I’m not up for another Conservative Resurgence kind of denominational war where the lines are drawn, candidates are classified, willing nominees are prearranged, and votes are sought for “our guy” and not the other guy.
I’m not up for a system where there is a Calvinist candidate and a Traditionalist candidate and no other candidate who is not pigeonholed as one or the other.
I’m not up for a fight over every nomination where there is a Calvinist nominee and a Traditionalist nominee for and where success is judged by getting “our” trustees confirmed.
My view is that there are rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, church-destroying, denominationally toxic Calvinists that ought not to be hired, called, elected, appointed, and sometimes even listened to.
My view is that there are rigid, crusading, myopic Traditionalists that ought not to be hired, elected, appointed and sometimes even listened to.
I had thought that recent elections were mostly non-partisan but if there is any signal that we are in a denominational war again, and maybe I’m too naive to have not concluded this already, the issue might be what is stated here:
My understanding is that the Trustee appointments made by Steve Gaines did not at all continue the trend of installing those friendly toward Calvinism. However, this matter of influencing the Trustee Boards requires Presidential control for a number of consecutive years. We will need to elect another strong Traditionalist like Steve Gaines, and then another, and then another, and then another, in order to turn this ship around.
This is, not surprisingly, Trad point man Rick Patrick whom I like but with whom I often disagree. Surely there is some denominational future envisioned where Cal or Trad is not the simple, mindless binary choice.
Have past trustee appointments exhibited a deliberate trend towards being friendly to Calvinists and, conversely, unfriendly towards Traditionalists? I don’t recall seeing Cal/Trad scorecards for trustees.
The warm fuzziness and goodwill of Christmas is past so let’s contemplate potential rancor for the 2018 Annual Meeting in Dallas.
If J. D. Greear is willing to be nominated, I’d certainly vote for him. No one has earned a first refusal of the SBC presidency and I am weary of megapastors but his action of 2016 was a splendid example of what we need in the SBC. Just in case, have the militant Trads already recruited some prominent Dallas-area or Texas megapastor who is a Traditionalist because the denominational ship needs not just a few degrees change in heading but an 180 degree turnaround?
Well, I hope not but if words have meaning, I don’t know why we all shouldn’t expect it. (One caveat: words haven’t always had meaning when written by my old Alabama friend leaving one with hopes that the paragraph above is just mindless blather.)
Is it to be, “here we go again,” or merely, “we have our preferences but let’s work together for the Lord.”
Guess we will see.
William, I sure hope that whatever happens with the SBC presidency that it’s not about Calvinist/non-Calvinist. I have no doubt that the above mentioned provocator has hopes for such a thing, but I am hopeful that he and his kind are a very small minority.
I believe this is the case. I don’t see the divide among Southern Baptists revolving around Calvinism and non-Calvinism, but a generational divide. I think Greaer represents a new generation of Southern Baptists being involved on the national level, which I am glad for.
I would vote for Greer even though I am not Cal. My hope would be that Greer is elected by good margins…and then serves well for two years PROVING through his actions and appointments that Cals are not trying to take over everything and that they respect those who are not Cals as equal brothers. These are the two Trad concerns. I believe Greer WILL run and WILL be elected. I also believe he could bring at least a cease fire about if he acted kindly and even handedly towards the now various theological views that make up the SBC.
For my part, having learned my lesson, I’m going with whomever Paula White endorses.
I don’t know who that will be but one of the megas is sidled up next to her at the White House.
Let’s hope he’s too busy in Washington to remember that the SBC meets in his home city this year.
wow.
William: Can you point to any Calvinist either online or in your experience, or a book written, that shows they are now, not in the past 10 years ago, but now rabid as you have described? Frankly I haven’t seen or read any but I could be missing something. And before you ask, am I saying it is just Traditionalists? Yes. That is what I have seen. But as I said I may have missed something.
I don’t see as much of this as I did a few years ago and certainly not in public statements by more prominent Cals. I could point you to a couple of church-destroying Cals on a local level still slogging away at it. It would be part of my point here that I don’t see the level of tribalism (a term I don’t particularly like but seems to be what communicates best) that I once did. My militant Trad friends would just say that they have gone to ground, not disappeared or changed.
