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.

Vast numbers of Georgia pastors sign 'Traditionalist' statment!

SBC Today reported, breathlessly, that the state of Georgia  has more pastors who signed the "Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation” than any other state.

Wow.

So...how many?

Thirty-two.

Thirty-two? 

Yep.

Out of how many SBC pastors in Georgia?

Oh, five thousand or so, give or take a retired or semi-retired pastor.

Hmmm, that would be 0.64 percent, about one out of every 150.

Impressive, in a manner of blogspeak, I suppose.

What gives the statement heft is this (quote from Baptists Today):

The signers include four members of the committee who penned the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (plus the President who appointed them to do so). The list includes six former SBC Presidents and seven state Baptist convention executives.

No need to look for your humble hacker and plodder blogger's name on the list. I'm not much of a signer, although I share some of the concerns about aggressive Calvinism and have not a few articles on the same.


I just don't know where this is going or what exactly the traditionalists have in mind. I'm down for the Baptist Faith and Message. That should be sufficient.


Count me as one who is not ready for another Conservative Resurgence type of crusade with candidates for office, trustee appointments based on party, etc.


Let's see what Frank Page has in mind next week.

  

One tribe of SBCers is plenty for me

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:

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.

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.