My first writings here on SBC Voices was a matched pair of articles on Calvinists in the SBC: What I like about Calvinists and Why I’m wary of Calvinists. Those were in the summer of 2011 and, as I recall, each had hundreds of comments.
What made me wary then was (1) Calvinists can be, well, rather arrogant, (2) I’ve been around too many churches that have been wrecked by Calvinists, (3) Calvinists have been known to be less than forthcoming with search committees. It looks to me like Calvinists, having grown considerably in stature, acceptance, and influence in the SBC, have moved from being known in part for wrecking churches to wrecking the Convention as a whole. Lest I be accused of theological partisanship in this, up until the Great Traditionalist Implosion of last year, the Militant Trads had a declared goal of winning elections and turning the convention around. I’d call that wrecking as well.
Almost forty years ago, Ernest Reisenger was invited to my seminary, Mid-American Baptist Theological Seminary in sultry Memphis, Tennessee, where he presented each student with a copy of the reprint of James Petigru Boyce’s Abstract of Systematic Theology (I think I sold my copy on Amazon years ago). SBC Calvinism may have been around from the start but didn’t have a lot of influence back then. In part due to the Founders organization, that changed.
Now, some prominent SBC leaders have distanced themselves from the Founders organization. This week three of their board members resigned. Here is a line from Tom Ascol concerning the resignations: Our conversations [with the three] led to an impasse regarding the nature of sin, unintentional sin, unwise acts and what faithfulness to Christ requires in the wake of each.
Why is it that these theological/political sub-groups gain acceptance, influence, and power in the SBC but then squander it with foolish words and decisions? Is it in the tribal DNA? Do leaders lose touch with reality? I don’t know.
I wasn’t interested in another denominational election war in January of 2018 when the SBC Trads were calling for one. I’m not interested in one now that involves the Rabid Calvinists. While some speculate that the Founder’s leader will be nominated for SBC president next year, I’m not seeing a snowball’s chance in Gehenna of the election of anyone associated with the recent Founder’s debacle.
No one could have scripted this stuff. The worst enemies of the militant Trads couldn’t have engineered the Trad implosion, nor could the most rabid anti-Cal have planned and executed the present scenario.
Does it need to be said that both the militant Trads and the rabid Cals were going to save the convention?
Since I wrote the two Cal pieces in 2011 half of our seminaries have new leadership, as do both mission boards, LifeWay, and ERLC. The current SBC president is the first of a younger generation. Many of the larger state conventions have new leadership who are making positive moves. The IMB has increasing numbers of candidates for overseas service in their appointment pipeline. NAMB has considerable numbers of planters and potential church planters enthused about their work. The mission offerings are very strong, save for the Cooperative Program.
Let’s not mess it up.
After being engaged in these discussions for the last few years….I have come to the point where I do not think the 316 crowd was/is/ever was necessarily reflective of most of those Southern Baptists who hold to the same or similar views of soteriology…..nor do I think necessarily that Founders was/is/ever was necessarily reflective of most of those SBCers who hold to the same or similar views of soterilogy. They are at the edges and most of the rest of us find ourselves in the middle. I think assumptions of “implosions” as it relates to the belief systems of the… Read more »
I’m talking about the organizations. When it gets to the point where individual cals or trads are embarrassed by the organization, I suppose folks will just focus on their own church and ministry and vote their conscience. Not a bad thing.
Nope its not.
The bias in this article is nothing new. I find that those on both sides can be arrogant. I’ve also found where on both sides you have those who are ruining the Convention. I’ve also seen both wreck churches and both not be forthcoming. It’s people being people!
I thought we were against name-calling on this site? Is this a policy for only some? Why do you get to call people you disagree with “Rabid”?
Also, arrogance is a universal problem. Not just a calvinist or traditionalist problem.
Finally, wrecking the convention? That seems like exaggeration that comes close to falsehood. I think the Founders people were wrong, but that’s not a license to be inaccurate.
Amen to your comments David! So much for grace and mercy among believers, calling this post biased is the understatement of the day. It’s completely inaccurate!
David Griffin, after the things you said about Lebron this week ..
More seriously, this thing of breathless offense when someone writes a post you disagree with is a bit worn, isn’t it.
We give opinions here. Calling an opinion biased is as insightful as calling water wet. This is Dr. Thornton’s opinion – de facto his bias.
C’mon guys. It’s summer. No snowflakes!
(See what I did there?)