I don’t disagree with you that Trads seem to be the more militant bunch these days. Of course, they would say that Cals have taken over the convention so they are not as aggressive as they once were.
But we know they are wrong. They are a part of the Convention, but they have not taken over. Steve Gaines is not Calvinist, by a long shot. Russell Moore is not Calvinist, and surprisingly Steve Gaines knows how to get along with Calvinists. I think that was the biggest surprise of all, at least to me. I dreaded when he became President, but he surprised me and I have a deep respect for him that I most certainly did not have before.
In fact beginning with Frank Page till the current SBC President, all of who were not Calvinists, quite the opposite, I have been pleasantly surprised by their leadership and have grown to deeply respect those who have held that office.
Cal President of the convention?
Over the last let’s say 50 years?
Whom?
I think the proof is in the pudding – Cals have over and over voted for and supported non cals for Convention President. Cals don’t have a history of fighting over this…they’ve also continued to cooperate with the SBC and in fact many have increased their cooperation…
Now for New Traditionslists? The above quoted crusader and his ilk? They Fought 2 years ago and Seem to be readying for a fight again if a Cal is nominated….
It’s ridiculous.
As Les Prouty has dubbed it – OCD ( obsessive Calvinism disorder) is strong with the New Traditionalist crusaders.
I overheard one somewhat prominent non-Cal in the hallway in St. Louis predict the demise of the SBC if Greear was elected SBC President. He was referring to the fact that Greear is a Calvinist and that the non-Calvinists would revolt. Thankfully Calvinists did not respond in the same way when Gaines won.
And thankfully, both men were willing to step aside so the other could be elected president. Hopefully we see more of that kind of spirit regardless of who is elected president. The stakes are too high for political infighting. Let’s support our candidate. Let’s hold an election. And then let’s come together for the advancement of the gospel to the ends of the earth.
I am up for the fight and will be in Dallas voting for the Traditional candidate.
May your tribe decrease.
I suspect my tribe will increase since I plan on trying to corral a full compliment of Traditional messengers from my church.
Amen Adam. And I would add Becky to do some research. Not just researching writers that you agree with but those you disagree with and I doubt that the Convention will let you have that fight. They haven’t so far. I doubt that will change. I think you are afraid of things that do not exist. Thus you will be fighting over things that do not exist. It will just make Trads look bad. That is all it will accomplish I think.
Question, Becky.
Why so much anger and hate? Why do you feel the need to be that way? Must your brothers and sisters in Christ be treated like enemies?
What is sad Becky is that the 1000 or so Traditionalists and those that support them are determined to make this a “fight.”
There is simply no need to drink that koolaid and make it “us against them.” That is certainly the agenda of the radicals in the small anti-Calvinist group known as Traditionalists.
But, until disabused of this notion, I remain hopeful and convinced that both SBC Cals and non-Cals want to work together for our Lord’s mission and not to bite and tear one another apart as some advocate.
It will be the death of the SBC if the SBC radicals take control.
Wow! Altogether I have written 2 or 3 sentences and from that you know that I am angry, hateful, and make enemies. You know nothing abut me.
You are the one promising a “fight.”
I just don’t know why that kind of thing is necessary.
I thought Steve Gaines did a very good job as President. I was impressed and I was never impressed with Steve Gaines before, in fact I was a critic. His meeting with Dwight at the conference at Dwight’s church sealed it for me, although I was impressed from the beginning with Gaines Presidency.
One thing for sure is that the SBC Presidency is an “old-boys network” and you can be assured that will continue. Frank Paige is, pardon-the-pun, the rare Trump-like candidate that upset the Establishment. Not expecting another example of that anytime in the near future, whether a Cal or a Trad is the next president, it will be someone who is part of “the club”.
Sure, Paige was the “grassroots” candidate and sure the perceived establishment lost that election….but….
Since then Dr. Paige has firmly rested himself in the establishment (thats not an insult, I like Paige) – and the establishment guy he defeated won the presidency a couple of terms later.
