Today the New Orleans Baptist Association published an important article signed by 7 New Orleans area pastors and the Executive Director of the NOBA. The post calls for unity and an end to the divisiveness that’s been shown by Louisiana Baptist Convention (LBC) leadership and the state Baptist newspaper, the Baptist Message. I’m tremendously grateful for these eight leaders and their willingness to speak out publicly about their concern for Louisiana Baptists.
I’ve watched the Louisiana Baptist Convention from a distance for several years now, and with great concern for what I see as damage being done to cooperative SBC work and the reputation of Christ among Southern Baptists. The article lays out some specific concerns, and I won’t rehash them here, but they are concerns I’ve held for a long time and think they are valid and need to be addressed. Calling attention to the situation in Louisiana is the right thing to do.
Here is one of the key sections in the NOBA post:
Because unity is highly valued among our churches, we are troubled by the critical editorials in our state Baptist paper against SBC agency heads David Platt and Russell Moore. This combative tenor is not new in our state. Within the past few years, Louisiana College was often in the news with stories about professors who were ‘let go’ because they were Reformed-leaning.
A few in our state have developed a reputation for being inhospitable toward Reformed pastors, professors, and denominational leaders, with assertions that they are prepared to split our Convention over this issue.
Do we want our Convention split in two? Do we want to continue to read editorials in our state Baptist paper critical of SBC agency presidents? Do we want unity or division?
Leaders lead. What kind of qualities do we want our leaders to demonstrate?
Jack Hunter, NOBA Executive Director, Fred Luter, and David Crosby are (to me) the most well known names to sign the document. A former SBC President and someone who ran for SBC President this year, both of whom are highly regarded by virtually all corners of SBC life. The entire list is:
Jack Hunter, Executive Director, New Orleans Baptist Association
Fred Luter, Pastor, Franklin Avenue Baptist Church
David Crosby, Pastor, First Baptist Church of New Orleans
Mike Miller, Pastor, First Baptist Church of Kenner
Geovanny Gomez, Pastor, La Viña Spanish Baptist Church
Page Brooks, Pastor, Canal Street Church
Chad Gilbert, Pastor, Edgewater Baptist Church
Larry Johnson, Pastor, Crossroads Community Church
Indeed, leaders lead. And this is the kind of leadership that’s been long needed in Louisiana. It’s my belief and hope that these names represent many others who share the same concerns. May God bless these brothers and their efforts at seeing positive change in LBC life.
That was a powerful statement. I hope people will follow the link and read the full statement.
Yes, it is a really powerful statement indeed.
Well done by leaders in that state…seems to be sorely needed. Hope it puts a stop to some stuff.
I agree. Louisiana Baptists are being sorely misguided
As a former resident of New Orleans, I personally know most of the men on the list. The soteriological beliefs include both Traditionalist and Reformed leanings. Each of them exemplifies Godliness in their daily walks and church ministries. Thus, their call for unity should be interpreted as a humble plea for Gospel unification with hopes of Gospel reconciliation for those who have been injured/slandered by the state’s executive director and the editors of the Baptist Message. Even if the words of these men are not entertained by those in leadership in Alexandria, LA, today serves notice that some pastors in the metro New Orleans area will no longer be bullied or slandered for the sake of political clout and power of a select few. Thank you men for taking the correct stand in light of opposition and may God continue to bless your efforts in that great city.
Most Southern Baptists struggle to find the time or interest to follow what goes on in their own home states. That fact that the situation in Louisiana has garnered attention even from people in other states should really alert us there’s a deep problem going on here.
You know, it shows a lot of maturity to see guys who are not Calvinists on this list defending Calvinists who are either being slandered or have been treated unjustly in the past by guys who, like them, are not Calvinists. That shows that they are not simple tribal. Mad respect for these guys. So glad for their example and I’m so glad that instead of contriving a conspiracy of some Calvinist takeover they seek to unite with those whom they disagree with theological. It would be an honor to sit under their leadership and preacher. Glad I got to see Luter as President for some time.
This is a real bombshell against the long war by those trying to divide the Convention. These men just earned this peon’s respect.
“The long war by those trying to divide the Convention” … might I assume that you are referring to those who incessantly promote Calvinistic soteriology?
Brad, go over to SBCToday and Pulpit and Pen…It’s both sides.
I wish these pastors would stop sowing seeds of disunity and allow all Southern Baptists the freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of the press to say whatever in the world they feel led by God to say about the situations that concern them in Southern Bsptist life. This won’t work. You cannot muzzle this. We are divided and the more you act like we’re not, the worse things are going to get.
The truth is that we need to ADMIT it and DEAL with it instead of trying to STIFLE it and AVOID it. The attitude of these men truly saddens me, because they are unwilling even to admit that people like Will Hall and David Hankins and Gerald Harris and John Wofford and Will McRaney and many others have genuine concerns that deserve to be addressed.
Instead, their attitude is that those who raise such concerns are breeding disunity, but that those whose actions are provoking such concerns in the first place are completely innocent and deserve our unquestioned loyalty. What we have here is DIVISION, which simply means TWO VISIONS. It cannot be the fault of only one side that the other side has a different idea regarding the SBC’s future.
Just because people TALK about the division that exists does not mean they are CREATING it. It’s there, and it’s high time we came to terms with it. I guess our response now is to find seven pastors who can tell these seven pastors that their call for silence is like telling people to stick their heads in the sand and pretend everything is fine. Well, guess what? A whole bunch of us DO NOT believe everything is fine. So we are going to keep talking about it, as we feel led of God to do so, until the problems are addressed.
Think of all the great moments of disunity in history. Jesus with the Pharisees. Luther and the Catholic Church. George Washington and the British. The Civil War. The beginning of the Southern Baptist Convention. The Conservative Resurgence. These conflicts were defining moments when truth and freedom was more important than passivity and the status quo.
I want peace and unity. I simply believe it lies on the other side of truly dealing with our issues, rather than on this side, where we naively wish everyone would just hush so that the tensions would disappear. Instead of finger pointing at people and blaming them for the lack of unity, why not start LISTENING to their concerns and start finding ways to do something about the problems? Solving problems will engender much more unity than constantly blaming people who ask too many questions.
Nonsense Rick.
Brent, perhaps you can explain why it is “nonsense” to advocate dealing with real issues….
Brent, could you please explain what is “nonsense” about Rick’s post?
Briefly, yes. The problem with Hankins and Hall is not that they “disagree” or “advocate dealing with real issues…” It’s the toxic manner in which they’ve operated for years. So for Rick to act like they’re being called out for a theological viewpoint is nonsense.
Brent, “toxic” is a serious charge. It should be easy to show ONE definitive example of what you mean, so please share. Also, if you could explain better how that makes pretending there are no real issues less senseless than handling the real issues….that’d be great,
Strange, I feel united to most all of my Non-Calvinist brothers (some of whom are my close friends). In fact, we joke about our differences all the time. And our church is united to other Gospel preaching SBC churches in our area, Calvinist or not. I think Paige Patterson and Mohler feel united as well. And we dealt with this issue at the SBC Convention a couple years ago. It’s time to move on, united.
Tyler,
Glory, Glory, Hallelujah!
In the real world Calvinists and Non – Calvinists (or leaners, or whatever) work together day after day within local associations, between local churches, within state conventions, and even **gasp** within the same local church.
Rick Patrick is right in stating that “we are divided.” Who in good conscience can deny that?
William Thronton is right in stating that “we have always had sub-groups in the SBC.”
Who among us who knows the history of the SBC even to a primary degree can deny that?
Maybe if those on both sides (maybe all sides/ groups/ those of the various ecclesiological and soteriological positions, or whatever) would just begin to be honest when “our guys” are wrong/sinful and admit it and not cover or deny it.
The problems at LBC were far beyond issues of Calvinists v. Non-Calvinists. The problems there were about sinful conduct from both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists and the efforts to cover it up and then when that did not work, they began to throw each other under the bus. (Greed, plain old unvarnished greed, may have been the catalyst to LBC woes in the beginning.)
If we are honest, we must admit that the tendency to cover for those whose theology is most like ours has been a ‘guidance system” for how we have reacted to conduct that cannot be described as anything else but sin according to Scripture.
This is true among pastors and entity administrators, (Yes, even among State Executive Directors and SBC entity heads, Megachurch pastors and Small-Church pastors, and laity also.)
It is time for such conduct to end among men of God. If my Non-Calvinist brother has sinned, I must be honest about it and not defend or cover it up. I need to handle it in a biblical manner. If my Calvinist brother has sinned, I must be honest about it and not defend or cover it up. I need to handle it in a biblical manner.
If I sin (when I sin), I must be honest about it and not defend or cover it up. I need to handle it in a biblical manner.
Brothers, we are not secular politicians. We are men of God. Our “political” engagements (and we do have legitimate political engagements as Southern Baptists) among ourselves should be handled as men of God and not as the pagans in the secular world.
CB, back in the day we went at it hot and heavy about LC. There was another guy, Ranaldo, I believe who I gave grief. My point of contention was things were being said without substantiation. I have been consistent in this area on several different issues through the years. This is the first real opportunity to say you were 100% right and all your allegations were proved. I do not feel I owe you an apology for I believe I was correct in my conviction but I wanted to acknowledge you and Ranaldo were telling the truth.
Dean Stewart,
I am going out on a limb here, but if I am going to be true to what I have stated, if the guy you are identifying as “Ranaldo” is who I believe him to be, he was in it up to his neck. Please notice the word “if.”
BTW, I consider you to be an honest man with strong convictions. So, you owe me no apology for the that of the past as you have properly stated. We were both standing on what we believed at the time. However, I do appreciate the affirmation. That is a rare thing in SBC life today. if we ever cross paths, lunch is on me.
