so his is complete below. Gaines and Greear gave longer answers, so I have excerpted theirs. Click to see the whole interview.

J. D. Greear: I am pretty confident that if you asked the average person at the Summit whether we were “Calvinist” or “non-Calvinist,” they wouldn’t know what to tell you. I prefer the balance of the BFM 2000 here. We are committed to preaching the Bible, doing the work of evangelism, and giving God all the credit.

David Crosby: No one in the SBC is about to reveal a theological fix to this centuries-old theological conundrum. Anyone who thinks they have tied up all the loose ends is either self-deluded or a heretic. Therefore our solution must be found in the common ground we share in Christ and the work we do together, as it has always been. I don’t want to throw out anyone on either side of this theological discussion. We must focus on Christ and the gospel. We must fight the “party spirit” that always seeks to divide and weaken our work. We can do this work together. If we do it together, we will get more done for our Savior. He prayed that we would be one. Let’s cooperate with the Spirit in the unity he is bringing to the bride of Christ.

Steve Gaines: The SBC has always had Calvinists and non-Calvinists. I’m fine with that, as long as one side does not seek to dominate the other. Calvinism does not need to be taught as the exclusive, optimal theological viewpoint in our seminaries. Non-Calvinist students should not be subjected to Calvinistic professors who proactively seek to convert them to Calvinism. None of our seminaries should have a faculty of professors who are exclusively Calvinistic. Non-Calvinistic professors should be an integral part of each one of our seminary faculties because most Southern Baptists are not Calvinists, and they are the ones that fund our seminaries and pay the salaries of our professors.

While all of them call for working together and unity, only Steve Gaines goes to the specifics of "optimal theolog[y]" in the seminaries, students being subjected to proselytizing profs, and the warning against exclusively Calvinistic faculties.

Huh? Why go after the Calvinists and include all the detail warnings about seminaries and their faculty and practices?

Well, whatever it is, he repeats the same things in an interview with The Baptist Message:

Gaines said the Baptist Faith and Message is broad enough for both groups, but because the majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists, Calvinism should not be taught as the principal theological position of any SBC entity.

“I do believe that our students need to know about Calvinism. I don’t mind our seminaries teaching about Calvinism, but it should not be the exclusive theological position taught in any of our schools,” he said.

We should expect all leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention and all entities serving our denomination to affirm, to respect, and to represent all Southern Baptists of good faith and to serve the great unity of our Convention. No entity should be promoting Calvinism or non-Calvinism to the exclusion of the other. Our entities should be places where any Southern Baptist who stands within the boundaries of The Baptist Faith and Message should be welcomed and affirmed as they have opportunities to benefit from, participate in, and provide leadership for those entities.

I haven't heard a candidate for major office, or prominent SBC leader bring the matter up since the report was presented three years ago until Steve Gaines, twice now, tossed out the comments about SBC seminaries, faculties. 

Salient question not asked of Steve Gaines: Do you think that there is a problem in any of our seminaries or entities in regard to Calvinism? 

 

2013 Predictions, Plodder is no genuine prophet

...but would win the batting championship if this were baseball. My predictions for this year and evaluation of the same:

1. Fred Luter will be reelected. Nothing big to happen here. In a moment of prescience, I got this one right.

2. There will be contested SBC vice president elections. Got this right as well. A little known blogger elected as 2nd VP in a session that clearly lacked a quorum. While the 2nd VP is a rather obscure and meaningless position, we should follow our own by-laws in the future. Parliamentarians and presiding officers please pay closer attention.

3. The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission will get a new leader. Whomever he is will have some work to do to restore credibility. Right again. Russell Moore, and he has started well, although unprepared for the Housing Allowance court decision.

4. Frank Page's Calvinist Advisory Team will issue a report early this year.  Whatever they end up with will probably be quickly forgotten. Right again. They issued a report that I judged to get some things right and missed the mark on some other things . Quickly, what did the report say? That's what I thought. It's all forgotten now. There was a bit of an eruption over damnation of infants but that has subsided. 

5. I predict that Calvinism in the SBC will look back on 2012 as their high water mark and that SBC Calvinist news for 2013 will be mostly unhelpful to their movement. On the first part, it is too early to tell. Judge me guilty of making a macro prediction. On the 2013 Calvinist news being unhelpful, maybe. Jason K. Allen, new head of Midwestern Seminary made some remarks I thought unhelpful.

6. Some SBC agencies will hire senior level staff who are African American. Well, if they have they are under the radar. 

7. In contrast to the above, the only high profile females in SBC life will be wives of prominent pastors. Name any senior staff level females in any SBC entities. Right on this one.

8. The Cooperative Program will continue to be flat, which is a welcome improvement. Wrong. The CP showed another decline, only about 2%, but that is not flat. It's more of the gentle downward incline. Some states, Georgia for one, showed surprisingly steep drops in CP giving. 

9. State conventions will continue to feel the most pressure financially and more churches will use various methods to fund NAMB and the IMB directly without diluting their giving to these through the Cooperative Program. True and correct. Both major mission offerings increased last year while the CP dropped. If the trend lines continue for a decade or so there will be as much given to Lottie Moon alone as to the entire SBC portion of the CP. 

10. What is euphemistically termed "complementarianism" will have a bad year, mainly due to a few high profile Calvinist churches. Nah, nothing much happened here. 

11. GuideStone will finally accede to political realities and get around to addressing the reality of Obamacare as it relates to their comprehensive health insurance for ministers. The outcome will not be good. I give myself a neutral grade here. GuideStone was rather quiet on ObamaCare except for the abortion/birth control mandate. They have announced that they will no longer write individual policies. Only God knows what is ahead for SBC ministers and GuideStone comprehensive health coverage, although we all know it will continue to cost more if they offer it.

12. Southern Baptists my age will continue to lament the absence of Adrian Rogers or anyone of his stature. Since I so lamented, I judge myself correct here.

What I did not see coming?

The housing allowance, our Sacred Clergy Tax Break, being ruled unconstitutional. I will certainly have a prediction for 2014 on this.

Jason K. Allen eliminates Calvinists from the SBC

It's so simple. Just refuse to allow the use of the term "Calvinist." Presto! No more Calvinists.

Jason K. Allen is the SBC's youngest seminary president, having been put into the driver's seat of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, our most problem-plagued seminary, less than one year ago. He is doubtless an outstanding individual and has my prayers for success in his task at MBTS.

He has wrote a piece this past Tuesday, "Are you a Calvinist? Rethinking theological labels."

The article is a thoughtful and reflective treatment of the use of theological labels http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default and specifically of that single most important theological matter in our beloved SBC these days - Calvinism. .

Allen was preaching at a church recently and described a question he was asked:

I have one question for you. Are you a Calvinist?” 

That question is not an uncommon one, but it’s a question that might be more difficult to answer than first thought. To this gentleman, I reflexively replied, “To be honest, sir, I have no idea what you mean by that question.” He smiled and responded, “I have no have idea what I meant by the question either.”