I don’t disagree that Paige is now part of the club. But perceived establishment? Come on! Al Mohler, and many others of the establishment, pushed for Ronnie Floyd’s candidacy that year. That was an astounding upset, not seen since. Not likely to anytime in the near future.
I remember that – it was certainly an upset….Floyd has always been establishment – but look at what’s happened:
Paige is now establishment (boys club) – and the establishment’s desire for Floyd was fulfilled a short time later.
PAGE, guys, not PAIGE.
Dr. Patterson is Paige.
Dr. Frank is Page.
Lol…I knew that.
Brain fart.
Thanks for the clarification Dave!
I am not interested in a Cal/Trad fight either. I see people who are motivated on that issue, but it’s certainly a minority.
I see the bigger divide as a generational one, as well.
It’s not an age thing or a ministry method issue.
I don’t even think it’s a theological issue, per se.
I believe it is over an understanding of the implications of the Gospel.
The younger crowd has adopted a certain outlook on society and what it means to preach the Gospel.
They have adopted and use phrases like “Gospel Issues”. And they have a different meaning of what the term “Justice” means.
For older Southern Baptists, proclaiming the Gospel is the key. For many in the younger generation, it’s about proclaiming the Gospel and working on “Gospel Issues.”
I do not discern whether there is any real difference, however. There certainly is in rhetoric, but I see it as mainly verbal. I don’t see any greater level of intensity or sacrifice in the younger generation.
One concern, however, is that I do not see the younger generation as being as willing to be considered outcasts from the larger society as the older generation was.
The younger generation seems to be very sensitive toward how they are perceived by their peers in the secular world. I find the young Reformed crowd to be particularly sensitive to this.
Louis, I think there’s lots of truth in your post – the sensitivity, and social justice/gospel issues tendencies you mention does occasionally transcend generational lines – but generally I think you’re on to something.
Louis, I am convinced much of the Calvinism thing is just a smokescreen for cultural protectionism. We like the way things USED to be and blame changes on this Calvinist conspiracy.
I have said for years that our divisions are more cultural than they are theological.
Dave:
That could be true, but I do not think it is intentional.
I believe the Cals and Trads are sincerely pointing to theological differences which they believe impact ministry.
But the cultural differences are almost uniformly present, as you have noted.
Perhaps I could suggest not getting too martial here and wait until June. It’s too cold to fight. I understand that most of us love a good fight but for this year it looks like the SEC and no other.
I thought the way RP expressed it was interesting and notable. If commenters wish to state that they are ready to recruit, let ‘er rip. I’m curious as to what the attitudes are on this.
I hope there is not a fight, but in some ways it feels unavoidable. When speaking of the age divide, the words of Trevin Wax a few years back come to mind.
“This is a generalization, but I think there’s truth here: Older Southern Baptists are more likely to see the U.S. as Israel. Younger Southern Baptists are more likely to see the U.S. as Babylon” https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/5-observations-about-younger-southern-baptists/
That is a remarkable observation that will lead to conflict over politics, identity, cultural engagement, and more. I think that Wax’s statement is (generally) true, so that’s why I think that some of the conflict is unavoidable.
I voted for Greear, but I think Gaines has done a mostly good job. While he has not done everything the way I would he has brought no shame to the office or the SBC, and has stood for the gospel, and I think that Greear would do the same.
Luke,
That saying about ‘the older and the younger Southern Baptists’ captures a reality hard for many to wrestle with.
I don’t know who Trevin Wax is but he’s thinking that’s for sure.
As a member of Gen X, I having been seeing The U.S. as Rome at best, if not Babylon.
I know of people in my local church that sees the U.S. as Israel 2.0
I remember that Wax article and agreed with it then. Working with older pastors and deacons/ministry leaders during my ministry I have noticed the difference in their view of the country versus mine. Some of it is theological but a big chunk of it is simply cultural.
Luke:
I had forgotten that quote.
It illustrates both the divide, but upon reflection, how there may not be as much of a divide except in rhetoric and places of emphasis.