Boo hoo. Someone pointed out a couple of Calvinists who are in over their heads and now we’re gonna criticize them back and somehow be more holy? I for one am glad to see the LBC taking the bull by the horns and getting to the heart of the issue. The SBC isn’t going to move forward while blindfolded.
The above article is an appeal to the naive and these pastors should be ashamed of themselves. When reality is too painful to confront… appeal to unity? “Unity” is an abused concept used to manipulate. How many times have we seen rouge pastors call for unity when they get caught with their pants down? Do we want to be united in error?
The article says: “Within the past few years, Louisiana College was often in the news with stories about professors who were ‘let go’ because they were Reformed-leaning.” What’s wrong with that? If you don’t want reformed leaning students, reformed leaning pastors, and reformed leaning churches then what else are you supposed to do?
How many guys at Southern does Mohler have that ARE reformed leaning? Why the double standard?
Like it or not, many of us have had experience with Calvinism that cause us to regard it as a cold religion of academic arrogance and our churches have the wounds and scars to prove it. While these 7 guys hold hands and sing Kumbaya their innocent Calvinist buddies are busy working behind their backs erasing congregationalism, missions, and alter calls. Let’s face it Young, Restless, and Reformed has turned out to be Inexperienced, Inconsistent and Intolerant. Calvinists and Non-Calvinist don’t even agree on who Jesus died for. (Limited Atonement) These two beliefs are like water and oil. They do not mix and they certainly do not enhance one another.
Crosby, Luter, Hunter etc, if you’re okay with the Reformed movement in your churches then that’s your prerogative. Not everyone shares that opinion though. Instead of slamming the convictions of the non-Calvinists as you did in this article why don’t you consider accepting their opinions and seeking unity with them as well?
This might be one of the most misinformed comments I’ve ever read on SBCVoices. Johnny demonstrates not one inkling of the issues in the Louisiana Baptist Convention and projects his own experiences into the story. To call Fred Luter, just to name one of the signatories, naive is laughable, simply laughable.
Jason,
Johnny said this was an “appeal TO THE NAIVE”. He did not say Dr. Luter WAS naive.
Another interesting statement is this one, “Within the past few years, Louisiana College was often in the news with stories about professors who were ‘let go’ because they were Reformed-leaning.”
Well… guess who was making all that fuss? It was NOT the Trads! If a college does not want calvinist leaning prof’s and students… what is it to do? What about Southern Seminary? Excellent statement.
Calvinists and Non-Calvinist don’t even agree on who Jesus died for. (Limited Atonement) These two beliefs are like water and oil. They do not mix and they certainly do not enhance one another. Excellent again.
The reform leaders in the SBC COULD have written that statement. They certainly believe it. IF they did not believe it, there would not be this move within the SBC to “get the gospel right” because “calvinism is the gospel.” This has been effectively done by taking control of the entities of the SBC under the radar so to speak… and as been correctly stated, 80%+ of the SBC membership has no idea what calvinism even is much less what it teaches and EVERYONE on BOTH sides of this issue KNOWS that is the truth.
Unity is NOT going to happen in the SBC because the calvinists are not going to back out of their current successful quest to take control of the SBC and those who are not in favor of this reformed take-over are not going to simply sit down and shut up and continue to let it happen. I do not think there is much that can be done to stop it but do not expect us to just go “quietly in the night.”
If there is anything naive about this issue, that most certainly would be it.
The was just a terrible comment and shows everything wrong with this type of thinking.
Also, I’m offended by the baseless concept that Calvinists are erasing missions. That’s insulting to my Calvinists brothers who are missionaries in countries that I’m not even allowed to name due to how dangerous the countries are. It’s insulting to the Calvinist our church is about to send off to a country in a few weeks where people are getting their heads blown off all the time.
I’m thankful that this type of thinking seems to be being erased. The ignorance is this comment was about as high as the Empire State Building.
Typically when Christians refer to missions we mean the sharing of the Gospel with others. Going to foreign or even dangerous countries to spread Calvinism is not missions. Its recruiting. Mormons are sincere good people who believe they are doing missions. Some Muslims do as well. They are not doing the Lord’s work.
Your Calvinist friend is probably a great guy, but he can’t HONESTLY tell every stranger he meets “God loves you and sent his Son to die for your sins”. If he believes in limited atonement then he must believe that some people he will encounter are not loved by God and Jesus did not die for them. This is not something we should be laughing about with our Calvinist friends as one commentor said. This is a serious error we should be working out.
Are you willing to compromise the gospel for unity? If we are to have unity, let us unite around the essential Christian doctrine that “God so loved the WORLD.” If we can’t even get that right, perhaps we need more calls for open discussion instead of the “shut up and get along at all costs” article cited above.
Johnny B.
“Going to foreign or even dangerous countries to spread Calvinism is not missions. Its recruiting.”
And, “Are you willing to compromise the gospel for unity?”
Johnny, statements like this are part of the problem. Missionaries who happen to be Calvinists are not there to spread Calvinism. They are there to spread the gospel. Are you aware of the history of missions, where so many Calvinists were involved directly in leading so very many to Christ?
I am in the PCA, decidedly a Reformed church. We have missionaries all over the world, not spreading the Reformed faith, but rather telling people that they are sinners and that Jesus forgives sinners!! It is that simple.
Johnny B: That is more gossip in your statement than fact. The Gospel is the Gospel. Good grief.
Johnny B.
“Your Calvinist friend is probably a great guy, but he can’t HONESTLY tell every stranger he meets “God loves you and sent his Son to die for your sins”. If he believes in limited atonement then he must believe that some people he will encounter are not loved by God and Jesus did not die for them. This is not something we should be laughing about with our Calvinist friends as one commentor said. This is a serious error we should be working out.”
Johnny, this statement amounts to nothing more than ridiculousness compounded with a superfluity of poppycock!
A person of reformed persuasion most certainly can (and does) tell all people with whom they are sharing the gospel (wherever and whenever that interaction might be taking place)that Christ came to die in the place of sinners and all who come to him will be saved. S/he will then give the listener an opportunity to respond to that message.
Your apparent ignorance of the theological framework you condemn is mind-boggling, sir.
Tarheel,
I’ve got to disagree with you here.
If Jesus did not die for you, then you have no chance, never had a chance, and never will have a chance to be saved.
If Jesus did not die for you, you have nothing to believe in.
If Jesus did not die for you then you are as sure for Hell as if you were there already. No matter what you do or believe.
I think 5-point Calvinists need to be a little more honest about that.
David R. Brumbelow
David B,
Tar Heel said, “Christ came to die in the place of sinners and all who come to him will be saved.”
That is definitely an accurate statement and Reformed people like me can heartily affirm it.
Les,
Yes, and I can also see how you are skirting around an inconvenient truth.
David R. Brumbelow
David B. What am I skirting and what is inconvenient? I affirm that the atonement is particular. Not for all. But all or any who do come to Him He will save. Not all will come. We both agree on that don’t we?
no skirting here – I was born a man and identify as such!
Seriously….who is skirting around what?
Well, they’ve been mixing since the inception of the SBC without problem for most.
The good thing is: the majority of SBCers don’t see a problem and aren’t willing to shout conspiracy where there is no conspiracy. Are there some Calvinists who want to Calvinize everything? Sure, but they’re few in number. Just as there are some Traditionalists who want to rid the convention of anything they think smells a bit like Calvinism. But they’re also few in number.
The bad thing is, a few radical nuts have the ability to shout very loudly and make boogeymen out of Jesus-loving, SBC-loving, Missions-loving, etc.-loving brothers and sisters. Thus, we have the need to push back like these men did.
Excellent and thoughtful post by Rick Patrick. ALL of us desire and pray for Biblical unity, but suppression of speech and thought should not be imposed in an attempt to install an artificial unity based on a controversial (or, at a bare minimum, highly debatable) theological construct. The demand that Traditionalists should “hush up and toe the line” is becoming reminiscent of the attitude of non-inerrantists during the 1980s-1990s. Let us never stifle sincere dialogue; let us welcome and embrace it.
Part of Rick’s tirade: “A whole bunch of us DO NOT believe everything is fine. So we are going to keep talking about it, as we feel led of God to do so, until the problems are addressed.”
I noticed that you are unhappy but I hate to see God blamed for your actions in calling in questioning motives, encouraging bullying, disparaging anything by anyone who doesn’t fit your theological template, incessant speculation about conspiratorial behavior of your opponents, evaluating every elected or hired SBC leader on the basis of a new statement of beliefs that not one SBC entity, state convention, association, or even a single church has adopted.
We’ve always had sub-groups in SBC life. Sometimes they make a positive contribution in educating the whole of the convention. But sometimes their relentlessly negative message proves corrosive on SBC life. Your organization, seems to me, has morphed into the latter. Such need not be the case but it is the route you have chosen.
William, it is interesting that you would imply that Traditionalists are a “sub-group in SBC life.” I estimate at least 80% of Southern Baptists would affirm the Traditionalist view over the Calvinist view of salvation. Not bad for a “sub-group.” And I respectfully but vehemently reject your characterization of Traditionalists as presenting a “relentlessly negative message.” The message is relentlessly positive. I am tempted to say that it is the Calvinists who are “corrosive on SBC life,” but I resist following the rhetorical route you have chosen.
“I estimate at least 80%…”
You estimate….
enough said.
Tarheel my brother, my use of “I estimate” was to acknowledge the unofficial nature of the statistic. My experience suggests that it is ballpark-accurate. The vast majority of Southern Baptists I talk to are not Calvinists. I’d be interested in knowing your opinion; thanks in advance!
Brad, the activist Trad group, those seeking “parity” (or quotas, since the route to parity is a quota), those questioning motives, those evaluating every hiccup in SBC life with the trad/cal template, is a decided minority.
At the moment they are tire slashers. They could contribute positively but that would require some changes. The NO authors recognize this and are calling for it. God bless them.
We can all do better, I think.
I think most (all?) Southern Baptists believe that God (and his will) is sovereign over man (and his will).
