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.

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. 

Kick the Calvinist church out?

Alternate title: Associations Gone Wild!

More accurately, 'Should this Calvinist church be denied membership in the local association?'

Tom Ascol called attention to the recent case of a Calvinist church in Kentucky being denied membership in the local Baptist association for being too Calvinistic.

The Kentucky paper, Western Recorder, reports the story (though you have to get to p. 3 to read it).

Associated Baptist Press does as well.

I don't see anything from Baptist Press but maybe they will get around to considering this to be news one of these days, especially since the BP boss man, Frank Page, has listed the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism as the number one challenge confronting the SBC today.

ABP has this quote from the association:

“Our concern in the initial stages of our investigation revolved around the fact that Pleasant Valley Community Church’s confessional statement is one that (is) Calvinistic in nature,” the newspaper quoted from a recommendation by the association’s credentials committee. “It affirms the doctrine of election and grace.”

“While we know the doctrine is not heresy, we do recognize that it is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA,” the statement noted.

An associational pastor who supported the church's application for membership was quoted in the Western Recorder:

“In my dealings with the pastors from this church, I experienced good fellowship (and) good cooperation. These men love the word, they preach the gospel; … they are taking the gospel
around the world,” Rager told the Western Recorder. “I didn’t see any reason they shouldn’t be in the local association— whether their theology is reformed or not. I thought they would be of great benefi t to us.”

Apparently, the brethren and sistren of the association were persuaded far more by the former than the latter. The vote against acceptance was 104-9.

The church's confession of faith is a sprawling document, more a confession plus someone's musings, that makes mention of not only the historic expressions of Calvinistic doctrine but also Mark Dever, John Piper, and Santa Claus. Perhaps the church could rename the document an annotated confession of faith with bonus commentary about this that and the other.

Baptist associations are sometimes odd things. A few bombastic pastors can wield a lot of influence and perhaps there is more to this than is reported; however, I don't see a lot of profit in keeping this church out of a local association. The church remains a member of the SBC and the Kentucky Baptist Convention.

My answer to the question posed in this blog title is, "No."

Why I'm a bit wary of Calvinists

I'm a hacker and a plodder and am no different than the other fifty thousand or so SBC pastors but I do have a thirty year history with Calvinism and Calvinists and, unsurprisingly, have an opinion about it and them. To be candid, while I’m mostly ambivalent about Calvinism, I'm decidedly wary of Calvinists. Here’s why:

1. Calvinists can be, well, rather arrogant. No, they don’t have a monopoly on such but my observation is that they have acquired more of it than one would expect from their numbers. And since they have it, they are happy to share it with the rest of us - the unwashed, sub-calvinist masses.

I sometimes read calvinists on the blogs and get a nostalgic reminder of seminary hallway arguments, inevitable classroom debates, eager young theologs brimming with certainty, and adorable young calvinist polemicists waging scorched earth doctrinal campaigns. No thanks.

I’m all for defending a doctrinal position but perhaps there are Calvinists who will admit that there are other followers of Christ who are scholarly, biblical, and non-calvinist. Is it a lonely search for the Calvinists who has a modicum of humility mixed with the acknowledgement that there are yet some mysteries to our faith?

Maybe all of those kind of Calvinists just stay off of the blogs and discussion forums.

2. I’ve been around too many churches that have been wrecked by Calvinists.

No, Calvinists don't have a lock on wrecking churches and I certainly know many more non-calvinist pastors who have wrecked churches. The latter just don't hurl themselves headlong into the task out of their doctrinal positions.

What is one to say when a Calvinist gains a pulpit and immediately declares that there is heresy in the church that must be rooted out, the heresy being that the church is not sufficiently Calvinist?

What is one to say when sermons begin with “God doesn’t love everyone” or “God may choose this child for heaven and this child is not chosen and is bound for hell”? I recognize that these statements can be nuanced, and we all like to be provocative at times, but is it surprising that a Calvinist pastor can be said to divide the church over such teaching?

What is one to say when the Calvinist pastor aggressively tries to implement an elder system of church governance, and it appears to be less about biblical church polity than about the pastor installing his allies in positions of power and authority to the exclusion of all others?

3. Calvinists have been known to be less than forthcoming with search committees.

Tom Ascol, an erudite and reasonable man, blogged last year about some documents that were being distributed in Tennessee among SBC churches. Their thrust was described as ‘how to smoke out a Calvinistic pastor in your church.’

I can see where this stuff comes from.

My evidence is anecdotal and limited but in my experience Calvinist pastors have minimized their Calvinist beliefs with search committees in order to gain a pulpit. I hate to say it but this is precisely the technique some liberal pastors have employed with church committees - obfuscate, finesse, dart and weave.

No, I'm not saying what most calvinists say to a committee, but this is what some committee members have relayed to me.

I would absolutely advise any church to be thorough enough in their search process to determine a prospective pastor’s beliefs on Calvinism. I know that Calvinists generally eschew the term ‘calvinist’ in favor of other labels and descriptors. Laypeople must be savvy enough to understand the vocabulary.

If my experience with Calvinists did not include their negative impact on churches I would label this article, “Why I am annoyed with Calvinists” rather than “Why I am wary of Calvinists.” It is this last point that moves the conversation from annoying to wariness. I can do annoying pretty good myself.

If calvinism is appealing to young SBCers, a fact I do not dispute, it is repulsive in many expressions to not a small number of SBCers. Why is it that some circulate 'calvinist smoke-out guides' or why have some churches cut funding to calvinist SBC institutions? Are those who so act evil, misguided, or alarmist? Perhaps there is something concrete and important behind these acts.

Perhaps my experience is atypical and an aberration. I'd be pleased to know that is the case. If not, I'll look askance at Calvinists but still rejoice when Christ is preached and Christ is preached by every Calvinist I know.