I did. You made it clear that William can write posts that would be deleted if written by commenters (he can call people “rabid” and we cannot). This is what they call a double standard. One for me and another for you. Snowflakes? Is that another example of name-calling? For me, this is one of those Roman’s 2 moments. You who judge another, do you do the same things? Also, I didnt say William is biased so we shouldn’t listen to him. I said William is so biased, he is exceptionally inaccurate. We all have bias, and there is nothing… Read more »
Not sure what in my opinions could be judged inaccurate unless you are just disagreeing. I offered no data.
Disagree all you want. Neither Rabid Cals and militant Trads iare particularly offensive labels in my mind. I have years of experience with both. May their tribes decrease. Several of the main admin folks here and some frequent commenters are Cals. They seem to be coping well.
You are free to disagree with Wiliam. I do it often.
Just don’t try to take away William’s right to express opinions that you do not agree with. Your “outrage” seems to me like an attempt to stifle his expression of differing opinions.
I am asking you to EXPRESS your disagreement.
You just expressed your outrage at William’s expression of an opinion idfferent from yours.
Why don’t you use your time to tell us what you think rather than kvetch about what William thinks?
How am I taking William’s right away to express opinions? I want to understand what you mean by that. Do you mean when I say he shouldn’t engage in name-calling? I don’t intend to take William’s right to express opinions. “Kvetch: a person who complains a great deal.” Lol. I learned something new today. Seems like it should be fairplay that if William can throw rocks at traditionalists and calvinists, he shouldn’t be immune from the missiles of others. I feel like I succinctly expressed my disagreement. Name-calling from one of you seems hypocritical after deleting comments for it. These… Read more »
Great post William T. You are correct “let’s not mess it up”. We were arguing about Cal/Armin. ( the word Traditionalist had not yet been discovered) when I was in SWBTS (66-69). However it was coffee shop discussion not Starbucks, again not yet discovered. So the discussion is nothing new. However, it never was carried to the Convention. We were not trying to influence elections or hires. IMO there is more at play here. Dr. Hobbs, during the CR said, “If the fundamentalist get control of the convention there will be continuous in-fighting”. Being a strong active supporter of the… Read more »
I agree the average SBC does not know about the Cal/Trad debate or the stealth like movement of one becoming dominant in leadership positions. They are trusting and unaware. I believe that as the secular world of 2020 politics will expose the gap between the average SBC member who is traditionalist in culture, society and belief and the leadership and many of the younger people who are more top down , autocratic in their belief system. As noted most SBC members do not care about the organizations that are mentioned in post but they care that their organization is doing… Read more »
The Founders began in the early 1980s. They were influenced heavily by a mid-Atlantic resurgence of Reformed Baptists in the 1960s – Walter Chantry, Al Martin, etc. For most of their history the Founders rarely talked about politics, but they were always against anything that churches did to make themselves more culturally relevant. I think that they view the current social justice emphasis as another misguided attempt to be relevant. Most Southern Baptists who were interested in Calvinism in the 1990s soon became involved in Founders – subscribing to the journal, attending the conferences, showing up for fellowships, listing their… Read more »
That’s a nice historical summary. Tracks with what I have observed as well.
This current Founders regime seems overly focused on conservative political purity along with 1689 doctrinal alignment. It’s an odd pairing.
It seems to me that in the 2000s, the Founders became redundant as there began to be so many other organizations that emphasized Calvinist theology. So, beginning around 2010, I think, the Founders started emphasizing their particular distinctives. For example, many Calvinistic SBC pastors and professors do not subscribe to the finer points of covenant theology (many professors at Southern advocate “progressive covenantalism”). So the Founders really began to emphasize traditional covenant theology (“covenant of works,” “covenant of grace,” third use of the law, etc) and strict subscription to the 1689 Confession. Likewise, many Calvinistic SBC pastors now emphasize the… Read more »
Jeff, Ryan, thanks for sharing your insight. I found it informative and it makes sense to me . I do think the Founders have started a ripple that will increase into a wave, if their efforts gain any traction in the general arena of ideas.
I am not sure how big the wave will be. Founders is a small and diminished organization that has squandered some of the credibility it once had. Some of Founders’ young allies, however, are very skilled at using Twitter and YouTube, employing lots of clever memes and excelling at ad homenim and ridicule.
I forgot to mention the Sovereign Nations organization, which appears to have some significant funding and is somehow connected to Founders and the G3 Conference. But I don’t know that much about it.
I don’t know what “Founders” are and orobably most Southern Baptist’s don’t either. Explain.