I think most (all) southern baptists believe that mankind is lost in the darkness of sin.
I think most (all?) southern Baptists affirm that salvation by God’s gracious merciful act alone.
I think most (all?) southern Baptists limit the atonement in some way (lest they be universalists)
I think most (all?) southern Baptists affirm that when God calls people respond
I think most (all?) southern Baptists affirm eternal security of salvation.
Therefore to some degree I think most (all?) SBCers are somewhat Calvinistic in their theology….now once you start looking at the nuances of the above statements you will get differing viewpoints.
May I remind you that Baptists came straight out of the PROTESTANT REFORMATION so our heritage is certainly reformed – admittedly there is and always has been, within the SBC, wide variance as to nuances related to the statements above.
I love this call for unity. I pray for my brothers and sisters in the SBC and in the LBC especially that the call of these godly men will be heeded, and that God will indeed grant peace and unity.
“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brothers to dwell together in unity!”
Amen.
Fred Luter and Crosby – and I assume at least some of the others I don’t know them – are not Calvinists…
One would think that when godly and respected people like Crosby and Luter who are on Hankins (Rick’s) “Soteriological side” call on them to cool their divisive jets – it would be heeded – or at least respectfully acknowledged – but as we have seen so many times before the “Connect” crowd choose to go on the attack and treat their brothers and sisters in Christ very badly – this is all too typical for them.
Tarheel, I know 4 of the 8 pastors very well and I know 2 others tangentially. Of those 6, only one of them could even moderately be considered/classified Reformed and that’s a stretch. When David Hankins orchestrates the firing of faculty because he disagrees with their soteirology, and when he sends his henchmen from Alexandria to crisscross the state threatening churches that if they don’t silence their dissent they will lose LBC dollars, then it’s about time someone spoke up.
I am not sure what you mean by the Connect crowd attacking and treating people “very badly” but just because people question things, see things differently and speak their opinion does not mean they are attacking anyone. I have never personally seen the Connect crowd treat anyone “very badly.” However, I have seen them invite people on all sides to have grown up conversations about the differences within the SBC.
When people begin getting their feelings hurt and feel “attacked” just because someone sees things differently usually means that person or group of people are wearing their feelings on their shoulders and are just looking for a reason to complain.
Jason, can you share how LBC gives money to churches? State conventions only receive money from the churches I have pastored.
I don’t know but Louisiana, Dean – but I am familiar with state conventions who do assist established churches in church planting – and for church plants specifically there’s a whole lot of funding. There also specific initiatives whereby by the state convention assist churches in financing of summer internships, special events and the like
Tarheel, you know there are few church in Louisiana that receive money from the LBC. We just read an article calling for peace and Jason uses the term “henchmen” in describing the employees of the LBC. I have a few friends that work for LBC and I find his comment insulting. I am sure some dime store etymologist will give an innocent meaning to “henchmen” but I don’t like my friends being insulted.
I point out that we all read through lenses; some are appalled with one comment and ignore a clear insult labeled at brothers.
…threatening churches that if they don’t silence their dissent they will lose LBC dollars…
Churches don’t receive money from State Conventions.
Lee: Do you call the baseless attacks made on Greear, Moore, and even now Gaines by the Connect crowd inviting adult conversation? I call it gossip based on nothing. If you care to I can direct you to those articles. But I think you already know where they are located.
Dean, I agree, friend.
The use of the word henchmen was inappropriate, unfortunate and over the top.
As to whether threats were made regarding funding or anything else to reformed leaning brethren in Louisiana by the execs of the state convention – I will freely say I do not know now that to be a fact – which is why I did not respond to that part of the comment.
I was only responding to your comment about state conventions not offering finances to churches – I stand by what I said in that regard – that is not exactly the case.
Lee,
If freedom of objection toward our SBC leaders is what the Connect crowd is after and encourage and defend – then one would think that the director of Connect would be on here applauding the value and importance of the objections voiced by Dr. Luter, Dr. Crosby and the others who have done exactly what it is you say that you value. Alas, though that is not what we saw with the tirade he posted above.
….Or is it that Connect only values the freedom and importance of objection when it is aimed at people with whom you disagree – in which case it would not be valuing the freedom by principle at all – now would it?
Dean (and, by extension, Tarheel),
You may not like my use of the word henchmen, but I’m at a loss for an appropriate replacement. When David Hankins gets angry because of public criticism, trolls social media, and tasks his direct reports to load up in a car that uses CP $ to pay for gas to drive to another part of the state for the sole purpose of threatening pastors that if their congregants don’t stop criticizing him then the LBC will immediately cut off already promised funding, that is abuse of power and, quite frankly, ungodly and immoral leadership. Since this story has broken, Hankins has personally called at least one of the signers of the NOBA letter to chew him out for “rebelling” against him as Ex Director of the LBC. This is his character, this is his modus operandi.
P.S. The simple definition of henchmen is “a trusted follower or supporter who performs unpleasant, wrong, or illegal tasks for a powerful person (such as a politician or criminal)” from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/henchman. You may find the word offensive, but it fits to a “t”.
In general, we probably fare better in our debates when we avoid such words. Emotions run strong, but we ought to walk the high road.
Joe Blackmon,
You wrote: “Churches don’t receive money from State Conventions.”
Actually, some do.
Jason,
If you choose to use that word you will have to be the one to defend it (and it seems you are ready and willing to do that). As I said I do not know enough about the facts of the situations in Louisiana to use that label.
Actually, some do.
Not to the point that you’re describing…where they would have to cower in fear of having the money cut off. You know, like the way Ezell threatened to cut off funding to the Maryland state convention if they didn’t fire that guy?
I have reliable and authoritative information that what you just said simply is not true – Ezell did not do that.
Unfortunately, truth is often a casualty of war.
But what you said is not true Joe.
Joe Blackmon,
At first you claim no churches receive money from the LBC. Now you appear to know how many (or at least the general number) do. How you so quickly go from no knowledge to particular knowledge of this topic is fascinating.
“You know, like the way Ezell threatened to cut off funding to the Maryland state convention if they didn’t fire that guy?”
And there’s another flame thrown at an SBC entity head by those unity seeking “connectors”.
As much as I hate agreeing with a Big10 guy who is predisposed to wear a green suit and root for the hated Yankees, I also have specific (and trusted) information (from a different source) about that situation that leads me to agree with Dave. This was difficult for me because I knew Will McRaney when he was at NOBTS and I was predisposed to give him the benefit of the doubt. It appears his story is not as valid as it first appeared.
Dave,
Your “authoritative information” notwithstanding, I can name two Maryland Pastors who will testify that they were clearly told NAMB threatened to cut funding as long as Will McRaney was Executive Director. Why would these two pastors lie about something like this?
Also, there is this letter, signed by Ezell, which indicates that the state cooperation agreement would no longer be in effect, and citing only the Executive Director’s role in it. In other words, the whole state would be punished with loss of funding because of a conflict between NAMB and the Executive Director. That’s pressure to remove.
http://willmcraney.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Ezell-NAMB-Letter-Canceling-Agreement.pdf
Then, once McRaney was indeed removed, the funding was completely restored, and even increased, and Ezell’s buddy became the new Executive Director.
In this case, I really do think there’s something fishy going on. It doesn’t pass the smell test. Add to McRaney’s charges the testimony of other State Executives, such Randy Adams in the Northwest Association and the pressure they received by NAMB regarding health insurance issues, and I think it most certainly deserves an independent investigation.
I don’t want NAMB pressuring our state conventions, and because there is the *possibility* that this is going on, I think an independent investigation is warranted.
All your information roots in one source, who had an ax to grind. His accusations have not been substantiated.
I’d just as soon you keep that kind of thing on your blog.
What is clear in this is that Rick will foist the anti-Ezell narrative on every occasion. Trustees, many non-Cs, investigated. Mcr did a document dump once off the payroll and has a few allies.
Time to move along and recognize that whenever this comes up its part of the anti-cal toolbox.
This southern baptist fully expects NAMB to control their own budget. If Rick’s group wants to start funding church plants, I’ll be the first to commend them.
And Ezell ain’t even a cal. He just gets witch hunted as one b/c he pastored Mohler’s church.
I agree with Rick Patrick’s statement. It’s not wrong to address real concerns. If you have real concerns but wont voice them for the sake of unity then you might be part of the problem. The Rodney King philosophy doesn’t work when there is a real problem. To call out a newspaper for reporting real concerns and try to muzzle it is a serious infringement on freedom. When is a search for truth wrong?
Brad: I think many saw the truth in the election between Gaines and Greear and the appointment and leadership of David Platt. The concerns are more looking for a fight than legitimate concerns.
Rick,
It seems to me your movement wants a place at the table without having to go through the hard work to get there. You say to the Calvinists who you think are in charge, “please relinquish your power and give it to us“. Is this how conservatives took back the SBC? Your group even seems to be willing to throw some on your own side under the bus (speculating that the Greear / Gaines gesture was not grace but quid pro quo; spreading rumors that Merritt’s floor speech was ghostwritten by someone on the platform) to poison the relationship between cals and non-cals. The fact is millions of SBCers, cal and non-cal are quite happily working together and don’t know they are supposed to be at war. You seem to have made it your mission to draft them into the fight.
Is there some disunity in the SBC over soteriology? Absolutely. But your solution seems to be to fan the flames.
Rick, my old online friend who is a good pastor and mostly sensible guy, has called for many things, many changes but he has not made one motion in his association, state convention, or SBC annual meeting. He has not shared the answer to one question he has directed to any of those whom he criticizes, preferring to speculate wildly and maintain the claim that he wouldn’t get his questions answered even if he asked them.
Maybe it would be time for the Trad group leader to exercise some of the power he claims to have on the basis of the dominance of Trads in SBC life instead of taking potshots from long distance. Put your statement of belief up for a vote at any level of SBC life. Any of the proposals you have made over the past few years, put them before any SBC body. I would vote for some of them.