Yes, the older generation was more tied to the founding ideals and documents of the US. Those documents and ideals clearly cast the US as having a divine founding and purpose. The older generation saw that founding and purpose betrayed and/or slipping away, and thus, undertook to recover it. Interestingly, the majority of these folks are probably dispensational, meaning that in eschatological terms, they saw the world getting worse and worse until Christ’s return, but they were highly motivated to rescue it.
The younger generation does not identify with the US founding and purpose. This is true of their generation, generally. But interestingly, they quote OT scripture and promises with just as great a verve and enthusiasm as their older peers, and with perhaps just as great a desire to see that scripture translated into public life. And interestingly, the younger generation is more Reformed, which has a great history of seeking to reform government to glorify Christ and the presence of a state church. So it is ironic that they have abandoned that, while remaining Reformed soteriologically (sp?).
The younger generation is also very uncomfortable with any expressions of civil religion. It does not bother me to pray before a football game, even though the person praying may not be of the Christian faith or may be offering a prayer that I would not write. The younger generation can’t stand that, and they typically don’t see any value in it.
Again, I suspect that much of these differences, despite the claims to theology, may have more to do with cultural influences.
I suspect that a lot of the rhetoric of the younger Reformed crowd is not thought through. The more they marry, start raising families, paying taxes, raising their children, and see the harm that may befall them and their children, they are more likely to look just like their elders. They have similar tendencies, but the differences now are more pronounced.
My name is Becky, not Bob.
We get a lot of people who comment here anonymously and even use fake emails. Your name and your email didn’t match, and because of your aggressive approach we were a little suspicious. But we ascertained that you were, indeed, a Becky and so the comments to the contrary were deleted or edited.
The initial mistake was mine. I apologize. I made an assumption from your email address that I should not have made.
Guys, apologizing for a mistake will destroy your reputation as angry Traditionalist haters. Gotta think of the narrative moving forward and make sure to reinforce it as much as possible :).
I don’t think that was noticed. You are welcome to comment. I’m curious why you see this as such a battle to be fought.
My wife and I were members of Steve Gaines’ church, Bellevue Baptist Church, in the Memphis area. We’ve moved away now, but I miss his good preaching. During our time at Bellevue, the church sponsored a men’s conference. Dr. Gaines invited J D Greear to preach. This before the SBC meeting in which they both ran for president. I thought J D Greear demonstrated grace and a desire for unity when he stepped aside and encouraged the convention to elect Steve Gaines. I write these things to say that they have different theological positions, but they show respect for each other. Surely, we can do likewise.
Thanks for this testimony, Mark. I agree wholeheartedly with your call for unity, and I am hopeful that most Southern Baptists do as well.
No all fights are good fights, but the issue for whom Christ died seems to be a pretty good one.
The problem though, Greg, is that this isn’t actually an issue (especially practically speaking). While we may disagree theologically on the intent of the atonement the real issue is proclaiming the gospel.
Ask a Calvinist if anyone believes on the gospel will they be saved?
Ask a Trad the same question. You get the same answer. Ask about whether belief in Christ is necessary for the application of the work of Christ. Pretty sure you get the same answer.
So what is the purpose of being SBC. It’s for missions and pooling resource to tell people if you believe in Christ you’ll be saved. We agree on that. Why draw up arms on a national/ global level because we disagree about the hidden purposes of God and how all that plays out?
I have been making this argument for years. Amazing to me how a few zealots on each side make cooperation of the masses nearly impossible.
I voted for Steve Gaines and am thankful that I did. He was the kind of president we needed for this time. He was low key and did his job fairly and honestly. The main job of the president is to appoint the committee on committees. As best I could tell, he did that well both years. We don’t need a president who is promoting his reputation. I have no idea what J.D. Greer will do as president. Hopefully he will follow Gaines example.
I was aggressive. Really? Hardly! And, at least I wasn’t unChristian, as were some of you! For those who say they don’t want to fight, you sure seem to be spoiling for one.
Literally your first post in this thread, yesterday the 5th at 12:51 was QUOTE, “I am up for the fight and will be in Dallas voting for the Traditional candidate.”
I don’t always agree with the folks here. I am even on permanent moderation. And even I can see how aggressive you are here. In a thread about trying to avoid a CR type war in the SBC, the first thing you say here is “I want to fight”. And you don’t see that as aggressive?