The SBC Founders Conference (later Ministries) was founded in 1982. At that time, most Southern Baptists were not aware of the dominance of Calvinist theology among the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. So the Founders Conference emphasized Calvinist theology among 19th century Southern Baptists. The Founders Conference held annual national and regional conferences, published a journal, and reprinted and distributed the works of 19th century Southern Baptists like J. L. Dagg, P. H. Mell, and J. P. Boyce. In the 1990s, men like Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and John Piper spoke at Founders Conferences, and the Founders… Read more »
Jeff, if we handed out gold stars for comments, this would get one. Informative without being pejorative.
Thanks.
I think the most effective way to rise above and move beyond the futile fighting of the two sides is to shed light on the existence and merits of the middle view and the substantial numbers who hold to it. One may be a Bible-believing Baptist and refuse to deny either the principle that God unconditionally elected in eternity past OR that men have genuine freedom of will to choose or reject Christ (and are held accountable for that choice). Believing the former does not require belief in regeneration prior to faith, and belief in the latter does not require… Read more »
Ken , excellent post, excellent statement. Most SBC members are not aware of the strong Calvinist influence that now exist at the leadership level nor would they care as most believe as you stated. The Founders may have the effect of getting the attention of SBC not on Calvinist/Trad issues but the social justice and liberal direction of the SBC in the eyes of many, certainly the Founders. Liz, you are the average, good , loyal, trusting, decent SBC member who is loyal and trusting to their local church and assumes the SBC is being run the same as your… Read more »
“Trads” is not an alternative term for “Arminians”. Ever since Eric Hankins wrote “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”, it was labeled as Arminianism by various Calvinists. I have seen it twice in this discussion thread. It is not Arminianism. The first theology course I ever took was at Oklahoma Baptist University in the 1970’s. Dr. James Timberlake spent several class hours discussing Calvinism (without ever using the TULIP acrostic!). Then he covered Arminianism. After those lectures he stated clearly that we were neither Calvinist nor Arminian – we Southern Baptists had a… Read more »
Stephen,
See this chart showing the spectrum in the SBC, setting out Calvinism, Centrism, Traditionalism, and Arminianism:
William,
It would appear then that with the trads and cals vanquished the only ones left on the field at the moment are the social progressives. Do I have that right or is there some other more cohesive ideological group?
woody
Kind of an overstatement. The leadership of the SBC is theologically orthodox and advocates a traditional Christian sexual ethic. It is true that they are #neverTrump and advocate what could be called more progressive views on the issues of race, immigration, refugees, etc. But at the same time, a lot of Southern Baptists aren’t really aware of the leadership. Every Sunday morning I talk to one of my deacons who has never heard of Russell Moore, but who watches Fox News all the time and listens to Robert Jeffress on the radio.
Woody…c’mon man. Social progressives? Inerrantist, anti-abortion, pro-2A, pro-border security people are “social progressives” because they don’t kowtow to the GOP line?
Only if you define yourself as the standard and everyone who differs from you as progressive does that statement carry any validity.
You would yelp if people did the same to you.
Ken, I like your chart. I agree that most Southern Baptists are somewhere in the middle, neither thorough-going Calvinists or Arminians. My observation is that the number of Calvinist pastors is growing.
Dave,
I don’t think I mentioned the GOP or really politics. What I did reference is what appears to be the prevailing socio-economic philosophy driving the SBC as an institution at the moment. The post was about the conflict about trads and cals imploding, and since that is valid it stands that another ideology not necessarily theological would fill the vacuum in the public discourse.
So, my observation is valid. Unless of course there is some other driving force that I don’t know about.
woody
A particular group of Calvinists is imploding right now – the Founders and their allies. But most Calvinists are happy with the general direction of the SBC and are in positions of leadership. Most younger Calvinists are not involved in Founders, and they criticized the recent trailer harshly.
Well, in regard to my article and my comments, I don’t think you have it right. I meant to address militant trads and rabid cals, both small groups. I don’t see the rancor in the SBC that I used to see over Calvinism. The 316 group is inactive. If the founders group is going to be sohyperaggressive I’d guess they will have great success in alienating all but their most extreme members.
We could do without that. Let’s be optimistic that thinking people still are in charge.
After thinking about it further, my opinion is that the Founders got used to being a tiny prophetic remnant. Once Calvinism became more popular and accepted in the SBC, they lost that status. So, I think that they are looking for new issues where they can be the tiny, prophetic remnant. 20 years ago, I admired and trusted the Founders. Now, I am like, “Who are these guys?”
I considered that a failing of both C316 and recently the Founders. They either styled themselves or were styled by others as representatives of the whole segment of a group.
Most Calvinists do not align with the Founders. The vast majority of non-Calvinists chose not to sign the Traditionalist statement. Most SBs see themselves as represented by neither group.