Put down the knife, stop slashing tires, and put some constructive proposals before the groups that you wish.
There is much that needs to be said, but first and foremost is a defense of Rick Patrick’s actions. To categorize what Dr. Patrick (or Traditionalists broadly) is trying to accomplish as “tire slashing” is no more helpful than the mischaracterization of his actions would be if they were true. Traditionalists are attempting to present a positive affirmation of our understanding of soteriology. We are attempting to offer it up as an alternative to one that we unapologetically believe is unbiblical. Furthermore, we have defended it as we believe the defense of a proper understanding of the sacred text is extremely important. This is especially true when it comes to matters of salvation. To be clear, and though I probably should not speak for him (he does an excellent job of that himself), I don’t believe Dr. Patrick would question the salvation of a professing Calvinist Christian merely on the basis of his Calvinism. Nevertheless, secondary doctrinal positions matter. If they matter enough for an individual to affirm and defend either Calvinism or Traditionalism then they matter enough to draft statements about them. They matter enough to engage in theological debate about them. The Southern Baptist Convention (in fact, Christianity in general) has enjoyed a rich history of theological debate. Of course . . . that’s not really what this is about. What this is really about, it would seem, is that Dr. Patrick (as well as many other Traditionalists) have demonstrated that they see these theological matters as actually important. By that I mean, they are important enough to matter when it comes to making decisions in the real world. They matter enough to be considered when it comes to the question of who will and will not hold offices. Albeit in a much softer way, the idea that soteriological affirmations are irrelevant when it comes to such real world decision making is not entirely alien to the old adage, “politics and religion don’t mix.” Obviously, the Christian faith of a believer has an incredible impact when it comes to how he votes in political elections. In an admittedly softer way, what one believes about soteriology should matter to the SBC in general. That said, it is not my role to serve as the decider when it comes to who holds which offices. It’s not my desire to see anyone necessarily lose his job. I do think Calvinists and Traditionalists can work together (given certain caveats). I’ve done it many times myself. I don’t want to see the convention fall apart. I agree with much of what was quoted from the statement at the beginning of this article, but I also see a lack of consistency in speaking about soteriological views as though they are high, lofty, important and worthy of defense (on the one hand), and best left out of actual real world decision making (on the other). It seems that the goal should not be an avoidance of the issue, but civility in the debate.
Braxton, it is not the theological debate that causes any problem. I rather appreciate the articles that focus on the various areas of the theology. The problems are the speculations, the presumptions, the cheap shot pieces directed to the same few individuals and entities, and the failure to do simple diligence prior to wild conjectures. This is the tire slashing.
Add to those the absurdity of expecting a home-made theological statement not adopted by any body to be used even in a semi-official manner.
If outstanding people like Luter and Crosby see a problem, maybe the least that could be done is to reflect on the matter.
1. “The fact is millions of SBCers, cal and non-cal are quite happily working together and don’t know they are supposed to be at war.”
This is it right here. Unfortunately, I’d have to say It’s a positive thing for my church that most of them don’t read this blog, especially the comments. I don’t think it would be, on the whole, a positive thing for their encouragement and Christian walk.
2. “I estimate at least 80% of Southern Baptists would affirm the Traditionalist view over the Calvinist view of salvation.” “The vast majority of Southern Baptists I talk to are not Calvinists.”
The second statement above is likely reflective of SBC make-up…the first is not. Most here would likely concede that most SBCers are not calvinists. Most are also not traditionalists. A little over 1,000 have signed the Traditional statement. And while many more likely agree with it, we just don’t know. It is my judgement that the Trad. Statement’s article on the incapcitation of Man’s free will has excluded many who would share in their rejection of calvinism, but hold a different view of depravity. It definitely excludes those who would be more classically arminian while agreeing with eternal security. Also, there are very likely a large number who simply haven’t considered the issues enough to know where they stand…who think it’s just a mystery, who don’t see it as a major issue over which to divide, or who have thought it through deeply, and still see problems with both Soteriological views. Many of these are not really thinking about calvinism or traditionalism at all.
Personally, I grew up in a rough and tumble working class neighborhood where drugs, street fights, and other carnal stuff was daily fare. Straight out of high school I did four years in the military, and became a believer as a young adult. My world view was not rose-colored by any stretch of the imagination. Then when I later answered the call to the ministry, I found myself surrounded by naïve preacher-boys who grew up in sterile environments. Hold that thought –
Entering seminary in 1982, I came of age as a Southern Baptist pastor in the mid-1980’s, and recall well the turmoil the conflict in the convention caused for me. It reminded me somewhat of the neighborhood I grew up in; it was as if my spiritual family was getting a divorce, and the emotions were intense. Then I graduated seminary (NOBTS) and moved into full-time ministry and the further I got away from the acrid discussions of theologians and ideologues, the more focused I became on Christianity as it happens in the everyday world. Still, I found myself surrounded by colleagues who were “as to legalistic righteousness, flawless,” and often out of touch with what their people deal with each day. Later, a 10-year stint as a bi-vocational pastor convinced me that many pastors have no idea what life is like outside of their ideological bubble. Therein, I believe, rests much of the source of the problems in our convention.
To wit: as pastors (and as the case may be, other ministerial types) we sometimes get our drawers in a wad over things the vast majority of people in our congregations simply don’t care about. Over 36 years in vocational ministry I have not been asked even once, “Pastor – please explain to me about this Calvinist issue? … Or about that guy’s take on the millennium? … Or about the synoptic problem? … Or about the debate over moderate vs conservative?”
The folks in our churches just do not care, and their not caring about such things does not make them the “unwashed masses” or otherwise useless or ignorant people. Rather, they tolerate our ideological idiosyncrasies while trusting the Lord and living daily within the harsh realities of life, and they devote their emotional resources to things that make life livable. I would venture that most Louisiana Baptists are unaware of this debate – unless, of course, their pastor has made it an issue for discussion in the church.
Next, why do we (ministers) work ourselves up to the point that our hair (figuratively speaking, of course) stands straight out and bursts into flames over such things? I think that often our fiery indignation over such arcane issues is an emotional and psychological “comfort toy” to offset the sense of inner unease that accompanies the knowledge we by and large have no control of life around us. And we project that insecurity into these debates and the political maneuverings of our denominational structures and professional networks. Indignation and political machinations will not change the reality that people are going to think what they are going to think and do what they are going to do.
The essence of a power struggle is seen in the question, “who gets to define reality?” The truth is all of this is a power struggle; certainly against the principalities and powers and the forces of darkness,” but sometimes, brother against brother as blinded to reality by ideology and personal pain. Behind the theological debates is a struggle for power, status and control of our convention resources, institutions, directions. Power, status, and control are part of any such struggle. Naturally, as ministers we would never confess to the other two motives (money and sex) being part of our driving impetus… But at the end of the day, those who control the resources and accompanying institutions will have had their moment in the sun. Given our declining convention and the disintegration of our culture I think the fundamentalist “we are going to save the SBC and the world” mantra can now be seen for what it was; a power move pure and simple.
For the sake of clarity I will confess that theologically I fall within the traditionalist camp. Calvin was born in 1509 or thereabouts. Some 1,450 years before the time of Calvin the early church was unified around a simple gospel message and a shared relationship with the living Lord. Their faith and changed lives changed the Roman Empire and later the known world of that time; why in God’s name is the Calvinist supplanting the gospel with what boils down to a medieval Galatian heresy? Like the Judaizers of Paul’s day it appears they are blind to their own blindness. As regards their so-called theological sophistication, the Apostle Paul noted “I count it all loss for the surpassing value of knowing Christ.” Or as the old hymn frames it, “My hope is built on nothing less that Jesus’ blood and righteousness.” With all that said, my traditionalist viewpoint gains me nothing before God, as well.
Finally, the late Apostle reminds us in Romans 1:18 that the tipping point towards spiritual reprobation is suppression of the truth. Denial in any form is always a flawed response that leads to an exacerbated problem. If these leaders are using unity to suppress dissent the Lord will show it soon enough.
Otherwise, unity is certainly needed in Louisiana – and in most other places in our country. But unity at the price of suppressing the truth is spiritually, emotionally, or socially unhealthy. If these leaders can rally men of peace and good faith to the table and embrace a biblically anchored consensus that leads to unity moving forward their work will be seen in hindsight as a pivotal effort. I certainly hope it comes to pass.
There are some things in this world worth being divided over. We don’t always have to get along. But we should be civil towards one another.
What I am seeing in the convention is not “unity”, but rather “conformity or else”. This is dangerous. Why isn’t anyone standing up and saying, “this is not Baptistic”? This violates our Distinctives of Soul Liberty and Priesthood of the Believer.
I want harmony, not unity. And there is a huge difference between the two. But I will not stand by for “conformity or else”.
I wonder if many of you pastors allow a free and open discussion of different visions in your own church. Do you “suppress or muzzle” your own church leadership who have a different vision?
No, I do not “muzzle” members in church whether they share my vision or not. Muzzles are very expensive and misc. funds are not what they used to be, so muzzling the members is now cost prohibitive.
CB I got two words for you…Duct Tape. Not only does it effectively muzzle a person when applied, but the process of removing serves as a pain re-enforcement so hopefully the subject avoids such actions in the future. It is fairly inexpensive too and has many other uses so it’s costs are easily justified.
I think it is rather naive for anyone to expect that a person who has genuine convictions on foundational theological issues to overlook said issues for the cause of a superficial unity. I say superficial because if the theological issues are truly ones held by conviction, then he is held captive by heart and conscience far more than a “can’t we all get along” plea by others.
I believe that Jesus dies for the sins of the world…a general atonement, I can never fully bring myself to endorsing someone who believes that Jesus died for only some. It is a convictional theological issue.