Hi Becky,
I am one who comments and engages on this blog from time to time–lately not so much, simply because my wife is having health problems and I lack the time to engage much. But I often disagee with views expressed here. I am conservative, but not as conservative as many here; I believe that the Bible, in its original autographs, was free of error in the matters it was addressing (i.e., theology, salvation, and such, but not necessarily in the sciences), and I do not care for the term “inerrant” because I believe it has to be qualified too much in order to have real meaning. I could go on, but I think you get my drift. Some of us here–myself included–enjoy the spirited give-and-take of arguing various matters. But all that considered, it is rare indeed that I have been misquoted, singled out for condemnation, or accusations of heresy or a lack of Christianity. And I feel sure the same has, does and will apply to you. Your comments seems a bit belligerent to me, but I think if you will engage on the points, you will find this a rewarding and worthwhile forum. Hope to hear more comments from you!
John
Like John, I’m not a fan of the term “inerrancy” and thus would be barred from serving in a lot of SBC positions. I’m not nearly as pro-gun as a lot of people here. Nor am I a Calvinist. I am not a fan of the ERLC. And yet I contribute and comment here all the time without any difficulty.
Becky: What is your problem? No one was unchristian to you but we are telling you that your cause is wrong. And if the last part is a threat, I won’t turn it down, but I am not “spoiling for one” by disagreeing with you vehemently. I think you had better do a check on yourself.
Now, if you want to fight because no missionaries are going out, or minorities, women, children are being treated unfairly, or white supremacists are among us(Oh wait, we addressed that last year), then I will be rooting for you. But to fight over doctrine when both sides believe in the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture, believe the essentials? No. I predicted 10 years ago that you all would come after Calvinists and you have not disappointed, but you are wrong in doing so.
I did not have a problem until I was treated shabbily and falsely accused. I thought only Christians were on this blog. Sorry. My mistake!
it is this attitude that I don’t get, Ms. Dalton.
You come on here spoiling for a fight. When challenged, you accuse everyone else of not being Christians. Do you see why I wonder about the absence of love in the your camp?
It seems we ought to respect one another and accept that though we hold some slightly different beliefs, we can still partner together for the gospel. We need not resort to schism and the kind of anger and insult you have made your stock in trade here. There’s just no reason things have to be that way.
Again, falsely accused. I had an individual warn me that I’d be treated poorly here. It appears that he knew what he was talking about.
That kind of explains it to me. You came on here with a hostile attitude and it showed.
You are welcome to engage, but again, I just don’t see why you need the hostile, aggressive attitude.
So, because YOU thought I had a hostile and aggressive attitude, that was a reason to treat me shabbily. I knew nothing about this blog until 3 days ago, but since then, I’ve been doing some investigating. You do know that this blog has a reputation for treating people poorly who have a different point of view than your own. It is no wonder that commenters want to remain anonymous.
Becky, i am sorry you feel badly treated.
I feel as though your approach was unnecessarily aggressive and combative. There are many who have come on here, behaved like louts, then groused about nit being allowed to behave like louts.
It is true that many racists, Belligerent Traditionalist warriors, and others have been shown the door. If you want to discuss issues- even if you disagree – that us fine.
But those who just want to act as you did and get offended if someone pushes back…this isn’t for you. We have multiple sides here and when you say stuff, people will respond.
At SBC Today, you can insult us – Rick encourages it, and he blocks anyone who disagrees with your point of view.
You can go there and Lydia (who got offended because we asked her to DEFEND her views) and several others pump bile about us often.(People are kind enough ti send me clips) As I said, Rick encourages it. You might enjoy that, because no opposite side is permitted.
It is a sanctioned hate-fest. You might like it.
Why are you talking to me about SBC Today?
This has ceased to be productive. If you wish to opine, feel free. When you do, your opinions may well be disagreed with, analyzed, challenged, and even agreed with. If you want to interact then welcome. If you consider such interaction mistreatment then blog commenting may not be for you.
But this is over. Comment on topics or move on. This discussion has ended.
No one here has treated you shabbily. We have disagreed with the tone and content of your posts.
