William is the SBC Plodder.
…and, if this is true, should Southern Baptists be concerned?
There has been and is this narrative afoot in our Convention: Calvinists are too numerous, have become too powerful, occupy too many leadership positions, occupy too many pulpits, exercise too much influence, and steps should be taken to slow or stop this Calvinist train.
This is a Gospel Narrative to some in our convention and it colors how this group sees our entities and decisions by our trustees.
For example, our North American Mission Board has this nascent church planting program called Send North America. It is highly successful in attracting interest from ministers who may feel called to plant a church and from churches that wish to sponsor or assist in church planting. Arguably, SNA is the most successful program of any type active in SBC life. Certainly no program has generated the levels of enthusiasm and participation as has SNA.
Aha, there are critics. But then, we are Southern Baptists and this is the Southern Baptist Convention where someone will be found to argue the proposition that the sun rises in the east and complain about Mom and apple pie.
Here’s the criticism: NAMB favors Calvinistic church planters and is planting churches that aren’t really Southern Baptist churches but rather are stealth Reformed churches.
My friend Rick Patrick is one such NAMB critic. His recent post on SBCToday,NAMB Trustees Deny Partnerships is built on the thesis that NAMB is “co-partnering” with non-SBC networks to plant “hybrid” churches rather than “pure” SBC churches and that this “co-denominational” and “cross-denominational” church planting. NAMB, Rick asserts, is denying such partnership mainly by choosing not to know relevant relationships maintained by church plants sponsored by NAMB. NAMB maintains that they only partner with the 42 Baptist state conventions. I give Rick credit for building his case with an array of trigger words like “hybrid,” “cross-” and “co-denominational.” At least he avoided the real snarl term, “ecumenical.”
But, that aside, how about some evidence please, Rick?
In the past couple of years NAMB critics could point to a couple of NAMB plants who admitted to being part of the ACTS29 church planting network. Hardly, a movement, even if one presumes something nefarious about a church being a NAMB plant and also connected to ACTS29 in some fashion.
NAMB did a study. They said in their response to Rick’s inquiry asking NAMB to disclose church planting partners that they had done a “voluntary survey” of their 2500 or so church planters and found 30 were affiliated with ACTS29. I asked NAMB about this, since the language sounded odd. What they did was compare their list of planters to ACTS29’s website. They found 30, hardly a vast number.
Here’s the kind of church NAMB plants, and no other kind of church:
- A church that affirms the Baptist Faith and Message.
- A church that gives at least 6% (above the SBC average) to the Cooperative Program and at least 10% to missions.
- A church that has an SBC sponsor church.
- A church with a pastor/planter vetted by faithful Southern Baptists.
William T
The last line is by far you best work. That is the heart of the matter. We are all on the same team. The issue here is like so many other issues in the SB family i.e. Who do you trust? 14 million people (even 5,000 SBC attendees) cannot make some decisions. Hence we elect people and hire others to make those decisions. We must trust them to work in the best interest of ALL SB. In the case before us we must trust those who vet planters to fund those who are truly SB and will plant SB churches. Obviously trust must be earned and one must work to keep it. Unless one does something to hinder or destroy that trust we must always say “after all, we are all, on the same side”.
Friendly Plodder,
I consider the “same team” analogy just a bit too simplistic. By this I mean that one can be quite loyal to one’s team while still defaulting to serious questions.
For example, I am an American, faithful to my country. But within that identity, I am a Republican kind of American, both “on the same team” as my Democratic friends in a way, but also possessing quite different convictions regarding the best agenda for our nation’s future.
Similarly, as a Traditional kind of Southern Baptist, I raise concerns not out of “default negativity” at all, for prior to the current YRR agenda, I was quite enthused about all things SBC. Ironically, just a few years ago, the YRR crowd possessed the so-called “default negativity” you have described. They had different ideas about the SBC–which is fair game.