I believe that all people truly can respond to the Father’s drawing and the Spirit’s convicting, and conversely, can also reject the call of God. For that reason, I can never fully embrace/support the monergism of Calvinism, nor do I support those who claim the theological premise that fatalism is the correct hermeneutical position of the Scriptures(ie every person’s salvation has already been pre-determined in eternity past with no possibility for any person to do other than what God has decreed=fatalism).
There can be some level of cooperation among those who hold differing theological viewpoints, but to ask people to leave their convictions at the door for the sake of unity is naive at best.
Kevin:
I hold to limited atonement, some of my best friends in life and fellow pastors in my association do not.
We love each other, pray for each other, share the gospel together, preach in each others’ churches, etc.
Despite our deeply held divergent convictions, we have real unity. And there’s one main reason…
Yes, I believe that Jesus only paid for the sins of his people who respond to him in faith. They believe that Jesus paid for all sins of all people. But, we all believe that the only way anyone is saved is hearing the gospel and responding in faith and repentance.
So we work together to get as many people as we can the gospel of the Jesus who saves.
Hi Mike — And that is the catch..not necessarily with you but with those who hold to the TULIP…not sure where you would classify yourself. The Calvinist believes that only some are able to respond to the Gospel while the non-Calvinist believes anyone can respond. It certainly makes a difference if you know in your heart that a person can be saved, if he will versus only some can be saved and that is by God’s choice alone……..those are not similar positions by any stretch.
I am glad that you have good friends around you, but the theological positions described above do not mesh seamlessly…..
Kevin here is where you, and others expressing your views simply do not get it. I freely admit I lean strongly on the double-predestination side, I admit I am a bit of a fatalist…BUT I am not omniscient! I have no clue WHO God has chosen to save and who He has not. His command to me (and all other Christians) is to go out and share the Gospel. Period. End of statement. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. In hearing the Gospel the elect will respond, and everyone else will not. I cannot control that, and I do not know who is who. So as a fatalist, it is entirely possible to combine my understanding of the “limited” results of Gospel missions, and the “universal” command to share. If you believe in an omniscient God, than you too HAVE to believe that God already knows the fruits of your efforts in sharing the Gospel before you even walk out the door. Thus, in the end, what we disagree on is the logical order and mechanical function of the process, NOT the end result.
I know I, and others, have tried to explain this to you and those who share your views, to much failed effort. And i find it interesting that few Calvinists have issues with sharing the gospel with someone of another soteriological system (indeed that was one of the previous attacks on Calvinism, that they are too ecumenical for the SBC), and yet there are Traditionalist like you who in one breath say “No, we don’t want to kick ALL Calvinists out” than in the next breath say “We can’t share the gospel with Calvinists, the two views are incompatible.” Frankly, it is people like you Kevin, that demonstrate that the “vocal” Traditionalist crowd are the real hinderance to SBC unity (just as there are some Calvinists who are hindrances too…cough pulpitandpen cough…) and that you, by no means, represent the majority of SBC folk.
Kevin, no they don’t mesh seamlessly, but that doesn’t mean they cannot coexist as we share the gospel together.
I’m a full fledged 5-pointer, and I believe: No one will be saved without expressing personal faith in Jesus after hearing the gospel. If they do, then they are clearly among the elect. If they die without doing that, they are clearly not.
If I’m sharing the gospel with someone, I can look them in the eyes and say, “You are a sinner, Jesus is the solution, and if you believe then you will be saved and forgiven.” There is nothing in the tulip against that.
That’s the thing: My non-Calvinists friends want to try to get the gospel to everyone who will listen, because they cannot be saved without it. Me and all my Calvinist friend want to try to get the gospel to everyone who will listen because they cannot be saved without it.
Calvinism is really just an explanation of what’s going on in the background, as is non-Calvinism. Some of us believe one is the best explanation, some believe the other is. Some believe somewhere in between. Yet that doesn’t actually change the practical outworking of how, what, and with whom we share.
” Thus, in the end, what we disagree on is the logical order and mechanical function of the process, NOT the end result.” —- it is far more than that svmuschany—-In my viewpoint, the very character of God is compromised by a Calvinistic Gospel…for God did not love the world, only a few…whosoever believeth in Him is not possible until a God-caused regeneration takes place, and no one can call on the name of the Lord until after God has already saved him!
And while I believe that my Calvinistic friends are my brothers in Christ, I absolutely do not and cannot share that viewpoint. Nor would I want that viewpoint taught at my church….Nor would I want it spread through the nations. To be transparent, a Calvinist would have to tell people “God will save some of you but the rest of you will die in your sins condemned to Hell for all eternity, and you have no choice in the matter!”……not a Good News Gospel!
And yes, I understand that contrarian viewpoints are a hindrance to superficial unity, but I would rather be divided by truth, than united in error…so yes, I am calling the Reformed position to be in error 🙂
And so here we have Kevin admitting what many suspect most “extreme” traditionalists actually view. For all their talk about “quotas” and fair representation, it really is about getting rid of the Calvinists because “our” theological position is incompatible with theirs, and the two sides cannot work together in the Gospel mission. At least Kevin has the integrity to openly say this in a (fairly) respectable tone.
This is exactly the issue with what is going on in Louisiana. A small few, are using the bully pulpit, for force those with different soteriological positions out. They don’t want them around or apart of the LBC (and SBC as a whole). The MAJORITY of Louisiana Baptists are beginning to recognize and see for what it is and are speaking out. As should everyone.
Kevin,
You said, “The Calvinist believes that only some are able to respond to the Gospel while the non-Calvinist believes anyone can respond. It certainly makes a difference if you know in your heart that a person can be saved, if he will versus only some can be saved and that is by God’s choice alone”
Can you explain how exactly what you or I “think” or “believe” at the time we are telling people about Jesus and calling on them to repent and believe and to trust in Jesus for eternal life…how what you or I “think” or “believe” at that time matters as to whether God will or will not save that person? Please explain. Thanks.
@ Les – “how what you or I “think” or “believe” at that time matters as to whether God will or will not save that person?”-
What I mean is this , “Can we HONESTLY tell any person that salvation is available to him if he would only repent and believe?” The Calvinist says that salvation is only possible to the elect, and so must, if being honest, qualify salvation as to only those whom God has pre-selected. Conversely, the non-Calvinist may, without verbal semantics and contortions, declare that God’s love and forgiveness is available to all if they will but receive it through faith in Christ. In other words, salvation is not available to all people through the lens of Calvinism whereas it is through non-Calvinism.
Kevin,
With all due respect this is nonsense.
“qualify salvation as to only those whom God has pre-selected.” I am Reformed. I believe in limited atonement. But, I am not God and thus do not know who the elect are.
So, I present the gospel to any and all. God does the saving. If we agree that God does the saving, no matter the exact words we each use and no matter what we each believe about the mechanics of HOW God saves and who He saves, He will and does still do the saving. I really do not understand why this is such a problem for non Cals to grasp.
Now let me be clear. I do not think it is a good idea, given my theology, to tell all discriminately that “Jesus dies for you.” Fact is, I do not know that, since I do not believe the atonement was for everyone.
But, the fact that I “believe” in that LA, has no bearing on whether God can or will save that person.
I rather say something like (using scripture), “God made us all and we all are accountable to Him and ultimately will answer to Him. But we all sinned. And I ask them about that. i.e. do you agree that you have violated God’s law as set forth in Exodus and in the great commandment. After they agree, then I tell them that God sent His own Son to redeem sinners and save them for their sin. He requires you to bow before His Lordship in repentance and faith (with explanation) and trust Him for eternal life.”
Now that is very condensed, but you get the idea. Now I ask you, can someone hearing something like that get saved?
Can anyone honestly disagree with this gospel presentation and state or intimate that it is defective?
“God Is Sovereign Creator
Contemporary thinking says man is the product of evolution. But the Bible says we were created by a personal God to love, serve, and enjoy endless fellowship with Him. The New Testament reveals it was Jesus Himself who created everything (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Therefore, He also owns and rules everything (Psalm 103:19). That means He has authority over our lives and we owe Him absolute allegiance, obedience, and worship.
God Is Holy
God is absolutely and perfectly holy (Isaiah 6:3); therefore He cannot commit or approve of evil (James 1:13). God requires holiness of us as well. First Peter 1:16 says, You shall be holy, for I am holy.
Mankind Is Sinful
According to Scripture, everyone is guilty of sin: There is no man who does not sin (1 Kings 8:46). That doesn’t mean we’re incapable of performing acts of human kindness. But we’re utterly incapable of understanding, loving, or pleasing God on our own (Romans 3:10-12).
Sin Demands a Penalty
God’s holiness and justice demand that all sin be punished by death (Ezekiel 18:4). That’s why simply changing our patterns of behavior can’t solve our sin problem or eliminate its consequences.
Jesus Is Lord and Savior
Romans 10:9 says, If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. Even though God’s justice demands death for sin, His love has provided a Savior who paid the penalty and died for sinners (1 Peter 3:18). Christ’s death satisfied the demands of God’s justice, and Christ’s perfect life satisfied the demands of God’s holiness (2 Corinthians 5:21), thereby enabling Him to forgive and save those who place their faith in Him (Romans 3:26).
The Character of Saving Faith
True faith is always accompanied by repentance from sin. Repentance is agreeing with God that you are sinful, confessing your sins to Him, and making a conscious choice to turn from sin (Luke 13:3, 5; 1 Thessalonians 1:9), pursue Christ (Matthew 11: 28-30; John 17:3), and obey Him (1 John 2:3). It isn’t enough to believe certain facts about Christ. Even Satan and his demons believe in the true God (James 2:19), but they don’t love and obey Him. True saving faith always responds in obedience (Ephesians 2:10).”
@ Les – I think that I understand your position, and I understand that you are not omniscient in knowing who or who will not be saved. Our difference of opinion lies in at least these areas:
1) You do not believe it is possible for any person to be saved, whereas I do.
