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:
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.
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.