My concerns with our current direction should not be misconstrued as an absence of friendly loyalty. We are indeed on the same team, and I simply believe a different strategy will serve our team better.
Blessings,
Rick
Rick, I do declare. You have made my point. See below. And your response to William is one of the best you ever made, I do think. Now, I know it does not compare to your proposal to your wife, but it will surely make my Traditionalist brother-in-law’s heart glad as it does mine.
Rick,
What would that different strategy be? I’m curious. Because from all I have seen from Trads, the only strategy is marginalize the Calvinists.
What is the actual agenda of the Traditionalist camp? You know that people don’t rally around a negative. Surely there is something you guys would like to propose for everyone to get behind.
I’m honestly curious.
1. Transparency — no hidden meetings or sealed minutes
2. Proportionality of leadership better reflecting SBC
3. Better Harvest Mandate / Frontier Mandate Balance
4. Theological Balance Within Each Seminary
5. More Trads on platforms, book deals and entity posts
No one wants to marginalize Cals. We just want the SBC to *stop* marginalizing the Trads.
That’s a very rough sketch, but the general vision is to invite Trads back to the table again.
Breaking news—Baptist Press reports that David Platt has just released a *Five Point* Plan for IMB.
(Five Points…I am not making this up.)
As Clyde Meador steps gracefully aside, the two new hires are: (1) Traeger, an elder at Mark Dever’s church, and (2) Pratt, a former dean at Southern Seminary.
You have to understand, guys, when we read this kind of news, it absolutely seems like an unbalanced Calvinistic takeover of all our institutions. Moore did the same thing at ERLC.
They are not even TRYING to include Traditional Baptists. It’s total marginalization.
Platt’s 5 strategies:
“Platt’s five biblically based goals for IMB are: exalting Christ, mobilizing Christians, equipping the church, facilitating church planting and “playing our part in completing the Great Commission,” he explained to trustees during Nov. 6-7 meetings in Olive Branch, Mississippi.”
That sounds very Calvinistic to me. Oh wait…umm…
Rick,
Are you really arguing that there is something nefarious with Dr. Platt having five points; as if it is an indication of some vast Calvinist conspiracy? When you write things like “Five Points…I am not making this up” do you wear an aluminum foil hat?
My point is that it makes you look rather foolish to make such arguments.
Steven
Steven,
Of course not. Just an (evidently poor) attempt at humor since it was Five Points.
Rick
I think the fact that this was humor was obvious. I have observed that we all look at words phrases, etc. to pick apart. That is half the fun of bloging. However, Stevens reply is a little over the top. The fact that it was not GOOD humor does not negate that fact that it was humor. 🙂
As an aside, I comment here at “Voices” because it is fun….informative yes, but fun is my priority.
Rick, I think bringing Zane’s name into the conversation simply because he taught at Southern (for a very short time, by the way) is unfair. Each should be judged on their own merit. Do you know Zane’s soteriology, or his missionary mindset? Certainly Dever’s positions are well know.
Rick,
Thanks for your answer. A few thoughts about *your* Five Point Plan (a non-Miller approved smiley should go here) :
1. Transparency — no hidden meetings or sealed minutes- this was the way the entire CR happened with private meetings and hidden agendas. (I have read a Hill On Which to Die my friend) In addition, this was the way the IMB trustees operated when Wade Burleson was on the board. It seems to me that Trads invented and invited this type of politicking and now don’t like it when it is used by others. BUT I agree with this one. We have to operate in the light. We would be better for it all the way around.
2. Proportionality of leadership better reflecting SBC- since there is no defining survey of the number of Trads vs. number of non-Trads (by the Trad definition) then I don’t see how this is possible. I know what Trads claim, but they are the only ones who claim that number. Hard to set an agenda based on assumptions.
3. Better Harvest Mandate / Frontier Mandate Balance- I would like a better definition from you on this one. I am reading this as focus as much on the SBC stronghold states as you do on new missions activities stateside. Am I correct?