2)You cannot honestly say, as you have mentioned, that Jesus shed His blood for that person. I can.
3) You do not believe it is the person’s free will choice to accept Christ as Savior, but I do.
4) When you explain faith, I assume you tell them that they can have it after God regenerates them???
Now, I am sure that you and I both agree concerning the work of Jesus on the cross, and His resurrection. And I have little doubt that we are brothers. But the above issues are not insignificant by a longshot.
Kevin,
“1) You do not believe it is possible for any person to be saved, whereas I do.” Actually I do. But we will quibble over what that means. BUT, even if I agree with your point, what difference does WHAT I BELIEVE make when I present something like I wrote or a few minutes ago copied and pasted? What difference, if we both agree that God saves a person, not what I am thinking?
2)You cannot honestly say, as you have mentioned, that Jesus shed His blood for that person. I can.”What difference does WHAT I BELIEVE make when I present something like I wrote or a few minutes ago copied and pasted? What difference, if we both agree that God saves a person, not what I am thinking?
3) You do not believe it is the person’s free will choice to accept Christ as Savior, but I do.” Again, “What difference does WHAT I BELIEVE make when I present something like I wrote or a few minutes ago copied and pasted? What difference, if we both agree that God saves a person, not what I am thinking?
4) When you explain faith, I assume you tell them that they can have it after God regenerates them???” No, why would I. I and trusting God to save them. I don’t need to get into deeper theology. I tell them to abandon their self reliance and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now please, tell me/us what difference our “thinking” or “belief” makes since we both know only God saves? You have not answered yet.
Kevin, this comment is by no means intended as a taunt. But I asked,
“Now please, tell me/us what difference our “thinking” or “belief” makes since we both know only God saves? You have not answered yet”
Let me save you some time as you ponder the quandary. You can’t. You cannot “tell me/us what difference our “thinking” or “belief” makes since we both know only God saves.”
You can say that we don’t say this or that and you can say we are disingenuous and such. But the fact is, since God saves, even with both our camps’ imperfect theology and imperfect gospel presentations, what I am thinking or how I believe God saves or whether I think regeneration comes before conversion or if you think the opposite, that “thinking” is not part of the gospel or gospel presentations and God still saves no matter our theological imperfections and imperfect presentations.
@ Les – Sometimes work gets in the way of more important things like this 🙂 You and I agree on this – Man is sinful, Jesus came to die for those sins and rose from the grave, and is coming again one day.
What we disagree on:
1) Whom He died for (general vs limited)2) How he is saved (monergism vs synergism)3) Who can be saved (elect versus anyone)
Now you may not go into what you consider the deeper points of Calvinism when you present the Gospel but should a person ask if anyone can be saved?, you will at some point divulge that it can only be those whom God has chosen.
No need to rehash everything. There is disagreement that will not likely be solved on this side of eternity. And, I don’t hate my Calvinist brothers…I just believe they are absolutely wrong in a few areas.
Work calls, but thanks for the dialogue in spite of my “nonsense” 🙂
Some here should not be too smug and self-righteous about this statement and Louisiana’s leadership.
In the not too distant past a number of people at SBC Voices have been very critical of SBC agency leaders, presidents, and agencies.
I have not been too involved in criticizing SBC leaders, though I have been accused of such. But I do believe they are accountable to Southern Baptists.
As far as the Louisiana Baptist Message and our state Baptist papers, I prefer to see a little diversity in their reporting and commentary. It bothers me when they all speak with one accord on all issues.
I well remember the days of the Conservative Resurgence when most all state Baptist papers were on the moderate to liberal side.
Does it help to cry unity and pretend we are unified, when we are not? Sometimes multiple sides need to be heard.
We can go too far either way. We need to be for the SBC, but open for improvement. The trick is to find the right balance.
David R. Brumbelow
David R. Brumbelow,
The following state is a fact:
“We can go too far either way. We need to be for the SBC, but open for improvement. The trick is to find the right balance.”
However, I hope and pray you are not in reference to me about being “too smug and self-righteous” in my comments here.
cb,
“too smug and self-righteous.”
That refers to everyone here except me. 🙂
David R. Brumbelow
@ Mike Bergman — Not sure where this comment will appear on the thread, but you said “Me and all my Calvinist friend want to try to get the gospel to everyone who will listen because they cannot be saved without it”….Is it not true that the Calvinist position maintains that regeneration/salvation precedes faith and repentance so that they are saved before they repent or place faith in Jesus? Is it not true that the Calvinist system maintains that God has ordained the elect from eternity past through no choice of their own and that they are sealed, and there is no way for them to be anything other than saved? Big differences….one system has hope for all, and the other has no hope for most….
They’re elect before they hear, their hearts are opened by the Spirit to positively respond, but they aren’t saved, or moved from child of wrath to child of God, until they hear and respond. But as the elect, they will hear and respond.
When it comes to hope: There is hope that all who hear and believe are eternally saved. Jesus will not say, “Sorry, you’re just out of luck,” to any who desire to follow him and put their faith in him. That’s good news for all who believe.
Been good chatting with you, Kevin, but I’m off to lunch and then things to do this afternoon, so I now must bow out.
@Mike—-…It is not really true to say though that “Jesus will not say, “Sorry, you’re just out of luck,” to any who desire to follow him and put their faith in him. ” because the Calvinistic system says that man has no capacity to respond to the Gospel(ie spiritually dead) until he has been regenerated by the Spirit through no choice of his own! UNless one is elected by God, there is no hope according to Calvinism. I believe in a differing interpretation of the Scriptures that makes salvation possible to ALL.
Thanks for the dialogue.
I am grateful for this piece by those in the LBC. I think it’s a really good show of unity within the SBC. While I do believe we can all struggle with pseudo-unity (sweeping real issues under the rug) I also think we’ve really grown in our ability to be truly united.
As I read the Scriptures I see biblical unity as being diverse people united to a glorious God. We ARE united to one another. Christ has already purchased our unity but we are called to maintain that unity. What does that look like in practice? I like to say it this way: We walk in unity when we both believe that X is more vital to our relationship than non-X. I think some of what we see within the SBC is arguing about what “X” actually is. For the most part I see many of our leaders saying that X is our shared relationship with Christ, our shared conviction that Christ is the only hope of the nations, and our shared conviction that we are called to work together for sharing the gospel of Jesus with as many people as we possibly can.
We are united by Christ to all believers. And we are united by choice (not negating the workings of a sovereign God in uniting us as well) to other Southern Baptists. We have chosen together to say that X is more important to us than non-X and so we take various divergent view points and say they are secondary to our primary focus of sharing Jesus with the lost world. We have seen in annual meeting after annual meeting this call for unity.
So how then can we call out those we consider divisive? How can we call out those, like Rick, or even those on the Reformed side like those in P&P? Because from our perspective they are saying, “No, non-X is actually more important to us than X”.
Putting this on a local church level you can see what was happening in Titus 3. Some were saying that non-X (foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, quarrels about the law, etc.) was important than X. And it was splitting the local church. Titus was told to “warn him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him.” This is why for the most part I think our biblical response to such divisive folks is to “have nothing to do with them”.
And lest I be misunderstood, it is not about complaints. It is not about even asking good and often needed questions of entity heads. It’s not even the calls for transparency. The problem, at least as I see it, is because you have consistently made a non-X to be more vital than X. And it is because of this that men who agree with you soteriologically (men like Fred Luter and David Crosby) are saying enough is enough. Anyone who makes a non-X to be more vital than X is being disruptive and moving away from unity. That is what we are saying when we are calling for unity. To say that we have shared convictions that are more precious than secondary matters. Yes, our beliefs on soteriology are huge and it does impact the particular way we do missions, but the leaders of our convention (and history) is crying out that our X is far bigger than our non-X.
This should be its own post.
Sometimes people wonder about the continued value of local associations in today’s world. It’s worth pointing out that the NOBA seems to be the context where this group of concerned pastors met and discussed these issues — which I think is a strong statement for the potential value of local associations.
I agree with this statement by Brent Hobbs (a) advocating for the value of the local association in Southern Baptist life, and (b) encouraging concerned pastors to meet and discuss the issues of our convention.
I appreciate that Jack, Fred, David, Mike, Geovanny, Page, Chad and Larry have met to discuss one of their concerns, namely, that we display greater unity in spite of our differences. I, too, am meeting with godly men regularly who possess a similar desire for unity in our convention, but who believe this can only truly take place if we are willing to embrace a strategy of conflict resolution rather than conflict avoidance.
“Behold how good and pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity.” (Ps. 133:1)
I appreciate all the comments that have been shared. Our intention in writing this letter was not to create more division, but rather appeal for unity. There is no doubt that everyone should have the chance to express their opinions in the SBC. As has been noted, even among the pastors who signed this letter, there is great diversity of opinion. I will tell you that in New Orleans, however, we are so focused on mission that we have little time to debate some of the finer theological viewpoints in the SBC. We all work quite happily together in the Big Easy.
I will make a certain point. Certainly any person in leadership at any level can express their viewpoints, but when those viewpoints lead to actions that marginalize those with whom they disagree, that is another issue. For example, it has been reported that on several occasions the top leadership of the LBC has publicly derided some of the recent SBC presidential candidates (with one such speech lasting nearly 45 minutes). We think it is a little hypocritical for such persons in leadership to do so. An article in the state paper stated that Russell Moore does not represent the views of some in the SBC. Well, you know what, neither does that leader in the LBC represent all the views of churches in the LBC. By publicly stating criticism of another SBC leader for not representing all the views, the leader themselves falls under their own criticism for not representing all the views of their constituents.
I have the utmost respect for the Executive Director of Alabama, under whom I grew up, Rick Lance. Even with all the discussion in the SBC, he has been a unifier and serves as a great example. Leadership at association and convention levels should certainly lead the organizations and express their opinions. However, they should not allow those opinions to lead to actions that marginalize their constituency, especially when members of that constituency falls within the parameters of the BFM2000. Otherwise, they are doing the very thing they are criticizing.