That is what we do.
If you can’t see that what you said to me was wrong, well, God bless you.
Hi Becky –
Who on this forum is posting anonymously?
As you are reading others as treating you shabbily, your comments coming across as aggressive and hostile are how others see you treating them.
Maybe it’s all a reading not speaking thing (which can happen easily in settings like this).
We all have a reputation and on the other site, mine has been declared unacceptable and worthy of being banned. I am okay with that but saddened that no communication of trying to understand my thoughts and words were given the time of day.
I have found that here you can disagree and even call out someone (with grace and passion) and not be cut off from the fellowship of conversation and debate.
Neither the Calvinists or Traditionalists are evil and neither are their passions for seeing the nations come to know Christ.
A Calvinist President of the SBC like JD Greear is a good thing. He is not an enemy of the gospel, nor of the Traditionalists. He is a soul winner and a prayer warrior. He should not be feared.
I think you have much to offer here and would love to see you stick around. Yeah… someone along the way will rub you wrong but along the way, we will rub someone the wrong way also.
A Traditionalist by the definition of some… A Calvinist by the definition of others… A passion to reach the nations with the gospel, regardless.
Listen Becky, I am one woman among men here, and although I am disagreed with and occasionally assigned a wrong motive, I can take it. I am ok with it, because I am not banned for my disagreeing, I am not moderated. I can stand for myself fairly good and again am not banned or moderated for doing so. There are a couple of sites that moderate, delete and ban for disagreeing. This is not one of them and it represents the way the SBC as a whole is operating right now. It used to be the way of Trads aka Fundamentalists which has only one way, their way. And the SBC was poorer for it.
Bad behavior on the other hand is banned and moderated here. I am ok with that because I think adults and Christians we should be able to discuss. To not discuss is frustrating to me. Then we get nowhere but the attitude you seem to have of let’s fight and bring a lot of people to do it. Fight, fight. Onward Christian soldiers is a song I don’t find in scripture Becky. At least not to use against fellow believers. For what? Theology that most of us are wrong in points anyway and won’t get straight until heaven? No thanks.
Debbie,
People strongly disagree with you in here? Who? I can’t imagine!!!
😉
Becky: If you can’t see where your comments were combative well…..
David C: I know it’s a shocker isn’t it?
Everything that the Trad blog writes is based on bad information, and out and out lies to reach their goal Becky. The end justifies the means, and I hope that is not the case with you. That is more unchristian than anything anyone has said to you here. And it’s easy to hide behind one name or be anonymous and say the things you say. How about coming out of hiding and stand by your words with your full name. That would be refreshing. If you notice, most of the commenters are anonymous. That is not courage, that is the opposite.
That should be, most of the commenters at the Trad blog are anonymous.
Not even they, the commenters can stick to the truth. And when no reaction is given, they go further with the untruth and further, until a reaction is given, then they cry foul. Look what has been done to them. Please Becky. If you believe that is right or spiritually holy, we really should get the Bible out, open it up and have a deep talk.
The acceptance of the latest version of the Baptist Faith and Message and the acceptance of the IMB rules prohibiting a “private prayer language” along with other similar occurrences made future conflicts almost inevitable. Making specific stands on doctrines about which inerrantist conservative Baptists can have honest disagreements (because we see now in part-through a glass darkly) creates winners and losers. The arguments between Calvinists and Traditionalists have been occurring for 500 years. Some of the smartest and most spiritual people on the planet have come down on different sides on this issue. It drove John Quincy Adams away from the organized church (to cite just one example, as indicated in his diaries). If a definitive argument resolving Calvinism was possible, we would have heard it by now. So long as it does no affect the priority given to the gospel or the role of Christ in salvation, which it does not seem to do, it isn’t worth a fight. However, I suspect one will occur, because the majority of Southern Baptists have insisted on having winners and losers in previous, similar debates, and old habits are hard to break.
Exactly Steve Pruett.
Becky, let’s be fair here. There was confusion about your email. That was removed and you received an apology. Your contribution was to state that you would recruit messengers to the annual meeting if a Cal were to be nominated. That’s aggressive but perfectly acceptable here.