The story illustrates my experience with not a few Calvinists and I suspect it illustrates the experience of many, many a pastor search committee's conversation with a prospective pastor who is Calvinistic. 

The Calvinistic candidate will rather have a shard of glass stuck in his eye than to let the sentence "Yes, I am a Calvinist" pass from his ministerial lips.

Allen suggests three "principles for doctrinal discourse," What is most biblical; what is most forthright, and what is most wise." In discussing the three points he asserts this,

 If someone else has hijacked the term or loaded it with freight you never intended, to embrace it might not only be unwise, but downright foolish. Instead be forthrightly biblical and not foolishly sign on to a label that was divorced from its true meaning long ago.

This is a conclusion almost universally shared by SBC Calvinists. The thinking goes like this: "Calvinism is a snarl word, a term loaded with bad images and experiences in the minds of some laypeople. It is not helpful to me as a pastoral candidate; therefore, I will never, ever allow it to be applied to me and I will talk doctrinal circles around any committee who presses me on it."

I hear Calvinists often say of the label, "I don't use it because it is not particularly helpful," or "I never accept that because it is so broadly used," or similar.

I acknowledge that Allen and my Calvinistic SBC friends do have a problem here. There is some negative cachet to this term that best describes their theological stance. (My graybeard SBC colleagues will recall that SBC moderates tried to eliminate the term "moderates" as applied to them back during the heated days of the Conservative Resurgence. They even had Baptist Press invent some new terms to their liking. It didn't work.) I'm thinking that "Calvinism" is too ingrained to be eliminated now.

Allen concludes with this:

Theological conversation is most always good, but it can be improved when it takes place on higher ground. To conceal one’s theological convictions is at once disingenuous and cowardly, and no self-respecting minister should be either. Rather, let’s be Bereans, studying the Scriptures and articulating our convictions in ways that are most biblical, most forthright, and most wise.

 I don't know a Calvinist who thinks he is disingenuous and cowardly and I appreciate Allen, Tom Ascol and others, including the Calvinist Advisory Committee whose report said,

In order to prevent the rising incidence of theological conflict in the churches, we should expect all candidates for ministry positions in the local church to be fully candid and forthcoming about all matters of faith and doctrine, even as we call upon pulpit and staff search committees to be fully candid and forthcoming about their congregation and its expectations. 

While I don't disagree with Allen on this, I wonder what is the best course for conversations between search committees and prospective ministers if "Calvinism" is off limits?

One solution, a few years old now, was what came to be called a Calvinist smoke out guide.

One might look askance at the title for this but it's tough to argue that a church committee doesn't need some guide for assessing the theological stance of interviewees. Since we have eliminated all Calvinists from the SBC, perhaps LifeWay could publish one. It looks as if there is a market. ;)

What can be done and what cannot be done on the Calvinist/Traditionalist issue

Most Southern Baptists are pleased with the outbreak of harmony, unity, and comity between convention Calvinists and Traditionalists. Only those brethren who in a screwball sort of way, think that a lack of conflict somehow signals a lack of denominational health are displeased with the Calvinist/Traditionalist convention actions and post-convention results.

I'm pleased.  I like peace and harmony.

I'm optimistic. I like for the brethren and sistren to get along and join together in pooling our considerable resources in the important tasks of reaching North America and the word for Christ.

But I'm also realistic. There are those among us who make up both tails of the SBC C/T Bell Curve. These would be the militant Calvinists who believe that anything less than the fully formed five points is not just wrong but heretical and who seek to correct such heresy in churches or anywhere else it is found. These would also be the hard-nosed and hard headed Traditionalists who think that we are in a death struggle against Calvinists in our churches and entities and that Traditionalists need to fight and win every battle. 

What can be done:

1. SBC entity leaders like Frank Page, Al Mohler, Danny Akin, Paige Patterson et al as well as leaders who are not SBC employees like Tom Ascol and Eric Hankins need to maintain a cooperative, irenic posture toward each other and also to be conscious of the reality that Southern Baptists will be watching very closely both their words and actions. After all, we are on the same side.

2.  Calvinistic entity heads should watch their employment structure. It is not helpful to give the perception that we are dividing up the seminaries into those that are Calvinistic and those that are Traditionalistic. I offer Danny Akin's recent words that Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary will be a Calvinist seminary "over [his] dead body" and his invitation for any who think it is to come to the campus, at SEBTS' expense, and see for themselves.

3. Those who have influence, especially among the Calvinists at the seminaries, should publicly and frequently be heard counseling the young Calvinistic theologs to be open and transparent in their conversations with churches where they are potential staff candidates.

What cannot be done:

1. The extremists will not be silenced, especially on the blogs, but they can be isolated and ignored.

2. Some churches have, and will likely continue, to negatively designate their Cooperative Program giving in order to defund some entities, namely Southern and Southeaster seminaries. While there is nothing new about designating giving and while it is a legitimate option for any local church, sensible voices can respond that this is neither helpful nor necessary.

3. We will not be able to prevent future candidates for SBC offices and entity CEO positions from being seen, and judged by some, as Calvinist or Traditionalist.

I still like some things about Calvinists and think that in various ways they are helpful in the SBC and I am still wary about some things concerning Calvinists, but I am more optimistic about the future than I have been.

Where Frank Page's Calvinist Team Missed the Mark

While I do not disagree with the report of the Calvinist Study Team and while there are things in it that are helpful, after reading and reflecting on it I feel like I've eaten a mayonnaise and lettuce sandwich - it did not taste bad and it was a meal but it just didn't satisfy my appetite. Having some bacon and tomato would have made it much more substantial.

I commend Frank Page, our Executive Committee CEO, for the effort but here are some ways that I think the team missed the mark.

There is no strategy.

My goal is to develop a strategy whereby people of various theological persuasions can purposely work together in missions and evangelism... most likely there will be the crafting of a statement regarding the strategy on how we can work together."            -  Frank Page

The Calvinist group's statement has no strategy. It does state areas of agreement, cooperation, common goals, as well as call on SBC individuals and entities to affirm and respect each other but there is no strategy. The group does not ask SBC seminary trustees, for example, to formally affirm that their institution does not and will not discriminate in hiring of faculty on the basis of Calvinism or non-Calvinism.

The group has a consensus statement, not insignificant but not a strategy.

The group failed to show that honest conversation among us can be helpful and beneficial.

We affirm the responsibility of all Southern Baptists to guard our conversation so that we do not speak untruthfully, irresponsibly, harshly, or unkindly to or about any other Southern Baptist. This negativity is especially prevalent in the use of social media, and we encourage the exercise of much greater care in that context.

We deny that our cooperation can be long sustained if our conversation becomes untruthful, uncharitable, or irresponsible.

While the group took time to assail the untoward conversations "especially prevalent" in social media,  a shot at SBC bloggers who have been discussing the problems with Calvinists and Calvinism in the SBC for years, they were not willing to have their discussion in public where they could demonstrate how SBCers should have these conversations.