4. Theological Balance Within Each Seminary- I would love to see this. Can you get Dr. Patterson to agree? Based on what has occurred over the years at ALL seminaries no one wants real balance. I think it’s a good thing that we have multiple seminaries and their theological preferences are front and center. I think the real concern here is the rising enrollment and graduation rates at Southern and Southeastern. If Dr. Patterson had not spent 5 years running off all his solid academics and then tried to rebuild the faculty in his image you probably don’t have this issue. But he did, and the “crown jewel” is taking awhile to recover. I’m sure we will differ strongly on this one but that’s my thought.
5. More Trads on platforms, book deals and entity posts- I appreciate the candor and honesty of this last one the most. This is for me what the whole hubbub is about. Power, money, and prestige. The Trads had it for years after the CR. The Calvinists were a crazy uncle they hid in the closet. Fine for fighting for inerrancy but not fit for company after the war. Now, the Trads are afraid of losing their power- and not to the “liberal” boogeyman- but to Cals- who they can’t label as “liberals” so they have to come up with some reason why they are the “enemy.” If Trads want book deals and platforms and influence, they will have to earn it and not with the dust of CR history but with real scholarship, relevance, and demand for their services. That, my brother, is going to take time.
Thanks for the interaction.
Ryan
Regarding “A hill on which to Die” and Trads “inventing this kind of politicking” is incorrect. “This type of politicking” was in vogue long before 1979 and the CR movement.
Take some time and read the proceedings of SBC, State and even Assoc. meetings from 1940 to 1979 and you will find that we have long been involved in “this kind of politicking”.
Ryan,
I believe the harvest mandate vs. the frontier mandate issue impacts both NAMB and IMB strategies. I also believe the former flows more logically from a general atonement position while the latter flows more logically from a particular atonement. The article linked explains it a bit better. For the record, I believe in a balance of both positions, but feel we are currently out of balance in favor of the frontier while neglecting the harvest a bit.
http://sbctoday.com/a-tale-of-two-countries/
This is a good topic for discussion. It looks like the Trads are organizing to push this. Rick, and others, reflexively see the dreaded Calvinistic hand in present strategy. No evidence given, as usual, just a presumption.
I’d like to know, see, and hear more before accepting this presumption as fact.
I think that Rick’s last point (“More Trads on platforms, book deals and entity posts”) is what really bothers the Traditionalists. But look at the Traditionalists books that they promote – http://www.connect316.net/AmazonBookstore. The majority of Traditionalists’ writings are essentially anti-calvinist tomes. Apparently there is not a lot of demand for such books if they are demanding more book deals. The truth is, book deals come in response to market demands. Apparently very few people want to read “Why I am not a Calvinist and you should not be either.”
It has been said recently and needs to be repeated: Calvinists by-and-large talk and write about evangelism, the gospel, and discipleship; Traditionalists talk and write about what is wrong with Calvinism. At one point Calvinists responded to Traditionalists with vigor. Now, they choose to ignore Traditionalists and their worn out rhetoric.
Steven
You are somewhat shortsighted my friend. I have 4,000 books in my personal library (not counting those my pastor son has “stolen from me”) easily 3/4 of those are written by non cals. I know of none that bash Calvinists.
DL: Non-Calvinist does not equal Traditionalist. Did you look at the Connect316 book list? Other than a couple anti-alcohol books, the remainder are pretty much all against Calvinism.
Most of the books in my library are also by non-Calvinists and do not bash Calvinism.
By contrast, look at the book list by John Piper. Although I’m not a fan of Piper, it’s clear that he doesn’t spend the majority of his time defending Calvinism and certainly not any time refuting non-Calvinism.
DL:
I am sure that your library is impressive. However, my point was that the majority of the books that Traditionalists write and promote focus on their opposition to Calvinism and attempt to refute Calvinism (or the Traditionalists’ (mis)understanding of reformed theology).