I’ve said that your comments are welcome. I’ve asked you repeatedly to state your reasons why you would recruit anti-Cal messengers with not a syllable in response. Rather, you’ve been busy stating how poorly you are being treated. You’ve made your point about being mistreated. I disagree but, fine, no one can tell you how to feel.
Commenters talking about each other has no value. How about at this point offering something to the discussion? Thanks.
Since we haven’t had a Calvinist president in what, a century or more? Decades at least, logic would suggest the Calvinist takeover is the fault of non-Calvinists. So electing another non-Calvinist doesn’t reasonably seem like the solution. What’s the old saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
Yes, I know, I’m like, really smart. 😉
Becky, I’m with William. I’m quite interested in your thoughts about what would happen to the SBC if Calvinist was elected president? I have neither a rebuttal or argument to make; just very, very interested in the roots of your concerns.
Anyone notice how the comments at SBC Voiices are not nearly as diverse as they used to be?
David R. Brumbelow
Looks like you’re trying to make a point, David? What is it?
Great conversations continue to abound here. I’m thankful for the opportunity to have differing opinions in a spirit of unity. If the comment streams continue the trend of being less toxic and rancorous, that would in my opinion be a great improvement. And I do long for the day when there is no diversity of opinion on whether or not we should be unified and cooperate together as gospel believing Baptists.
We still allow you to comment, and usually you simply insult us, David. So there’s that.
The fact is, from my perspective – there is a segment that comes on here hostile, sometimes racist, generally degrading the conversation. I have actively taken steps to limit that nonsense. I decided I didn’t want to provide a forum for some of the nonsense that was being spouted here. The hate, the conspiracy theories, the racially-tinged stuff. So, I worked to shut it down.
On the other hand, we are an ACTIVELY diverse site – and no amount of lie or insinuation can change that, David. We have some 5-pointers writing. We have some moderates like myself. We have non-Calvinists on our writing team. I was asking the guys the other day if they knew of a traditionalist with a non-divisive spirit. I’d love to add someone like that to our writing team. We actually do want to promote a wide variety of VIEWS, but I’m not hosting some of the garbage that has gone on in discussions.
And, David, I can do without the passive aggressive nonsense. If you have something to say, please just say it.
Becky,
Your first comment announced that you were ready for a fight. When people called you out for posting such an aggressive comment you claimed that they were treating you shabbily. And when that conclusion was challenged, you just became increasingly aggressive in your accusations.
Based on this pattern, a reasonable person might conclude that you have been fed misinformation that has caused you to be predisposed to believe that those who read and comment on SBCVoices are your enemies. They are not; they are seekers of truth from a variety of perspectives. Please beware that there are those, not all, who identify as “Traditionalist” who are trying to stoke a fight. They are ambitious and seek to gain political power by fabricating enemies though misquoting, quoting out of context, and general fear-mongering. Please don’t allow these enemies of the Gospel to rob you of your peace in Christ. Peace.
Looks like we’re done here with any profitable discussion. Thanks for the comments.
Well here is a great peace making idea. Since Christ is the head of the church and there are many many faithful Godly men on both sides, Calvinist and Traditionalist, the answered is simple. Calvinist don’t mind or care what the belief system is of the candidate is. In fact the Calvinist do not have a problem with a Traditionalist who does not hate Calvinist. So to keep the peace and to show the Calvinist sincerity let’s all support a Traditionalist Candidate and we will all be happy!!!!???
I am not sure if you are joking or not, but I will be serious here. I don’t know that there’s been a Calvinist president in my lifetime. All were non-Calvinist but I don’t know how many actually are among the over 1000 signers of the Traditionalist document. Did Gaines sign?
Calvinists have worked with Dr, Page and with Johnny Hunt and others. Most have shown a willingness to peacefully coexist and partner with non-Cals.
But an unfortunate part of the small Traditionalist subset of the large non-Calvinist SBC majority is that they are exclusionary and combative. They see Calvinist plots behind every Baptist bush. I once met and exchanged pleasantries with Dr, Mohler – briefly – So I am part of the conspiracy, you know.