Ordinary SBCers regularly receive from their leaders magisterial pronouncements about how prominent SBCers need privacy in order to have honest discussions about matters that cause tension among us.

Hogwash.

The private meetings of leaders who are unwilling to discuss things where others can witness and hear their conversations about common problems is self-serving, unhelpful, and destructive. And to assail those who are willing to publicly discuss these matters, even if the discussion is sometimes negative, while having their conversations kept secret, is hypocrisy.

I am not unaware of the dynamics here. I suspect that there are people on this Calvinism group who have ambitions for SBC offices and leadership positions and they would rather not have their words on record where such might harm their career path. I do not assign this to any specific individual but only the naive among us would deny that this is one motive for private meetings.

Brethren, if you think it important to call out bloggers and twitterers for untruthful, uncharitable, and irresponsible conversations then act like Christian men and have your conversations where the rest of us can learn from your example.

Let's be honest here. The only arena where one can find routine conversations on Calvinism and Traditionalism in the SBC is among the blogs. Those may be imperfect but there are preferable to a group that meet and discusses in secret and then grandly pronounces how the rest of us should act and what we should do.

The instructions to ministry candidates and search committees was weak and ignored the obvious.

In order to prevent the rising incidence of theological conflict in the churches, we should expect all candidates for ministry positions in the local church to be fully candid and forthcoming about all matters of faith and doctrine, even as we call upon pulpit and staff search committees to be fully candid and forthcoming about their congregation and its expectations.

Many SBC churches have had difficulty when staff candidates have not been forthcoming about their theological convictions and any call for openness and transparency is a good move.

The problem is that the reason for this paragraph being included is not that there have been vast numbers of SBC ministry candidates who were not candid and forthcoming about their Traditionalist beliefs. The problem is that there have been numbers of Calvinist ministry candidates who deliberately and deceitfully conceal their Calvinistic beliefs and goals in order to be more appealing to a church search committee.

Tom Ascol, Al Mohler, and other Calvinistic members of the group know this. Frank Page knows this. Ordinary SBCers like myself know this. Why not be plain and straightforward and say what needs to be said here?

The report makes no mention whatsoever of some of the most significant realities about the Calvinist/Traditionalist conflict.

These are, (1) Some churches are now negatively designating their Cooperative Program giving so as not to have any of their money going to Southern and Southeastern seminaries because they are considered to be too Calvinistic, (2) Graduates of these same two seminaries are being blackballed in some quarters because of the perception of excessive institutional Calvinism, (3) Many in the SBC are calling for some quota on the proportions of Calvinistic and Traditionalistic SBC leaders.

Did you guys even talk about these?

The report makes no mention of two looming problems caused by Calvinists in churches: Elder rule and destructive church discipline.

Perhaps it was felt that the group should avoid unpleasant thoughts and discussions but some SBC congregations have been ripped apart by Calvinists who implemented a polity whereby the church was owned and ruled by a small cabal of elders. Is such consistent with or contrary to the Baptist Faith and Message? Did you guys even talk about this?

Calvinistic leaders Al Mohler and Tom Ascol have been vocal in calling for the reintroduction of church discipline in SBC churches. Unfortunately, not a few churches who have heeded their call have created a nightmarish system by which a church is controlled by a coterie of paid
staff and cronies to the harm of the congregation and individual members. Did you guys have a conversation on this?  Did any names come up as examples of how church discipline can go terribly awry?

Were I to be present in Houston, I would vote in favor the group's report, but they could have done better.

What Frank Page's Calvinist Team Got Right

Frank Page, our Executive Committee’s “Chief Encouraging Officer” as he likes to describe himself, did well in an honest attempt to stave off further harm to our cooperative work by establishing an informal team to develop  "a strategy whereby people of various theological persuasions can purposely work together in missions and evangelism."

He recognized that Calvinism is a problem in the SBC that will harm us if matters continue as they have for the past decade or so, one of the reasons I both like and respect him.

The 19 member team has issued a report which can be found in this Baptist Press article.

 The team got most things right, including:

1. The Baptist Faith and Message is fine as is and needs no changes.

2. We agree with each other on the doctrines that are most critical.

3. We disagree on some things, none of which are deal breakers.

4. We should disagree agreeably and avoid unhealthy acrimony and disputing.

5. No  SBC entity should promote Calvinism or non-Calvinism to the exclusion of the other.

6. All SBC entities should be welcoming and affirming to both Calvinists and non-Calvinists.

7. Candidates for church positions should be candid about their beliefs, as should the church searching for a minister.

8. Hyper-Calvinism should be rejected.

Not that it’s worth much, but I predicted almost all of these a couple of weeks ago.

The critical conclusions are 1, 6, & 7:

The BFM is our common denominator. Don't mess with it.

As a denomination, we should not employ individuals nor fund institutions that are partisan in this theological respect.

We should not tolerate agencies and institutions that fail to welcome and affirm both Calvinists and non-Calvinists.

I liked Page’s leadership on this and appreciate the effort. There is nothing about the report that troubles me and I commend it all. Perhaps it will help things.

After ruminating on it I am left thinking that we Southern Baptists are predictable to a fault: A problem is recognized. A blue ribbon group is formed. They meet behind closed doors and discuss it. A report is issued complete with alliteration. Prominent individuals offer high praise for the effort and for the folks involved. We slap backs, congratulate each other on how wonderful we are and then go home and forget about it all. I hope this is not the case.

Next: What the team got wrong.

  

What's Frank Page's Calvinist Team to say?

Frank Page's Calvinist advisory team, a group of mostly SBC luminaries, leaders, and heavyweights will issue a report during the convention next month. Forgive my pessimism, but the prospects for much impact have diminished greatly since he announced the informal group last June in New Orleans.

They have met. They have discussed, in the lamentably traditional Southern Baptist method of being behind closed doors and without ordinary Southern Baptists being able to listen, and have issued bland statements.

So, what is to come out of this?

Nothing to do with the Baptist Faith and Message Statement, unless it is to restate that the BFM allows for both Calvinist and Traditionalist beliefs.
Page said as much earlier:

I have no interest in changing The Baptist Faith and Message. It has been wisely crafted by previous generations of thoughtful, thinking Baptists to allow for a breadth of interpretations about God's purpose of grace. It was written so that Calvinists and non-Calvinists can join hands and hearts for the common cause of world evangelization.

Current SBC president Fred Luter gave an indication of the outcome in March when he said,

"There's going to be a proclamation given out that hopefully will satisfy everybody," Luter said. "We've got to look at this thing as spiritual warfare. ... It's an issue that has to be dealt with, and unless we deal with it in a Christian-like manner, I really believe the enemy can come and divide us."

I love an optimist and someone who has hopes that "everybody" in the SBC will be satisfied. Such a person is either an incorrigible optimist or has just arrived from Mars. Luter is not from Mars.

