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. ;)

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.