It appears that Traditionalists are so desperate to oppose Calvinism that they will even promote Fisher Humphreys who denies penal substitution and even debated Dr. Patterson on the issue.
Steven
Bill
thanks for that reminder, my interpretation of the comment was flawed, my bad.
I do think however my point is valid. Who is Connect316?? (Rhetorical..asked with cynicism).
They are hardly a force around which to build any kind of argument. It is a big Convention and they are a small speck on the radar. I do not say this to belittle them, but again not a driving force.
Steven
See comment Nov 10 at 2:01 AM
My library is hardly impressive.
Steven, to your point, here is an upcoming conference by Doxology and Theology. It says of this org, “We exist to promote gospel-centered worship.
Doxology & Theology Mission”
It seems to be connected to Calvinists by and large. So here is one of many examples of Calvinists promoting things not “all about Calvinism” and certainly not “all about being against non-Calvinism.” Where are the conferences by Trads? And if Trads spend most of their time trying to refute your theology (and it sure looks that way), why would anyone expect Trads to be invited to be on the platforms of these conferences?
http://doxologyandtheology.com/#about
Thanks Les. I agree that this is a good example of some people who are Calvinists coming together to talk about theology and how it effects the church. One of the stated purposes of the conference is to “have a special track for worship leaders of church plants through breakout sessions, and panel discussions with worship leaders who have planted churches.” If I was a church planter, I would want to partner with such people, attend their conferences, learn from them, and make connections with other like-minded church planters. In conferences like this you hear about how the gospel is overcoming darkness: an issue near and dear to the church planter’s heart.
Where are the Traditionalists’ church planting conferences? I know that they must have some. Why aren’t they promoting them? I did a quick search of both the Connect3:16 and SBC Today web pages. I didn’t see any conferences hosted by them for church planters. I did see them complaining a lot about Calvinists!
Which conference sounds better: (1) a conference where the speakers discuss worship for church planters and how to use worship to preach the gospel, or (2) a conference on why your church plant should not be Calvinistic.
I think that it was Ed Stetzer that observed that one year the Traditionalists (though I don’t think that the term was invented when Stetzer made the observation) in the SBC complained that the Calvinists were going to destroy the desire to evangelize. The next year, the Traditionalists were complaining that the Calvinists were getting so much money for evangelism. I would add that now they are complaining that there are so many Calvinists church planters.
Steven
Guys
Help educate me please, If I understand this discussion we are drawing conclusions and interpreting trends based on who speaks teaches etc. at this or that conference. We are drawing conclusions based on whether it is Trad or Cal.
Question: (1) Who are these speakers? (2) What conferences are being discussed here? (3) In the broad scope of things are these conferences major league or more of a hometown league as it relates to their influence i.e. wide spread influence or limited influence?
“Theological balance in all seminaries” – including SWBTS and NOBTS?
Tyler, do you mean that there isn’t balance at those seminaries – are you serious?
Precisely my point, Tyler. We all instinctively know that SBTS, SEBTS and MBTS lean more Calvinistic while SWBTS and NOBTS lean more Traditionalist. (I kinda think GGBTS is pretty neutral here.)
My question is: “Is this the proper way to balance our theology–with different seminaries emphasizing different views? Or would we be better served as a convention if each of our geographically dispersed seminaries balanced their theology schools in a manner more proportionally representative of all of our SBC churches?”
Rick, I can be on board theological diversity!
Rick – I do not know how you would get that balance. Do we have enough scholars in the SBC to fill the holes that would have to be made when we rid ourselves on both sides of those who are not balanced theologians? Why should I ask a Calvinist or a Traditionalist to water down their biblical theology to make someone happy who thinks a balanced theological perspective is the way to go to make things fair?
Balance, in the way you seem to be describing it, cannot happen in the SBC without removing those who do not fit someones balanced definition. Who gets to define balanced? I say,let the SBC entities and schools be who they are, as long as they work within the SBC parameters (affirmation of the BFM2K) and are committed to winning the world to Jesus. Isn’t this really the platform we need to stand upon as we unite together for the cause of Christ? From my perspective, the non-trads are having the hardest time with this.