Here is my rank conjecture as to what the team's report will say:

1. Both traditions are welcome in the SBC and have been historically present.
2. SBC entity leaders and trustees should be careful not to discriminate on the basis of either Calvinism or Traditionalism in their hiring.
3. SBC seminaries are encouraged to be welcoming and affirming to students from both groups.
4. The BFM is sufficient as it stands and needs no clarification or revision.
5. Southern Baptists of both traditions agree on the primary doctrines and this should be a source of rejoicing.
6. Healthy, civil, congenial, and respectful debate on secondary doctrinal matters is to be expected and even encouraged.

I'm predicting a report that will be encouraging though banal. The silence of this group for the last few months is an indication that nothing surprising is to be expected.

Here are some things that should be said but will not:

1. Any quota system that seeks to apportion seminaries, SBC officers, SBC entity CEOs is harmful and destructive and should be avoided. Trustees should be encouraged to seek the best leaders and administrators and the best and most qualified faculty that are available without regard to how Calvinistic or Traditionalist the candidates are.

2. Trustees of state convention and SBC entities which sponsor websites whose purpose is to promote one camp or the other should reevaluate their priorities and promote Christ instead.

3. Bloggers are to be commended for providing the only arena where the issue of Calvinism and Traditionalism can be discussed openly and civilly by pastors and laypeople in the SBC.

4. Some bloggers who write and comment in a harsh, judgmental, and destructive manner on these issues should just shut up.

5. Any entity that seeks to purge its faculty, administration, or trustee board from either Calvinists or Traditionalists should feel the weight of disapproval from Southern Baptists of both camps and should be marginalized and condemned.

6. Prospective Calvinist pastors should avoid blowing up churches in order to correct what they see as heresy and should fully disclose their intents prior to accepting a pastorate.

7. Any new SBC war along the lines of the Conservative Resurgence of a generation ago will be very costly to our already beleaguered Cooperative Program and to the cause of Southern Baptist missions in our country and around the world should be avoided at all costs.

Some have already drawn the battle lines and are determined to fight. I hope that they are few and that we can find a way to shuffle these bellicose Baptists off to the side while the vast bulk of us do the work of Christ.

How I Came To Calvinism

No. Not me.

I'm referring to how I have heard a number of Calvinists describe their theological journey and I will confess that it never fails to surprise me that my Christian brethren describe their experience here in the same manner that one might describe a salvation testimony.

To be clear, I am only gently observing here and do not wish to offend my brethren, nor am I asserting that they elevate their arrival in Geneva with their entry into the Kingdom of God.  But when I read or listen I'm hearing the same things described in the same manner: the day and time, the circumstances, the other people involved, the writings and authors who were instrumental, the moment when it was settled...well, it's a bit much for me.


I would offer the unsolicited counsel that the 'coming to Calvinism' testimonies may prove to be counterproductive.  They may have purchase within the Calvinist tribe but such raises both of my eyebrows and those of many among us, I suspect.

Perhaps a bit of reflection should be prescribed here. Do I really want others to perceive my journey to and arrival at detailed theological convictions as a kind of conversion?

Surely not...unless the Doctrines of Grace have trumped grace itself.

Me genoito!  I hope not.

Are church splits a thing of the past?

I am forced to vote 'yes' they are a thing of the past...but...

Only because we have a new nomenclature for them

Unfriendly Church Starts

I'm not sure what is going on in our denomination but somehow, some way, Plodder did not get the memo on this. Apparently word is out that we no longer have church "splits."

Nosirree. When a group of jut-jawed, disgruntled church members grab a pastor or staff member in the middle of a church squabble and go down the street to start their own church, by gum, we shall speak hereafter and forevermore of this action as an "unfriendly church start."

There. That prickly little problem is fixed. No more splits.

I suppose I lead a sheltered life in the Southern Baptist hinterlands, since the first time I ran across the phrase "unfriendly church start" was last week on Thom Ranier's blog, Four Thoughts on Unfriendly Church Starts.

When I read the headline, my thinking was, "Hmmm, good topic. A church start in an unfriendly area, perhaps amongst the Mormons or Hasidim. I'd like to know more." Instead Ranier was giving advice on the old fashioned, thoroughly Southern Baptist methodology of starting many of our new churches through ugly and angry splits out of existing churches.

Church planting strategists used to enjoy using this line at minister's conferences and evangelism rallys: "You guys know that a sizable proportion of our church starts are actually splits?"

No, I didn't know way back when I first heard that stated. Now I do, although I have not seen anyone toss out actual numbers lately. Such would be rather embarrassing. I certainly hope it is not true today.

Regardless, consider that we clever Southern Baptists have solved yet another thorny ecclesiastical problem with the old Baptists, tried-and-true fix-all tool: Just rename the doggone thing and plow blithely ahead with kingdom work. To wit:

Southern Baptist Convention  :  Great Commission Baptists

Calvinism  :  Doctrines of Grace

Traditionalists  :  Traditionalists (need a bit more work on this one)

Think of it. If we all got on board there would be no more Calvinists in the SBC just doctrines of gracers. Ah, silly dreamer, the Calvinists are already trying this and it ain't working.

Perhaps we could instead buckle down, pray fervently, talk to each other, listen to each other, put a halt to the expectorating contests, and actually fix the problem.

Come to think of it, that would work on the local church and on the denominational level.

Why not try it?

Elder rule and the Baptist Faith and Message

The list of largest churches in the SBC include just nine with reported weekly attendance over 10,000. My curiosity over just how Southern Baptist these churches really are led me to their public information. Most interesting was Village Church, ninth on the list and a church that has their constitution and by-laws on their website.

The SBC at the national level has on occasion kicked out (or taken action to "cease their relationship" if you are picky about the language) churches for being too homosexual friendly and the basis for that action has been the Baptist Faith and Message Statement.

So, I ask a hypothetical question: If a church is found to be non-compliant with the BFM in other areas, should not they too be excised from our convention for the sake of doctrinal consistency?

Just asking. Not suggesting. 

The Village Church, Flower Mound, Texas (legal name: First Baptist Church of Highland Village) looks in their legal documents to be a true elder ruled church, and, seems to me, is a church that is non-compliant with the BFM. 

Article VI of the BFM:

Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.

Village Church constitution:

The overall policy, control, direction and management of the ministry, operations and finances of the church shall be vested in the elder body. The elders are designated as the directors of this corporation as the term is defined and used in the Texas Nonprofit Corporation Act. Subject to the provisions and limitations of the Texas Nonprofit Corporation Act, any limitations in the Articles of Incorporation, this constitution and the church’s bylaws, all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the elders.

Village Church by-laws:

The elders shall have the sole authority to appoint new elders. A man shall be appointed as an elder by a passing vote of the elder body after he has been tested and proven to meet the qualifications stated herein.

The members of the church will be allowed to raise concerns, in accordance with Article 2.01.d herein, before any prospective elder is confirmed. However, confirmation of the elder will be at the final discretion of the elders. The elders may appoint a committee or group to vet qualified elder candidates to the elders. The elders may also receive recommendations for elder candidates from the Covenant Members. 

If the BFM calls for congregational governance ("democratic processes"), and I am unaware of any who say that it does not, is another form of governance something that should be examined?