Rick has tipped his hand, advocating a new CR, except this is an anti-CR. Anti-Calvinist Resurgrnce. As we removed liberalism from the SBC, he wants to remove Calvinism. Electing a string of rabid Traditionalist presidents who will appoint trustees who will actually listen to the tin-foil conspiracy theories about NAMB and LifeWay and such,
So, it is fine for most Cals, and 4-pointers, and Molinists, and antinomists, and such to vote for men like Bryant Wright and Johnny and such whom they know disagree with their theology but accept them as Baptist brethren. It is something else to expect them to inquisition.
Dave,
To your point it was Dr. Mohler, who Dr. Floyd claims as one of his best friends, who nominated him as SBC president the first time around and it was JD Greear who nominated him the second time around. That shows great unity among Calvinist and Traditionalist in my opinion. Having served as an intern for Dr. Mohler and Dr. Floyd both I’ve found them to really have a genuine friendship and respect for one another that spans the theological divide. So, this idea that Traditionalist are being pushed around, about, and out falls flat on me significantly. I gladly supported Dr. Gaines when he became president and have had numerous conversations with him since. He’s a gentleman and excellent scholar in his own field of evangelism and I find him very charitable in my Reformed beliefs. He’s never come across as antagonistic or arrogant, much like the Traditionalist bloggers over at SBC Today do, and he’s never once questioned my salvation and faith in Christ unlike the bloggers over at SBC Today have. If JD decides to run again I’ll support him, but if not then I’ll support the best candidate out there, no matter if he is a Calvinist or a Traditionalist. I’ve voted across the spectrum since my first convention as a messenger and will continue to vote for the best man for the job. Soteriology is not a factor for me. All the have to affirm is the BF&M 2000 and I’m quite happy.
Bill G,
Thats not usually how it works. A trad prez is only a step toward making some people happy. Their unhappiness is rooted in something other than unity.
And we know that unity between the brethren is godly. Thus what ever their unhappiness is rooted in stands against what is godly and can not be appeased.
Unity does not mean we get rid of those we oppose unless those we oppose are heretical. Humility puts others ahead of self, and does not seek to dominate, except in defense of the truth.
Bill G: I am not sure we would all be happy. Why? Because the Trad does not feel the same way. I have no problem with their theology, I do have a problem with their thought that all need to be like them and they will fight and exclude for that to happen.
To be fair, I doubt there is “The Trad.” There are some who declare their goal is “parity” but that looks a lot like quotas. There are some who think there are too many Cals, too many Elders, too much of a lot of Cal stuff. I get a belly full of that sometimes myself.
If Rick Patrick doesn’t mean what he said, and I quoted him verbatim above, he can walk it back or explain it away.
Gaines was elected and the SBC Todayers have remained unhappy so they will be unhappy no matter who is elected.
Becky,
As someone who has not engaged you at all, can I ask you to elaborate on your original comment? What is it about a “Traditional” candidate, over against J.D. Greear or some other non-traditional nominee, that is important enough to you that you want to rally messengers to vote for that candidate?
What to you are the main concerns about electing a non-Traditional president?
Respectfully,
Todd
William, it seems you got Rick’s ire. I think he missed your metaphorical use of the term war (as you did not spew anger or bitterness towards others).
Maybe, we missed Backy’s metaphorical use of the term fight.
Highlight – I just learned you have followers… according to Rick.
Where do I sign up? Is there a list?
Take this for what it’s worth from someone who does not share the traditionalist agenda and who does not see Calvinist bogeymen around every corner. I feel like Becky was hit pretty hard over a few rather innocuous comments. Saying “I am up for the fight” as a comment to an article with “election war” in the title does not strike me as angry and hateful and it was interpreted to be.
The whole thing began with my assumption that she was using a pseudonym. I did not make the assumption without reason, but I was wrong. I have apologized for that here and at SBC Today. I hope Becky will accept my apology.
So, it’s YOUR fault?
Troublemaker.
😉
I sensed that combative and divisive spirit in her that I see in so many of the Traditionalists. Perhaps I overread her comments based on previous experience.
But I would love to know why those in the extreme Traiditonalist camp are so angry and combative.