Last thought concerning the SBC churches, I just left a traditional church in NC and I am sick of watching these good churches declining and dying because of traditionalism. I have fought that battle for to long and it has worn me out. I have watched good baptist traditionalists want to see the church grow but never step out and tell anyone about Jesus and blame the non-growth of the church on a pastor who cannot get them in the door. Good grief, the man who made the motion to put in a new lighted sign got upset because it wasn’t bringing in enough people to help cover the 20,000.00 cost. Have you ever been asked to resign because too may people were being saved and the church was growing to quickly? Now, this is my perspective from my experience. It may not be indicative of anyone else.
Rick, I agree that the “same team” analogy is woefully lacking. More often it is used as a smoke screen to divert attention away from very important issues.
If we are going to use the “same team” analogy, we need to remember that one person can line up off sides and the whole team gets punished.
I don’t share your dislike of Calvinists, but I do share you concern about dual funding.
There are consequences of the NAMB strategy that go way beyond Trads v. Cals. It is devastating to small associations and it has set up a divide between local associations and the state conventions all vying for the same dollar.
I do not believe NAMB is the source of the widening gap of non-cooperation in the SBC family but is perhaps a result of that gap.
I see us moving toward many more independent churches who seek to participate with the SBC at two levels: local, and IMB.
Associations and/or state conventions may well be casualties in many areas.
That seems to be an unintended consequence of the NAMB push to plant churches almost to the total exclusion of any other consideration.
By the way, the answers to your questions are, “Yes. And yes.” 🙂
I’d really like to hear Rick define what a “pure” SBC church is (I haven’t read his article yet, so maybe he does that there). Is a church affirming the Traditionalist statement a “pure” SBC church? If so, how would that be any different than an SBC church also affirming the 1689 LBC? What is the meaning of this purity and who gets to define it?
Pure = no co-funding from groups outside the SBC to which church planters are dually accountable.
Rick
I would agree re. dual funding. Dual funding is an accident looking for a street corner. My argument here is not about Cal vs. Trad. It is not even about theology. It is about expectations and accountability. I had one of my pastors go to another state to plant a church. He had two SB churches co-sponsoring. It nearly drove him crazy because he had two pastors and two mission committees who had different expectations while he was caught in the middle. Again this was not about theology in any way.
One cannot serve two masters. (in this case the planter disused both of them 🙂 )
should be “despised”
DL,
Somehow I don’t feel Rick would be as opposed to two Southern Baptist churches (along with an NAMB) cosponsoring a church plant as he does with Acts29 being one of those partners. – unless of course one or both of those cosponsoring churches happen to have Calvinist leanings.
While you’re “beef” might be of a practical nature – bluntly, Ricks “Objection” appears to be little more than a theological “but I disagree with them” hissy fit.
Tarheel
You have bloged with him a lot longer than I, so I will leave that judgement with you.
My point is perhaps too simplistic. I say do not double sponsor and that avoids ANY issue and shuts the conversation down. But again, I recognize that is a rather simplistic remedy for a complex problem.
Well, I think Rick’s point about Acts 29 is that they say there will be no monetary help given to a church UNLESS the church is fully Calvinistic, all staff, all leaders, etc. That is an extreme position and one the BF&M doesn’t share. I agree with Rick on that. If a planter wants SBC money then he should have to make a distinction. Acts 29 is not the SBC. They should not be dictating terms to our church plants.
Nate, So you would you agree that If Connect316 began funding SBC church plants, with the stipulation that all pastors and leaders hold to the traditional statement; would that also be wrong? Or would it be right only to counter-balance the Cals?
And how about an outside co-sponsor that provided funds, with the stipulation that the church leaders use only Southern Gospel Music. Should NAMB refuse to sponsor such church planters as well?