If the wording of the BFM was deliberately phrased so as to be able to accommodate elder ruled churches, and I cannot quite see how, then perhaps our denominational doctrinal gurus could just say so.

I suppose one could stretch the wording to a ridiculous extreme and say that Village Church's elders operate through "democratic processes" since they (elders only) do vote democratically among themselves, each of the elders having a vote, very democratic. However, I do not see how one could squeeze the congregation into that process.

If one maintains that the congregation voted to give all authority to elders, and at some point in the past one presumes that they did and thus was both democratic and BFM compliant, then the same could be said about the congregation voting for any form of non-congregational governance, say, voting to anoint the senior pastor as King or to rename the church Presbyterian or something similar.

This is a question that is often discussed among the blogs and now Frank Page has this informal Calvinism study group meeting in order to help us acheive some comity over the Calvinist/Traditionalist conflicts. The area of elder governance, elder rule, is an issue that surely, surely, this group has discussed. Unfortunately, their discussions are all on background so we do not get to hear the best minds and the key people around the convention speaking on this important issue.

I might suggest, not on background but right out in the open, this:

"My Calvinist colleagues and friends, Here is an elder ruled SBC congregation. Is this a church that is clearly not in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message Statement?"

"Why or why not?"

"If so, what, if anything, should be done about it?"

I have no quarrel with this particular church and don't get too exercised over how a church chooses to govern itself. Churches may arrange their governance as they see fit and I am, now as always, happy to rejoice where Christ is preached.

It is a salient question to be examined, though, and certainly worthwhile for church laymen to understand. I'd recommend that any church where the word "elder" is raised by a new or prospective pastor check out what elder rule did to this church.

While we were distracted: Secret Calvinism meeting

This past Monday and Tuesday, while America was distracted by the presidential election, there was another secret Calvinism meeting held in Nashville.

Well, no, it wasn't actually secret and I confess to shameless provocation in my title. So sue me.

Baptist Press reported on it:

Calvinism team meets for second time

This was a second meeting of Frank Page's informal Calvinist advisory group. The BP article by "staff" implied that some BP person sat in on the meeting.

The meeting was conducted on background rules involving no quoted statements by or attribution of comments to advisory team members. By consensus, the advisory team agreed that Page would issue a statement after the meeting.

Frank Page has pretty good instincts but I will say again that I think he is making a mistake to have this group meet a bunch of times away from public view and then at the end issue some grand statement. Southern Baptists who are interested in the Calvinist issue and internecine squabbles act like adults for the most part. This philosophy that SBCers cannot tackle a serious matter publicly is wrongheaded and undermines the entire credibility and ultimate effectiveness of this effort.

But this is Frank Page's personal committee and he may certainly do what he wishes with it. Were I closer to Nashville, I would probably ask if I could sit in on the next meeting, even if I had to agree to keep silent about it.

As for the meeting this week, Page issued a boilerplate statement that said not much of anything but did reiterate that he did not intend to recommend any change to the Baptist Faith and Message Statement.

I am not sure what can come out of these private discussions among SBC luminaries that will be helpful to the SBC at large but I am sure that whatever does bubble up out of them will be less helpful that they would be if the meetings were open and public.

Southern Baptists and backroom, private meetings. A marriage made somewhere but not in heaven.

Memo to Midwestern Seminary CEO Search Committee

Brethren,

I see where you have selected a candidate whom the entire trustee body will, presumably, confirm to be the new president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

[Baptist Press story: Jason Allen Nominated to Lead Midwestern]

No doubt all of the committee and trustees are aware that with two failed leaders in the recent past, Midwestern, occasionally described as the weakest of our six seminaries, is suffering more than necessary. If not for the North American Mission Board's spectacular leadership failures, MWBTS would easily be our most troubled institution. NAMB has fixed their problems. One hopes that you are on the road to fixing yours.

You are aware that some Southern Baptists are offering early, gentlemanly criticism of your candidate.

[Peter Lumpkins: Courting Disaster: The Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and No Questions Answered About Presidental Candidate Dr. Jason K. Allen Until After Trustees Vote
Tim Guthrie: Don't Ask, Trust Us! We are in trouble!]

Yes, these are bloggers, but I would speculate that as many Southern Baptists have read their articles as have read the news article of our denominational press.

The questions that are raised are surely things the search committee has spoken of: age, experience, academic background, churchmanship, church affiliation record, and probably most importantly calvinism.

I understand your chairman's desire to be tight-lipped about all of this until the trustee meeting on October 15th and no one questions that Southern Baptists have trusted this process to autonomous trustees, but it might be helpful for you to consider a few things between now and the trustee meeting.

First, Calvinism is the issue of our day. Perhaps you are aware that there are some prominent Southern Baptists individuals and churches who have pulled their funding from two other seminaries on this basis. Perhaps you know that there are Associational Missionaries and others who look askance, rightly or wrongly, at graduates from these two seminaries on the basis of their perceived Calvinistic bent. Do you really think it advantageous to your nominee for the committee not to respond to this? Surely not. If you say nothing, others will define your candidate. You know him best. You have discussed these things. Speak up, please.

Second, this is a different day than ten or twenty years ago. It is not that we do not trust the trustees (even though their past presidential selections have been demonstrably poor ones), we live in a time when Southern Baptists have more access far more quickly to information. You cannot afford to keep silent and let only those who have objections color your candidate for the next few weeks.

Third, I read where prominent SBC leaders (Paul Pressler, Al Mohler, Tom Olliff, and others) have praised your candidate. Good, but general praise from SBC luminaries is insufficient. No doubt the two failed leaders were highly praised as well. More is needed than this. In the absence of information, Southern Baptists in the past have looked to leaders for their signals on how to think on some issues. Such is not so much the case today. More is needed.

Finally, almost all SBCers want to see stability and ethical Christian leadership at our seminary, things that have been missing in the recent past. We pour a lot of Cooperative Program money into MWBTS and deserve more success there for what we are spending. I surmise that most of us make no presumptions about your candidate but legitimate questions have been raised. If you rely on the processes of the past and ignore them, you may harm his chances for success.

You have my prayers.

Blogging to middle school level readers

Please, no gnashing of teeth over this, but most SBC bloggers write at a level suitable for middle school kids.

There are numerous sites for analyzing writing and one that I have checked reveals that most of the popular SBC bloggers generally offer a level of writing on the level of seventh to ninth graders.

Here's a sampling:

SBC Voices: Since they have a number of contributors, the level varies but generally 7th-8th grade with an occasional dip to as low as fifth grade and one contributor that hits high school level.

SBC Today: Egad, ranges from as low as third grade level to an occasional foray into the college grad school level.

Popular individual SBC bloggers: Oh, generally seventh and eighth grade levels, even ex-lawyers.

SBC entity heads: Ranges from 11th grade down to eighth. Seminary presidents generally write at a higher level for which, since we pour a lot of dollars into the schools, I am grateful.