I will say the LBC DOES have a great heart for church planting. They pour thousands of dollars into the city of New Orleans for church planting, for which we are VERY grateful. I think focusing on church planting, without marginalizing others, is something that can be a unifier.
In Him,
Page Brooks
Thank you for this very powerful stand.
Rick: I don’t think it looks like “conflict avoidance” at all. It looks like it simply doesn’t matter. Kind of like all are welcome no matter your walk of life or residence of state doesn’t matter.
I would make a couple of observations about this, then go back into my “trying to catch up with life” hibernation.
1. The NOLA folks were absolutely right to call us to a higher and more noble conversation. Despite protestations, this thing has been ugly and is getting uglier. Voices like this calling us to reach for a Christlike and godly response to this situation are needed.
2. There are extremes on both sides of this – Calvinists who care more about spreading Calvinism than preaching Christ. Don’t deny it, Calvinists. You know them and I know them. And there is a small group that has dedicated itself to the destruction of Calvinism – AND Calvinists – in the SBC. It doesn’t little good for the non-Calvinists and Traditionalists to pretend that these do not also exist. They have some positions in the press, have organized, but they are a smaller group.
3. Both of these groups – the hardcore Calvinists and the hardcore anti-Calvinists – are much smaller groups in the SBC than their vocal presence would indicate. They have been adept at grabbing the microphone and making it seem like they are huge groups, but they are not. The majority of SBC folks don’t want to draw a line down the middle (or at the 80/20 mark – whatever!). They just want to do gospel work.
4. It is time to marginalize the extremes. No, I’m not talking about official marginalization. I’m talking about personal marginalization – a choice each of us makes. Stop listening to them. Stop reading their blogs and articles. Stop paying attention to them. It feeds their sense of self-importance. Just turn down your hearing aid. Don’t go to their blogs. Mute their tweets. Don’t respond.
Does everyone have a right to speak? YES. But with that right to speak comes my equal right to simply TUNE YOU OUT if you consistently talk nonsense. Every Southern Baptist has the right to speak, but I have no obligation to listen. Your right to talk does not obligate anyone else to listen.
5. Rick should have been a politician – he is masterful at spinning words to paint a noble picture. He has made several points here which have been common in his attempts to paint his work as an attempt to build unity through conflict.
My problem is that I’ve seen too much of the dark underbelly of the anti-Calvinist movement. I’ve seen the damage up close and personal and I’ve seen tactics that boggle my mind! Can Christians really behave that way? Too often, the actions of the anti-Calvinist movement do not match the rhetoric Rick employs.
Let me be clear – I am speaking about a small segment of those who deny Calvinism. Most of the SBC is non-Calvinist. The majority of non-Calvinists I know are thoughtful students of God’s Word and want to work together to build a better SBC. The problem in the SBC is not with Calvinists and non-Calvinists, but with a small contingent of Calvinists and anti-Calvinists who want to continue to pour gasoline on this fire!
6. At some point, we probably need to have the conversation, but the environment has become so polluted, so toxic, that right now it seems hopeless for us to have a productive conversation about Calvinism. And frankly, I don’t think its a huge issue in the SBC anymore, except for those like Connect 316, and some Calvinists, etc that want to make it a huge issue. The 80% in the middle of SBC life just go about their work. They don’t deal in binary terms. They don’t categorize everything as C/Non-C. They don’t put everyone in a black hat or a white hat depending on their soteriology. They want to work together for the cause of Christ and don’t see this as an issue of division. Certainly, between a hard-core 5-point Calvinist and and document-signing so-called Traditionalist, there is a big issue. But the vast majority of us are NEITHER. Some would like to act as if those are binary options, but they are not. Most of us consider ourselves in the middle. We reject the Traditionalist document but neither do we sign on to all the 5 points. Maybe its 4. Maybe we are antinomists or some other middle-ground position. This infuriates the binary thinkers, who want the world to be us and them.
But I think the SBC can be US – the vast majority who are in the middle! Baptists who care about our cooperative mission and the promulgation of the gospel.
7. The issue is not THAT these issues are being raised, but HOW the issues are being raised.
Rick has attempted to play the victim here, painting himself as the noble hero of free speech. He is raising issues and we are trying to silence him with unfair accusations of disunity.
Rick, I love a good theological debate. Let’s debate scripture. Theology. But you are not being accurate when you say that you are being silenced for raising an issue that needs to be discussed.
This has become a post-length comment. So, I’ll stop here.
I appreciate the words of the NOLA statement. We need brave people who say to the anti-Calvinist movement, “Enough is enough!” What you are doing is not right. It is destructive. Lay down your arms. We also need Calvinists who will tell the cage-phase Calvinists to put a cork in it!
For clarity – I do not identify as a Calvinist anymore. I call myself an antinomist. We are a growing position! We believe that the Bible teaches two truths – the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man – much as it teaches that Jesus was both man and God and that God is both 1 and 3. How can God choose but I also have to choose? I don’t know. How can God be ONE, but also Father, Son, and HS? How can Jesus be both fully God and fully man? There is much that is beyond our understanding but is taught in the Bible. You explain the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ to me, and I’ll explain antinomy to you!
Essentially, I don’t choose between the options, I choose both. I believe the Bible does as well.
Dave says, “For clarity – I do not identify as a Calvinist anymore.” The angels rejoice every time one comes out of the darkness.
“The angels rejoice every time one comes out of the darkness.”
This isn’t helpful.
Nerd.
Bill, relax. That was totally a friendly jab.
That’s one of the dangers of blogs. This is totally normal back and forth between Dean and I and our group of “Merry Men.” We engage in insult like this regularly. The problem is that when others look on, it can appear to be harsh.
Bill M, I’m sorry you missed my whit. Those of us who live in SEC states are generally jovial people. It comes from dominating the rest of the country.
There’s not a whit of wit in comments about the SEC.
Now, I’ll have to find a new cal friend. I always said that DM was my kind of cal.
Some of the antical tire slashing is just inexplicable and has gone a long way towards that segment of the movement marginalizing itself. The aftermath of the recent convention showed that quite clearly. Perhaps reaction to the NO letter signals a new day. We will see.
The LBC folks can handle their own stuff but it doesn’t look like a very pleasant atmosphere down there.
I’ve not really changed my theology as much as how I label myself. In my college days I was a bit of a Calvinist firebrand, I guess, but I left that behind long ago.
I’ve long realized that the Bible often teaches paradoxes (more accurately, antinomies) that are beyond human comprehension and explanation.
I think that the problem here is that each side (becoming binary again) is looking at one side of the coin and demanding it be accepted as the entire coin. I think the Bible teaches God’s sovereign choice before time. But I also think it teaches a human choice that is not a controlled or inevitable response, but a responsible choice to trust Christ.
I think, perhaps, I’m not enough of a monergist to be a true Calvinist, perhaps. On the divine side of the coin, I’m all for sovereign choice. But I think there’s another side of the coin.
Illogical? Of course it is. But so is MUCH of what we believe. We believe in a God bigger than our understanding. His ways are higher than ours and his thoughts are higher than ours. We trust what we cannot understand or explain with human logic.
So, on the one side of the coin, I believe the Calvinist construction, but there’s another side of it that cannot be ignored.
How can both be true at the same time? I don’t know. How can ONE God exist in three persons each of which is fully God, but there not be three gods?
Dave Miller,
Antinomist….
I think you may be on to something. I was intrigued by your post a while back on that topic. I am intriqued by it today.
you said:
“I think, perhaps, I’m not enough of a monergist to be a true Calvinist, perhaps. On the divine side of the coin, I’m all for sovereign choice. But I think there’s another side of the coin.”
I think the apostle John may agree with you… (John 3)
Is there some material out there someplace where a brutha can read up on this?
This is where I am also. I don’t consider myself a Calvinist any longer, and I never really made up my mind about the L. If I had to choose a label, it would be Molinist, not because I’ve switched teams, but because as I learned more about it, it was closest to what I already believed. I have never been troubled by the dichotomy between sovereignty and free will, and sometimes amused and sometimes annoyed by non-Calvinists telling me what I had to believe.
But this “if you can’t look someone in the eye and tell them,…yada yada” nonsense has to stop. You are elevating your evangelism methodology to inerrant status.
Calvinists, and hopefully everyone else, believe that if a person believes, repents, and confesses Christ as Lord, they will be saved. Not one moment before. Although I have seen in some non-Calvinist circles a disturbing trend that some people can be saved apart from hearing the Gospel.
We appreciate everyone who has taken the time to read and consider this post, regardless of his or her response to it. We hope and pray that this article, as well as the discussion surrounding it, is useful for the building up of the body of Christ. –Alex Brian, Business and Communications Director, Neighborhood Ministry Coordinator, New Orleans Baptist Association
NOLA association looks like a great bunch of Baptists.
Excellent, thanks for checking in, Alex.
Les & Tarheel,
I see those who believe in Limited Atonement, on a regular basis, try to make it sound as though anyone can be saved.
When someone calls them on it they act as though that person just does not understand Calvinism.
No, the problem is they do understand it.
If Jesus did not die for you, you will never have a chance to be saved. End of story.
If you believe in Limited Atonement, it is disingenuous to leave people thinking you believe anyone can be saved.
I’m not for disfellowshipping those who believe in Limited Atonement and I know they have always been a part of the SBC.
But I am for simple honesty.
This is in reference to comments above.
David R. Brumbelow
David B,
I appreciate your tone. Let me try to be clearer what Reformed faith affirms.
Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. But not everyone will.
Stated another way, God will save anyone who will now to His Lordship in repentance and faith. But not everyone is willing to do that.
Now if you want me to state that not everyone CAN repent and believe, I’ll stipulate that. In fact ill stipulate that NO ONE can repent and believe…without God quickening them first.