Andy
Re Southern Gospel music…I think any planter who uses Southern Gospel should get twice the funding of those who do not use SG 🙂
Note the smuggled assumptions and undefined concepts in this:
Groups outside the SBC – as in other than SBC state conventions, associations. Presumably, if Connect 316 channels funding this would be unacceptable. There are private funding sources available, some individual, some trusts, some loose groups, some dually affiliated SBC churches. We have to deep six these?
Planters dually accountable – this is a stealth slam at ACTS29 and nothing else that I have ever seen named. ACTS29 has connections with 30 of 2500 NAMB planters. The presumption of even these 30 being beholden to A29 is questionable but if you can build an argument from a website absent on-the-ground, real life situations then one’s argument is much easier.
Rick was free and clear as long as he could say “NAMB won’t tell us” about partnerships. He should be able to match up some of these and get to some real facts, unless he doesn’t wish for evidence to interfere with the position he has staked out relative to NAMB.
We are all reasonable people. We have differences within a fairly narrow slice of SBC life. I and others see a default negativity towards NAMB here. I may be wrong, Rick certainly denies it, but I’m entitled to make the judgment of such based on all that I read from Rick.
If Rick drives east and I drive west, we would have a collision somewhere around Alpharetta, NAMB HQ. If Rick could free up a few hours, I’d be happy to see if the two of us could wrangle free lunches out of NAMB and ask some questions of the honchos. The back and forth here among us in discussing a non-present third party has limited value.
William T
I am not sure if your comment “stealth attack” was spoken to me or Rick or who. I have no political agenda. I must admit ignorance here, I know very little about “Connect316”. About the only thing I know about Acts 29 is that they kicked out what’s his face up in Seattle. As an aside I am comfortable in remaining in my ignorance as it relates to these group.
My point is very simple dual funding where there is dual accountably is a horrible idea. I am not concerned if he is a Trad. a Cal or even an Aggie. Dual funding with accountability is a train wreck.
William T
If you can set the meeting my wife and I will pay for the lunch.
Dear William: The whole thing is as funny as all get out. The Fellow above, D.L., is my brother-in-law, and he is as traditionalist as you can get. What is funny is that he was won to Christ by a Calvinist using the sinner’s prayer, ordained by a Calvinist, studied under a leading great Calvinist (no less than Curtis Vaughan at SWBTS). I know Calvinists who were won to Christ by Arminians (Spurgeon was one) and Arminians who were won to Christ by Calvinists (Benjamin Randall, founder of the Free Will Baptist Churches in New England, was one, and he was won by hearing of the death of Ev. George Whitefield and wondering who would tell him how to be saved). God always has a sense of humor in these things. Besides all of those doctrines that everyone worries about and some of which even those who believe in them do not understand, they are invitations, you know, like therapeutic paradoxes. There is more, but it is funny and I must go aside and smile for a while, at least. With so many Traditionalists around, like my brother-in-law, do you think they are gonna be settin’ around twiddling their thumbs or out founding Traditionalists churches so they can continue the argument?
I agree with Rick on one point – SBC churches should be funded by one organization – the SBC.
The more difficult issue are affiliations that do not require funding. I suspect that is where most church plants are. They are SBC funded, but they go to conferences and follow teachers that may not be SBC.
I do not think that should be prohibited.
Louis
I see the sprit of your point and it is valid. I am not so sure, however, that affiliation with a group without funding is that much of an issue. With funding comes accountability and supervision. If the non SBC affiliations begin to require anything contrary to who we are as SB then the planter must choose his paycheck or his affiliation. The danger here, of course, is staying with funding until it runs out and then jumping ship which does happen on occasion.
Louis, serious question. You said, “SBC churches should be funded by one organization – the SBC.”
What happened to autonomy? Does that not count when planting? At any point in the planting process?
DL, “If the non SBC affiliations begin to require anything contrary to who we are as SB then the planter must choose his paycheck or his affiliation.”