Moderates: Uh oh, the low is around 8th grade and most are 10th and 11th, a bit higher than we conservatives. I'm looking for an elitism and condescension scale to apply to moderates but haven't found one and just have to go with general perceptions. To be fair, I am also in a search for a strutting scale to apply to prominent SBCers and haven't found one of those either.

SBC Plodder: Your humble hacker and plodder generally hits eighth grade through college. If I worked at it I could probably write at a very high level with an elevated obsfucation index which might be a good plan because people would be generally impressed without knowing why. I think I will try an article this week with every obscure polysyllabic word I can think of.

Calvinists: As one might expect, preschool level...just kidding. The more prominent Calvinists are about the same as normal people.

Strident anti-Calvinists: Normal to low.

William Faulkner: Just about off the scale, near incomprehensible, which is why all students cheat and lie about reading his stuff. I find no budding Faulkners among SBC bloggers although I do find a few who write incomprehensibly.

Herman Melville, Moby Dick: Seventh grade...and if it were not a couple of thousand pages long, I would have read the lengthy tome in the seventh grade.

This blog article: About sixth grade but, remember, I have to think about my dear readers and be considerate of them.

Have a good week.

Anti-calvinist SBC headquarters?

Just asking here, brethren and sistren...but is the obscure Georgia Baptist college, Truett-McConnell College now the headquarters of anti-Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention?

It certainly looks that way to this observer.

TMC is local, exactly 55.68 miles north of me, although I have never been on the campus. Maybe I will get an invitation. It is located in a lovely area.

Emir Caner is the president of the college, a Georgia Baptist Convention entity, and he has recently written a piece critical of the new LifeWay curriculum: The Gospel Project: A birdseye view from the Blue Ridge mountains.

The article was posted on the blog SBC Today which is owned by the college. TMC is a Georgia Baptist Convention institution and is in the budget for one million Cooperative Program dollars this year, dollars collected from both Calvinist and non-Calvinist GBC churches.

Certainly SBC Today can legitimately be said to be at least indirectly a GBC blog which makes for an interesting scenario whereby Calvinistic GBC churches are paying for the anti-Calvinist SBC Today blog.

Hmmm...didn't we conservatives object to paying for certain things way back when the Conservative Resurgence was under way?

One wonders if the GBC wants to be tied so closely to one side of an issue where Georgia Baptists are divided.

SBC Today has been the source of a steady stream of anti-Calvinist articles and, as best as I can tell, is the chief blogging source for anti-Calvinism in the SBC. If there is a more prominent blog doing such, I would appreciate one of my readers kindly informing me if I am uninformed and out of touch.

I check SBC Today regularly and like some of their offerings, particularly Joe McKeever's articles. I hope they don't move to all anti-Calvinism, all the time.

I am not a Calvinist and have not a few pieces critical of Calvinists and Calvinism, so don't throw that traditionalist hymnal at me brethren. I'm just asking questions here.

Your church search committee and Calvinist candidates

So, your church is without a pastor and you have been elected to the pastor search committee. In addition to the usual questions about salvation experience, theology, family, and other things, should you be specific and pointed in questioning candidates about Calvinistic beliefs and practices?

In today's SBC climate you would be irresponsible not to.

A couple of years ago there was some reaction to a document circulating about how to smoke out a calvinistic pastor. Tom Ascol blogged about it speaking of that particular set of documents as "wickedness and ignorance."

Seems the attitude has changed a bit towards such things.

 A panel of SBC luminaries (Frank Page, Herschel York, Steve Lemke, and David Dockery) that included both Calvinists and non-Calvinists met last week, Baptist Press reported on it, and part of the panel discussion included advice to search committees.

Lemke said that committees should ask candidates "Are they committed to missions and evangelism," and, "Do they talk more about Calvin than about Jesus?"

Good advice, although some candidates might be offended by the latter question.

While both sides declare fidelity to the concept of honesty and openness in the search process, our search process sometimes doesn't foster a climate where both the church and the candidate is completely forthcoming.

I've never been on a pastor search committee and doubt I will ever be on one. I have been in the position of offering advice and would be more pointed today about advising such a group to be specific and clear about Calvinism.

The best indicator of a prospective pastor's future behavior is his past practices. It is sometimes difficult to achieve but a committee has to find a good way to obtain a reliable third party estimation of the pastor's behavior in his present church.

An associational missionary is sometimes a good source for this but not always. The old search process usually included attending the pastor's present church and hearing him preach but I understand that many pastors today would rather not have a committee show up at their present church.

Our pastor search system has always been messy. In today's denominational atmosphere committees must be better informed and prepared on the issue of Calvinism in the same way that it was necessary for them to be informed about charismatic matters forty years ago or about theological liberalism thirty years ago.

They cannot afford not to be prepared. 

2012 SBC Annual Meeting Predictions

My predictions...from a distance of 527.85 miles:

Election of SBC President

Stop the world:  Fred Luter is not elected.

Shocking: Fred Luter has an unannounced opponent.

Surprising: Fred Luter receives a lackluster nomination.

Ho Hum: Fred Luter is elected as is right, good, positive, and expected.

I regret that  this will not be the biggest story. It should be. It deserves to be.

Election of SBC 1st Vice President

Doesn't matter.

Election of SBC 2nd Vice President

Stop the world:  In a show of statesmanship, unity, and concern for our convention avoiding a destructive return to partisan elections each of the three candidates withdraw and an unknown, fully neutral, replacement candidate is agreed upon.

Shocking:  Dave Miller is elected.

Surprising:  Eric Hankins doesn't win handily.


Ho Hum:  Eric Hankins wins without a runoff.

This election makes me sad because it is being perceived, perhaps not by the candidates but others, as a competition over Traditionalists/Calvinists. This should give an idea of how many votes a high-profile SBC blogger can pull.

Frank Page's Traditionalist/Calvinist 'initiative'

Stop the world: SBC Calvinists and Traditionalists have a confab at Cafe du Monde that ends in a hugfest and everyone agrees to love one another and not seek the preeminence in the SBC. 


Shocking:  Eric Hankins and Dave Miller agree to withdraw from their candidacy for 2nd VP and are put on Page's blue ribbon committee to examine the Calvinist/Traditionalist controversy.


Surprising:  Frank Page recommends to the convention a high-profile study committee which is not heavily weighted with megachurch people. 


Ho Hum: Frank Page, in an honest and sincere effort to avoid another internecine, bloody, and protracted semi-theological denominational conflict appoints a study committee composed of the usual two-thirds megachurch people.

I would love to be shocked on this with either or both of the two middle predictions. We have to come to some agreeable accord on this or it will be ugly.

Attendance

Stop the world: Attendance is down from last year.


Shocking:  Attendance is above 15,000

Surprising:  Attendees eat in moderation and tip appropriately.


Ho Hum: Attendance around 12,500

One should never underestimate the desire of some Southern Baptists to watch train wrecks. Two locomotives are barreling down the tracks toward each other. Let's see if someone can put on the brakes.


Wish I could be there.

