Two reasons I question the Traditional Statement and attendant counter-Calvinistic reactionary movement

A niche in Southern Baptist life is now comfortably occupied by Connect 316, a group with a modest public following who seem to unite mainly as a counter-reactionary movement to the revival of Calvinism, New Calvinism, in the SBC.

The group acquired a popular website, the peripatetic SBC Today that has wandered through a number of different owners and controllers. I find some of the articles and some of the authors on SBCToday informative and helpful.

The outfit has a well-attended meeting, some 200 or so, at the SBC annual meeting, and now gives an award named for a leading SBC figure. The first "Jerry Vines Award for the Promotion of the Whosoever Will Doctrine in Southern Baptist Life" was awarded to...Jerry Vines. Nothing wrong with that other than the rather long and unwieldy name. Must be a large award to squeeze that mouthful in.

Perhaps the Calvinists will take a cue and award a "Johannes Calvinus Award for 'You're-going to Hell-and-there's-not-a-doggone-thing-you-can-do-about-it." Maybe not.

I more closely identify with the theology of the 316 folks and like many of their goals, though I haven't signed and do not intend to affix my cyber-signature to the Traditional Statement, as have about 1,000 others.

I have interacted for years with Rick Patrick who is the Executive Director of the 316 group. I have a lot of respect for him.

All that said, I have a couple of reasons to question the group and the Statement. One is serious. One is quirky. In reverse order...

1. I dislike the group's hijacking of Adrian Roger's a a foil to popularity and acceptance.

Here's how the Connect 316's website puts it:

Connect 316 is a ministry fellowship rooted in the Hobbs-Rogers theological tradition. 

Elsewhere, and incessantly by some 316 leadership, one finds "Hobbesian-Rogerian" as a descriptor or identifier of a theological strain in SBC life.

Adrian Rogers was in my view head and shoulders above all leaders of the Conservative Resurgence. No one else came close. The CR would have failed without him. He has been dead almost a decade. I'm not sure if he would approve of his name being used so casually by those who would define sub-groups in SBC life.

Maybe the 316 folks have approval from his family. I don't know. Perhaps they feel that Rogers being a leader on the Baptist Faith and Message Statement revision and adoption of 2000 is sufficient historical connection to use his name.

Maybe it just looks to me like the 316 folks are capitalizing on the name recognition and Roger's popularity to promote their orgainzation in SBC life.

2. I dislike the idea that SBC leaders and trustees may be chosen on the basis of whether or not they have signed, not the Baptist Faith and Message but the Traditional Statement.

I would object, for example, a state convention is in a mode where a new Executive Director is to be hired and the search committee and trustees agree among themselves that unless a man has signed the Traditional Statement, he will not be considered for the job. I would have the same objection for other theological sub-groups in Southern Baptist life. I am unaware of any sub-group other than the 316 group that has a formal, approved theological statement to be signed.

I can visualize this happening, not in public where we can all see it but in private among the controlling oligarchy of a certain state or among a sub-group of influential trustees of a given SBC or state entity.

If the BFM is insufficient, then state conventions, associations, and entity trustee boards that have formally adopted it as their doctrinal statement ought to adopt one they like. If they like the Traditional Statement or one of the historic confessions, then publicly say so. Don't do in secret what ought to be the most public thing we do: say what we believe.

A healthy, public exchange among us is a good thing. I like the 316 group for that. I am comfortable with differing opinions on various secondary theological issues in SBC life. We've always had them. I recognize that there is always tension among us over who's people get the top jobs and who wields power and influence at a given time. That's the SBC today and every other day.

I don't like the idea of a bright line that divides us. Connect 316 is looking more and more like a bright line group.

Whether or not that or similar groups endure or shrivel up and disappear, I doubt I will live long enough to see.
________________

A traditionalist friend said to me last year that he thought I was on board against the strain of Calvinism that is rife in the SBC these days. Well, I am on board against rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth Calvinists that blow up churches, act more Presbyterian than Baptist, and that live as if certain Calvinistic writers are more inspired than Scripture. Other Calvinists, the most of them, I like.

It may be that a formal organization like the 316 group is a necessary route to achieving a modicum of balance and unity in the SBC. I don't see that it is necessary at this stage, maybe never. If we start to see people proposed for office and/or leadership positions in the SBC on the basis of their signing the Traditional Statement, and I already see some of this, then I think our declining denomination is in for some additional grief.

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.