Is that happening with SB church plants? i.e. are theses affiliations “requiring anything contrary to who we are as SB?”
Les
Les
I have no idea. The operate word here is “if”. I gather that some folks feel that this is the case. “If” it is I think my statement is valid.
DL, good Tuesday morning. The Lord’s mercies are new every day!!
““If” it is I think my statement is valid.”
I would agree with you. But as far as I have been following along, I have seen nothing to indicate that some affiliations are “requiring anything contrary to who we are as SB?” I have seen that hinted, but never demonstrated.
Blessings brother.
Les
I believe the biggest issue I’ve heard is that Acts 29 (30 out of 2500 surveyed church plants) is a church-planting organization in which one of their requirements is that the church planter hold to reformed soteriology. This would obviously exclude some potential sbc church planters. They do not require anything CONTRARY to SB, but they do make a requirement that GOES BEYOND what SB requires.
It would be as if a SB church planter partnered with the “Gospel-Music church association” (I made that up) that partially funded church plants, provided that all new church plants do Southern-Gospel music only. It would exclude both those who don’t like Southern Gospel, and those who like a mix of music.
…And to further extend the made-up situation:
Would there be an inherent problem with A FEW sbc church planters also partnering with this musically exclusive origination? Or would it only become a problem if the VAST MAJORITY of sbc church plants were doing it?
Les
And good morning to you my brother. By the way we need to talk about the Cardinals. I am still in grief.
As I said, I don’t know, I do not follow these groups that closely. Theology is one issue of course and obviously I do not know if there are issues here or not. Les, I still have a concern about dual funding in general. With funding comes expectations, perhaps supervision, and probability accountability. I have seen too many times situations where the expectations were different with the different funding agents and the planter gets caught in the middle trying “to serve two masters”. Hence I ceased doing that. However, I will be the first to admit that I have a bias and my experiences are limited and it is a big world out there. Church autonomy trumps my bias. 🙂
Have a good day.
By the way I did not make it to St. Louis this summer. I hope to come in June and have coffee with you.
As far as the question in the title of this post, it might be a good idea to make sure everyone on the team is on the same page with word definitions. We could start with the meaning of “is”.
I appreciate the point William is making. I understand the sense of frustration being expressed regarding somehow inherently unfair funding that prefers one soteriology over another. I view the complaining as a political act designed to draw attention from potential voting messengers and committee members moving forward. All well and good. Turns out dissent isn’t such a bad thing after all!!
Rick you said you want ” More Trads on platforms, book deals and entity posts.” I’d like to offer an encouragement. Here’s the thing, when I see blogs and books from guys from the TGC, T4G, Desiring God, 9 Marks, and the like they talk about how we should respond to culture, blogs about theology, church, and the like. But the guys from Connect 3:16, peter lumpkins, and the like they seem to just talk about Calvinism. I think more Trads would have more “platforms” if they talked about these other things. I was recently at a 9 Marks conference and the whole thing was centered on Christ. I think I heard “reformed theology” once. John Piper, Sproul, and the like have written much more than just Calvinism. But it seems like these guys from Connect 3:16 only respond to Calvinists. Please don’t hear this as a slander, but as an encouragement. Blessings brother.
We were writing and talking about ministry before the YRR ever happened. Then it happened…and our voices were ignored while the YRR guys were all the rage. We’re just as gospel focused. In fact, it kinda ticks us off that The Gospel Coalition has a Calvinistic doctrinal statement that excludes us…as if you’re only about the gospel if you’re reformed. If you’re not a Calvinist, you’re invisible in the SBC today. So we write about it just like any group writes about it when they feel they are being discriminated against unfairly, because we see it as a wrong that should be corrected.
Blessings to you as well, Tyler. I have a son named Tyler. I wish you all the best.
Rick, I have many non Calvinist friends who are much smarty and wiser than I am. I hope and prayer their voices are heard. I think your right that TGC excludes you goes and hope that will change. God bless. Tell you son he has a good name.