As a side note, non Reformed also recognize that not everyone who ever lived or will live will have a “chance to be saved” as you said. Many live and die and never hear of Jesus and His gospel.
David, I wrote a post here a few years back giving the biblical basis for why I don’t believe all people have the same ability to respond to the gospel–the elect will be, the non-elect won’t be. I centered that on John 10 and Matthew 13. So it’s not like we’re hiding this so-called “inconvenient truth.”
But really, I see that more as an unconditional election thing and not a limited atonement thing.
One of these days I want to write a post on this, but just haven’t made the time (it’s lower on my priority list than other things)… but, I’ll fully admit to being an odd duck.
I actually held to limited atonement before I held to Calvinism. In fact I held to limited atonement while I thought Calvinism, and especially the unconditional election part, was a terrible doctrine. For me it came down to a simple question: Are there people spending an eternity in hell whose sins were paid for? My current theology and my younger theology, I’ve always seen the Bible’s answer to that as a resounding NO!
People are in hell because they are still under the condemnation of their sin. As Jesus said in John 8:24: “I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” And that just a summary of other places.
So in my pre-Calvinist days I would say that God knowing all who would believe placed only those sins upon Christ on the cross to be cancelled out and paid for. I would now approach that differently, but the end is the same.
If people are in hell but Jesus paid for their sins, then one has to answer why the just God is punishing their sins twice. If people in hell are still in their sins, then we have limited the effect of the atonement in some way, despite how we might come at it. I just have never encountered anyone with a biblical argument that has convinced me people are suffering eternally in hell with their sins paid for.
That said, to go with your point about being disingenuous, I’ll rehash a couple of things I said to Kevin earlier:
All of us Bible-believing Southern Baptists are able to share the gospel with anyone and everyone and say in complete honesty, “You are a sinner on a path toward hell, Jesus is the only solution to this problem, and you will be saved if you repent from sin and trust in him.” Calvinists or traditionalists or in between, we all believe that.
Is that not enough to be able to say to someone?
In some of these discussions it’s almost like us Calvinists are being told we’re being dishonest unless we say, “You are a sinner on a path toward hell, Jesus is the only solution to this problem, and you will be saved if you repent from sin and trust in him. Unless you’re not one of the elect, then you’re doomed to hell forever and never mind that repent and trust thing.”
Yeah, okay, that might be a logical extension of said belief system, but when do any of us go into a full detailed systematic theology when we share the gospel? No, evangelism is expressing in the most understandable way possible: “You’re a sinner and you need Jesus. Turn to him and you will be saved and forgiven. Reject him and you will face eternity in hell.” I mean, after all, we’re looking to get all who will believe to Christ, not to Calvin–even if we take the label of “Calvinist.”
Yes, we disagree on the background of how things work on the spiritual plane to enable someone to repent and believe; but we don’t (at least we shouldn’t) disagree on the front lines of how to get the gospel to someone in the hope that they will repent and believe. I might believe that only the elect will be saved, but I hope and pray that every person I encounter with the gospel is among the elect.
Les,
Those for whom Jesus did not die,
do they have any chance or opportunity to be saved?
David R. Brumbelow
Yes they do if they hear the gospel and will confess Jesus as Lord.
Of course they won’t. But before you ask, no one knows who the non elect are. Thus I don’t know who they are. Thus I tell people indiscriminately about Jesus knowing that God will save His elect and not save the non elect. Neither category deserves heaven. Both categories deserve hell. Grace is the difference.
“I fear I am not a very good Calvinist because I pray that the Lord will save all of the elect and then elect some more.”–C. H. Spurgeon
I’m not a very good Calvinist either.
David B: Calvinists have already been grilled over and over again on these questions at SBCToday. They have answered honestly. Please can we catch a break and not start it again?
Even though Calvinists attempted to answer honestly, they were still misrepresented. What is the saying of once burned shame on you, twice burned? No thanks.
“It is time to marginalize the extremes….Stop listening to them. Stop reading their blogs and articles. Stop paying attention to them….”
In a twist of Divine irony, it seems they have marginalized themselves.
I have long suspected God has a sense of humor.
Great comments here in an article about calvinism. Wouldnt expect anything less. Just missing one thing…The obligatory Dr. James Willingham comment. Havent seen him on here in a while so here is a good sample from a calvinism post from a couple of years ago.
“Arguments are a sign of life, so long as they are kept from being vicious. In the 1700s the Baptists were doing the same kind of debating, and the Episcopalians commented on it. During that same time, the Baptists had just been effected by the First Great Awakening, were getting ready to experience the Second Great Awakening and to launch the modern missionary movement or the Great Century of Missions. They were uniting the Separates and the Regulars, persuading the General Baptists to become Particular or Regular Baptists, establishing our oldest educational institutions, utilizing educated and uneducated ministers together in a harmony never before or since achieved, evangelizing in quantity and quality, the most difficult thing to do. And while we are at it, why not promote these discussions and use them to turn the participants to praying for a visitation for a Great Awakening for the whole earth, making use of the promises Jonathan Edwards recorded in his Humble Attempt which inspired Carey, Fuller, Judson, and Rice? That would give a whole new purpose to the discussions, somewhere to go, namely, forward to a future like we had never thought possible in the days of the cold war. Unless everyone simply wants to see it all ended and that as soon as possible, when the truth is we will likely wind up in concentration camps and experience some of the difficulties like Solzhenitsyn encountered, not a very pretty picture. Persecution is not all it is cracked up to be either, though it produces now and then some wonderful instances. You should do as I did and take notes on all 2000 years of church history and on the persecutions and the prices paid. Or better yet use the controversies to lead us to do what Edwards said in Humble Attempt. Then you will bless the whole earth and bring glory to God like none of us would believe even when we see it with our eyes.”
Where you at Dr. J? I need SOMEONE to charge me with reading the Quigley classic “Tragedy & Hope” at least once every now and then!
The last correspondence I saw from Dr. Willingham indicated that he is failing health.
I guarantee if he is of sound mind he is praying for a 3rd Great Awakening.
If anyone is in contact with him, give him my best.
In all of this discussion about Calvinism/Traditionalism and the actions of Kevin Ezell, one aspect of the original post about the call for unity by 7 New Orleans area pastors has been overlooked. Why are all of these pastors from the Big Easy? The issues regarding the LBC affect the whole state – why wasn’t there a group of pastors from the Shreveport area or numerous other areas of the state who are just as affected by these issues of the state convention.
My opinion is this goes back to the uniqueness of New Orleans in that Southern Baptists and other protestants are a small minority there and that leads to a humility which causes the pastors there to bond together and overlook any disagreements they may have over soteriology. In other words, if some are looking at these seven pastors as starting a trend, I’m not so sure that their minority status is replicated much elsewhere.
New Orleans unique history has contributed to the situation which these seven pastors now face. The first protestants entered New Orleans after the signing of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and they settled in their own area west of Canal St. called the American sector. This was distinct from the French and Spanish Catholics who were in the French Quarter and the Fauburg to the east. However, the Baptist presence was not significant at the time the SBC was formed in 1845 and a friend of mine who graduated from New Orleans Seminary said that the reason the Seminary located there is because in the 1845 Charter for the SBC, there was a proclamation to “Evangelize the world and New Orleans.” So the city was singled out as being in greater need than any other location in the purview of the SBC. Later immigrants from Italy and Ireland contributed to the dominance of the Catholic population.
Fast forward to 1917 and the SBC founded the Baptist Bible Institute, an undergraduate institution which became a graduate level seminary in 1946 which we now know as New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. My friend, the NOBTS grad, said the seminary was located there to “evangelize the Catholics.” However, despite the presence of dedicated Baptists for 200 years and the presence of NOBTS, New Orleans is arguably the least Baptist, least protestant city in the south and most Catholic city in the U.S. The oldest SBC church, First Baptist New Orleans is not a mega church like one finds 150 miles north in Jackson, MS. This is not to cast aspersions on this church, it is just stating the reality of the environment where these churches live.
Therefore, given the challenges these pastors face, there is less patience for political matters within the Louisiana Baptist Convention and a greater team spirit because they are few in number as compared to other Louisiana Baptists further inland. It is interesting what being small in number can do.
I noticed a similar situation when a friend who moved from New Jersey expressed his disappointment with the cliquishness he saw in southern mega churches. He said in New Jersey, if someone visited his church, they would immediately ask them over for lunch – he said, “Hey if they’re a fellow believer, that’s all that matters, we would open our home to them.”
There is something about being a beleaguered minority believer whether you are in New Jersey or New Orleans which causes Christians to overlook their differences and bond together.
Well, I guess that’s just as good a way as any other to attemp to marginalize and silence the dissent of these pastors.
Tarheel, you misunderstood my point completely. I was contrasting these pastors in New Orleans position as a small minority in an overwhelmingly Catholic and many would say hedonistic city (Look at Mardi Gras) as compared to the rest of Louisiana where Baptists are not so few in number. Notice those in Shreveport and the northern parishes didn’t take the lead in making a call for unity in the Louisiana Baptist Convention. The whole point of my post was that the humility from being a small minority leads to a greater effort at unity.
These 7 pastors in NOLA are tired of the distraction of the conflict and desire to get the focus back on reaching their city. I don’t know the legitimacy of the claims of either side. I think that some are hoping that these 7 are the beginning of a trend, however, I think the key ingredient in their coming together is the humility that has resulted from being a small (some might say beleaguered) minority, You’re not going to have that in Texas or the other legacy states.
It’s unfortunate that there is so much personal disagreement on these blog posts that everyone assumes that every post is marginalizing someone who has a different soteriology.
I appreciate the stand these men took for unity.
I do not want SBC Voices to be used as a site to propagate the conspiracy theories and wild accusations that some sites specialize in. It seems we are circling the drain at this point and we would do better to turn our attention elsewhere.
So, I’m closing comments on this one.