What some important SBCers say about Calvinism

In their own words:

Frank Page, President and CEO of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention; October 18, 2011:
 

I think one of the issues which is a tremendous challenge for us is the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism.  Everyone is aware of this, but few want to talk about this in public.  The reason is obvious.  It is deeply divisive in many situations and is disconcerting in others.  At some point we are going to see the challenges which are ensuing from this divide become even more problematic for us.  I regularly receive communications from churches who are struggling over this issue.

Jerry Vines, former SBC president, June 11, 2012:

To deny the strong influence of New Calvinism at Southern or Southeastern is to try to hide the Elephant. I sent a number of young people to both seminaries. Some, not all, returned with unkind, critical attitudes toward their childhood pastor. I am not the only pastor who has experienced this. Even some pastors’ biological sons have caused them personal sorrow because of their conversion to New Calvinism. Perhaps some would have turned out that way regardless. But there is too much of this kind of thing going on to overlook it.

 Ed Stetzer, LifeWay Research, June 14, 2012

If we truly believe the Baptist Faith and Message is our doctrinal standard, then we cannot say that Calvinism, within a Baptist theological system, is itself a problem. Baptist Calvinism fits within our confession; therefore it is reasonable that some in our convention of churches hold to both the Baptist Faith and Message and to a Calvinistic interpretation of Scripture. We can (and should) cooperate in pursuit of the Great Commission. But we also can (and should) differentiate those who are within our confession and passion about cooperation, and those who have let Calvinism define their ministry and culture—an often elitist and agenda-driven Calvinism that is not fitting well in our convention.

Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, June 6, 2012:

...the last thing Southern Baptists need, now or ever, is the development of theological tribalism among us. We must all repent of the sin of building a tribe when we are called to serve the Kingdom of Christ. The more Calvinistic Southern Baptists, and here I include myself, are deeply theological and passionately concerned to get the Gospel right. The Calvinists I know are transforming their beliefs into an absolute renaissance of missionary commissionings and Gospel church planting. At times, however, Calvinists can be tribal and elitist, more concerned with counting points of doctrine and less concerned with pointing us all to the mission of the Gospel. Such a tribalism is inconsistent with the very beliefs we cherish. This goes to show that we, too, can be inconsistent in faith and practice. Of such tribalism we must all repent.

Bill Harrell, former chairman of trustees, Executive Committee of the SBC, October 26, 2006:

“...we must deal with Calvinism. I have solid Christian friends, some of them pastors who are Calvinists, but I think they are wrong about the tenets of five point Calvinism. In my opinion too much of the New Testament must be ignored or radically interpreted to embrace the five points of Calvinism.”
Harrell further explained, “I think the problem of Calvinism in the SBC could be solved if we establish one ground rule. If a man wants to start a Calvinistic church, let him have at it. If a man wants to answer a call to a Calvinistic church he should have the freedom to do that, but that man should not answer a call to a church that is not Calvinistic, neglect to tell them his leanings, and then surreptitiously lead them to become a Calvinistic church. That is not to suggest that all of our Calvinistic friends do that, but when it is done it is divisive and hurtful.

Gerald Harris, editor of The Christian Index, February 12, 2012:

There is a growing perception that Southern Seminary has become a seedbed for a brand of Calvinism that is quite different from the Reformed theology of its founder, James Petigru Boyce, and also a training ground for Reformed church planters. Therefore, it appears that some of our institutions and agencies are giving, at the least, tacit approval to Reformed theology or are, at the most, actively on a path to honor, if not implement Reformed theology and methodology in their institutions.
While most of the Reformed pastors and churchmen I know are gracious and godly people with a profound devotion to the Word of God, Southern Baptists must decide if they are satisfied with what I would call the presumable encroachment of Calvinism in SBC life.

Eric Hankins, preamble to the Calvinist/Traditionalist Statement, May 30,2012:

For the most part, Southern Baptists have been glad to relegate disagreements over Calvinism to secondary status along with other important but “non-essential” theological matters. The Southern Baptist majority has fellowshipped happily with its Calvinist brethren while kindly resisting Calvinism itself. And, to their credit, most Southern Baptist Calvinists have not demanded the adoption of their view as the standard. We would be fine if this consensus continued, but some New Calvinists seem to be pushing for a radical alteration of this long-standing arrangement.

 Frank Page, May 31, 2012:

"Given the depth of the fracture lines around the issue of soteriology across the Convention," Page said, "I sense a need to assemble a representative group of Southern Baptists who can hammer out such a consensus 'accord' that will enable the majority of Southern Baptists to work together for the Kingdom purposes which initially bound us together, an initiative I plan to announce at this year's annual meeting."

I am hopeful that Page's initiative can avoid a protracted, bloody denominational conflict.

Let's start over on the Calvinist/Traditionalist debate

I'm a hacker and a plodder so maybe I don't have this straight. If not, perhaps one of the dozen or so folks who read my witty and insightful blog will enlighten me.

Calvinism in the SBC is recognized as somewhat of a problem.

I have anecdotes personal to me of aggressive, insistent Calvinists coming into churches and implementing, rather bulldogishly and clumsily, a plan to personally correct a century or more of 'heresy.' I have no doubt that this strain of my reformed colleagues is a decided minority.

Some churches have defunded two of our seminaries on the basis of their excessive Calvinistic leanings.

Some Southern Baptists in leadership positions have written contra-Calvinistic books.

Some Southern Baptists advise churches to eschew declared Calvinists, especially graduates of the two seminaries.

Some state convention presidents take gratuitous shots at the Calvinists.

In response, some SBCers, some prominent, some not, put out a document claiming the high ground of traditional Baptist beliefs on soteriology.

The document is aimed at "agressive" Calvinists in the SBC and makes  concise affirmations and denials about soteriology.

Al Mohler is the SBC's most prominent theologian and also our denomination's most visible and prominent Calvinist. He writes a rather irenic blog article in which he agrees that it is time to talk.

He also reacts to the traditionalist's theological statement thusly:

Some portions of the statement actually go beyond Arminianism and appear to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings of sin, human nature, and the human will — understandings that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied.

Note the term "appear". Note the lack of the term "heresy".

In response, Eric Hankins, the individual most prominently mentioned as authoring the contra-calvinist document (and a candidate for one of the SBC vice president slots this month), reacts in a disappointingly combative blog with what in my view looks like excessive indignance, perfectly common for bloggers but not terribly useful here.

If Dr. Mohler intends for his words to engender an irenic but honest debate of these issues, opening with a charge of apparent heresy and chiding its signers for being too ignorant to know it is a strange way to begin. It is important for him to understand that, though he would certainly reject this characterization, he is often considered a principal force behind the very tribalism he is seeking to disavow. Charging us with being heterodox and obtuse doesn’t help. We will hope for his better instincts to prevail as our conversation continues.

Note the word "heresy". Note the word "obtuse". 

Mohler might consider allowing for imperfection in what looks like a hastily formulated theological document. Hankins might consider that it is not helpful to claim victimhood just yet on this.

