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.

Predictions for 2013

I would have made these earlier but wanted to wait and be sure the world wasn't going to end in December. Guess we are OK until Jesus comes.

1. Fred Luter will be reelected. Nothing big to happen here.

2. There will be contested SBC vice president elections. Some of the Traditionalists are upset that mild Calvinist blogger Dave Miller, a fair and reasonable man, was elected VP over their Traditionalist standard bearer, Eric Hankins, and may nominate someone for this or the other VP slot. We usually get some additional nominations for these anyway.

3. The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission will get a new leader. Whomever he is will have some work to do to restore credibility. 

4. Frank Page's Calvinist Advisory Team will issue a report early this year. I was optimistic about Page's effort here last year but lost a good bit of that after the group's meetings were held off the record. What we needed was some open discussion. What we got was luminaries unwilling to have honest, open discussion. Whatever they end up with will probably be quickly forgotten. Too bad.

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. I have always thought that Calvinism has an inherent ceiling in Southern Baptist life and think we may have reached it.

6. Some SBC agencies will hire senior level staff who are African American. The SBC has a soft underbelly (about which more later) in race relations but agencies and institutions will make good faith efforts to be less white at senior levels.

7. In contrast to the above, the only high profile females in SBC life will be wives of prominent pastors. There will be no hiring of female senior level administrative staff unless it is to ghettoized positions oriented towards women.

8. The Cooperative Program will continue to be flat, which is a welcome improvement.

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.

10. What is euphemistically termed "complementarianism" will have a bad year, mainly due to a few high profile Calvinist churches.

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.

12. Southern Baptists my age will continue to lament the absence of Adrian Rogers or anyone of his stature.



 

2012 Annual Meeting Moments

Best moment: Duh. Election of Fred Luter.

Best line: Bryant Wright. "To our Calvinist friends: A bit of humility would be most welcome."  Few people have the ability to say something gravely critical, say it kindly, and have folks walk away reflecting on it rather than reacting to it.

Biggest surprise: The decisive election of Dave Miller as 2nd VP. Unthinkable just a week or so ago. Ditch the lime green suit, bro.

Biggest teaser: Frank Page, having stated that he would announce an "initiative" on the Calvinist/Traditionalist controversy, leaving the matter dangling: Page confirmed again that he plans to assemble a group of advisers to help chart a way through the division surrounding Calvinism.
Whom? What? When? How? We will have to wait.

Silliest moment: Don't know. Wasn't there. Didn't stay glued to the live feed all day. Nominations will be accepted from the hoi polloi in attendance.

Best resolution: Yawn. Doesn't matter but generally does keep people from browsing the exhibit hall for the umpteenth time.

Best hair: Tie between Peter Lumpkins and Eric Hankins.

Smoothest moment: Pick from any number during the sessions when  Bryant Wright was presiding.

Best reporting: SBC Voices did a good job with the twitter feeds.



Houston next year? Don't we ever tire of punishing ourselves by meeting in the heat of June in virtually uninhabitable places.

Congratulations to Dave Miller

I have a line below that says that it would be shocking news if Dave Miller were elected 2nd VP.

He was. I'm shocked...but not displeased.

Dave is not a flame thrower or a bomb lobber. He will not embarrass us. He will work in whatever modest fashion 2nd VPs can work towards convention unity and Cooperative Program support.  

I am not in convention hallways to hear thge buzz but my conjecture is that,

1. Calvinists who were present have some concerns about Eric Hankins, particularly over the preamble and introduction to the Statement.
2. One not-so-hot characteristic of bloggers is that they can be painfully introspective and talk about blogging a lot. This year will mark the date that somewhat of a divide was crossed in which blogging can pull and drive considerable votes. SBCVoices is a widely read site. There is critical mass now.

Hankins should be on any C/T panel.

Congratulations to Dave Miller.

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. 

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. 

Agressive, arrogant Calvinists and the possibility of an SBC counter-reformation

One by-product of the interesting, though misguided, resolution of the Consolation Baptist Association suggesting that churches steeply cut their Cooperative Program is Calvinism, Calvinist pastors, and the young, reformed, ministerial products of two of our SBC seminaries.

This association is in another part of the state from me, one which I pass through occasionally but for which I don't have a lot of familiarity with churches, Associational Missionaries, or pastors. It is in Vidalia Onion country, as good a reason to appreciate that part of Georgia as anything. The famous 'Jesus Loves You Double Cheeseburger' sign is somewhere in that area.

I have some observations about Calvinists and churches derived from personal, anecdotal experiences. A strain of my reformed Baptists colleagues has been absolutely lethal in churches, although I haven't heard a lot lately about such things around here.

Calvinism and Calvinistic seminary graduates are seen by some as problems in that part of Georgia. The resolution tosses in the issue and mentions two unnamed seminaries (Southern and Southeastern) and their presidents (Al Mohler and Danny Akin) as sources of problem graduates who are seen as "arrogant" and difficult. The specter of "agressive Calvinism" is raised in the resolution's supporting document.

I don't  buy all this, nor do I see what some of my colleagues seem to be seeing in South Georgia; however, if a perception like that is as widespread as it seems our two seminaries and presidents ought to pay attention. I know what it is like to be looked upon with suspicion because of the place I took my MDiv degree.

... and is the nomination of Eric Hankins as SBC first vice president the beginning of an SBC counter-reformation?