If necessary, we can have this conversation without Hankins. We cannot have it without the SBC's primo Calvinist, Mohler.  

Jerry Vines has the far better approach. He states only a "general" agreement with the document.

Age, gray hair, and wisdom anyone?

I'm thinking that we need people involved who have the temperament to actually have a conversation. I get the feeling that Vines and Mohler know how to talk to each other. 


Frank Page, author of a contra-Calvinist book rather than a short blog, has said that he will offer an initiative in New Orleans on this whole sordid matter.

He has lots of gray hair and a healthy modicum of wisdom. I have confidence that he is savvy enough to do better than has been done so far.

Would someone please push the reset button on this whole thing. 

One tribe of SBCers is plenty for me

Let's see. We have this common doctrinal document, the Baptist Faith and Message Statement. While it does not exhaustively articulate the doctrines that Southern Baptists feel necessary to under gird our common work, it does serve as the threshold for acceptability among us.

It was good enough for Paul and Silas, and for Adrian and Al a decade ago, right?

SBC Calvinists, a minority position among us,and SBC non-Calvinists, the majority position among us, happily subscribe to the BFM.

Everyone is happy, eh?

Uh, no.

Seems the Calvinists are seen as somewhat uppity (no southerner of a certain age needs to have the term "uppity" explained) and excessively aggressive. They are seen as garnering too much attention, causing too many church problems, and having too much influence.

The SBC Traditionalist statement (warning: extremely slow to load, far too many comments) of last week might have been one of those tediously boring theological pronouncements if not for a rather provocative introduction and preamble. To wit:

This [SBC New Calvinist] movement is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.

The Southern Baptist majority has fellowshipped happily with its Calvinist brethren while kindly resisting Calvinism itself. And, to their credit, most Southern Baptist Calvinists have not demanded the adoption of their view as the standard. We would be fine if this consensus continued, but some New Calvinists seem to be pushing for a radical alteration of this long-standing arrangement.

While we are not insisting that every Southern Baptist affirm the soteriological statement below in order to have a place in the Southern Baptist family, we are asserting that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists and that they do not want Calvinism to become the standard view in Southern Baptist life. We believe it is time to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology.

 I recognize a shot across the bow when I see one and this document is a full broadside. It is difficult to read this and not think that the majority, traditionalist Southern Baptists have in mind only a sterile doctrinal discussion.

Starting about fifteen years ago I began to hear of individual SBC Calvinists agressively insisting on their views in the churches they pastor. This was sometimes framed with language like "correcting heresy" in the church.

I opposed that then. I do so now. Fortunately for we Southern Baptists, there is a highly effective corrective mechanism already in place for such things - local church autonomy as exercised by sensible laypeople. It might be ugly and destructive but this brand of aggressive Calvinist is usually defeated.

But what of Calvinism in general in the SBC? Do the traditionalists believe they have acquired too much power and influence? I've heard some SBCers state exactly that. I've heard state convention presidents take gratuitous shots at Calvinists without provocation. I've heard Associational Missionaries imply that they look askance at graduates of two of our seminaries for this reason.

Al Mohler, elevated in denominational stature though he may be, has his ear to the ground. His response to the traditionalist document welcomes the discussion but warns against degenerating into "theological tribalism."

Here's an observation from one hacker and plodder for Al Mohler: Many Calvinists exhibit a rather high reading on the tribalism scale. Perhaps you could help dial this down. You are the number one Calvinist in the Southern Baptist Convention. Thanks.

Beyond that, every local SBC congregation ought to be savvy enough to know that they have to have the Calvinist conversation with every prospective minister who is being considered for a call to the church staff. Talk about it, then make your respective decisions. You cannot afford not to have the conversation.

Aside from those, I have no idea what needs to be done. I like some things about Calvinism in the SBC. I am wary of some things.

Frank Page says that he hears from churches all the time about this stuff. When speaking of SBC challenges, he named Calvinism first. He also said that he intends to recommend some action at the convention in New Orleans. It will be interesting to see what he has in mind.

Oh, don't be looking for my name on the list of the several hundred signers. I'll stick with the Baptist Faith and Message, most any of them will do just fine.

The SBC Counter-Reformation

Fred Luter will be the next president of the Southern Baptist Convention and the convention's first black president, a highly notable event. Unfortunately, this isn't looking like the biggest story of the 2012 Annual Meeting...


...and, after some degree of study, rancor, reaction, approval and disgust, the SBC will adopt a non-new name, a "descriptor," in New Orleans this month. This isn't looking like the biggest story of the 2012 Annual Meeting.


It is looking like John Calvin, not elected to anything in the SBC, will be the biggest story out of New Orleans. Or rather, the reaction to what is perceived to be John Calvin's excessive influence in the Southern Baptist Convention is looking like the biggest story.

 I recall a decade or so ago seeing Tom Ascol all over the discussion boards, later the blogs, promoting the Calvinists in SBC history and vigorously defending the theology and the historical contributions of SBC Calvinists. He no longer does this and hasn't in some time. Why should he? Calvinism and Calvinists are doing reasonably well in the SBC for a minority group.


So, is it a measure of having arrived when important SBCers define an SBC sub-group, Calvinists, as non-traditional in their view of soteriology and gather important people in the SBC to affix their names to a document that was produced to counter this form of "aggressive" Calvinism in the SBC?


Guess so.

Is it a measure of having not only arrived but to have exceeded the bounds of influence informally allotted to theological sub-groups in the SBC if the SBC's Chief-Executive-Officer, Frank Page, indicates that he feels it necessary "to assemble a representative group of Southern Baptists" to work on a "consensus 'accord'" to head off further fracturing over Calvinism?

Looks like it. 

Frank Page will propose such a representative group in New Orleans this month at the Annual Meeting and this will be the biggest story out of New Orleans.

So, now our Calvinist SBC colleagues will be the center of attention for yet another Blue Ribbon SBC committee. It was bound to happen sooner or later.
 

This is indeed the SBC Counter-Reformation, formerly nestled among certain bloggers (yours truly has a modest offering of a few articles on Calvinism) but now about to be the focus of their very own SBC examination committee. This is as mainstream as it gets in SBC life.

I'm just not sure where this should go or what should or can be done. 

Do we ghettoize Calvinists at Southern and Southeastern seminaries? 

Do we require Calvinist clergy to wear some scarlet letter or do we set up a Calvinist registry website churches can check?

I have mixed feelings about it all. 

I like some things about Calvinists. I am wary about some Calvinists but I admit to no strongly negative feelings about any of the Calvinist SBCers that I personally know. 

Oh, and speaking of our Annual Meeting - Eric Hankins, whose released the statement by the "traditionalists" is to be nominated for one of the VP positions at the Annual Meeting? 

Quick! When was the last time the election of a second VP was a news item?

It's not looking like I will swelter in New Orleans with the rest of my SBC colleagues but were I to be there, I would apologize to Fred Luter for this stuff overshadowing his election as SBC president.