“I think more Trads would have more “platforms” if they talked about these other things.”
Yes Tyler. If you are the planning committee, why in the world would you invite most publicly, visible Trads who mostly sped their time and keyboard efforts trying to tell everyone why your theology is wrong and dangerous?
This whole theory that “Calvinists talk about Jesus and Traditionalists talk about Calvinism” is absurd and uncalled for. It is a strategy to deflect these very concerns about Calvinism.
When we preach and teach and minister, we do not focus on either Calvinism OR Calvinization. However, when we blog on convention matters, we do. There’s nothing wrong with that.
As for these planning committees, they invite Calvinists who do indeed attack Traditionalist views all the time. The reason they should invite Traditionalists to speak is that most of the people in our convention are truly not Calvinistic. Our leaders should reflect our churches.
Rick:
When you wrote to the NAMB, you did so “As the pastor of a Southern Baptist Church”, not as a blogger. Accordingly, by your own words, your concern is a pastoral concern; not as a blogger. Similarly, when the NAMB responded, they responded to “Pastor Patrick.” The NAMB responded to you as a pastor; not as a blogger. Furthermore, when you blog on SBC Today, it carries the header “Dr. Rick Patrick | Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church, Sylacauga, AL.”
Clearly your blogging is not unrelated to your role as pastor. You write to the NAMB as a pastor. You blog as a pastor. There is a connection between the words you write as a blogger and your role as a pastor.
It seems to me that someone once said “out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.” What do Traditionalists talk about the most? As best I can tell, they talk about Calvinists and Calvinism.
Steven
Rick: Calvinists have never claimed to be the majority. Ever. If you can find me anyone who is Calvinist and has said this feel free to correct me.
Traditionalists claim to be the majority but also are not. Traditionalist is a new name for Independent Fundamentalist who has joined the SBC in the past starting with Jerry Falwell et al others.
The reason Traditionalists may not be asked to join certain committees is their argumentative, hate filled attitudes. It seems you guys just like to fight. The past few years it is Calvinism, well, a distorted dissertation on Calvinism, in the past it has been something else, it will always be about something until the SBC is “pure” in your eyes. Eric Hankins has distanced himself from the Traditionalist movement and even Brad Whitt has not been heard from for awhile.
I don’t think any exclusion has been because of Trad theology, but the above attitude and distortions that I have mentioned.
Debbie
Wow just Wow! I am force to ask again, somebody please tell me WHAT IS A TRAD!!!
I am not a Calvinist, am I a Trad? I am anything but “hate filled” and I have never been a Falwell follower. I am a fundamentalist if by that one means I follow the fundamentals of doctrine in Scripture.
Who else had joined the SBC since Falwell? And when did he ever really join? The men who signed the Trad statement were by and large SB all their lives and some of these guys are extremely old codgers now.
As far as majority, I still need a def of Trad but there are certainly more non Cals in the SBC than Cals. The Cals admit that, at least my friends who are Cals.
Debbie, I think I may have been insulted. I will decide when someone tells me what a Trad is. I totally reject your definition it is without merit and very mean spirited.
I truly appreciate candor. That is why I became involved with Voices. But Debbie this is over the top.
D.L.,
Not every non-C is a Trad. Go to SBC Today and find the Traditionalist Statement. If you agree with it, you can consider yourself a Trad.
I think Debbie was generalizing, for certainly not everyone who has signed that statement or calls themselves a Trad is argumentative or been left off of committees.
As far as i can tell, they are Christians who hold certain viewpoints that fall within the BF&M and should be accorded the respect and love that we should give to any blood bought child of God.
Parsonsmike
I love your last paragraph. It is by far your best statement and may be the best statement I have seen here in a long time.
If we do not begin to accept each other as brothers and sisters in Christ (within the framework of the BFM) nothing is going to matter. We are going to tear this convention apart if we continue this discussion/fight in the way that many are doing.
Parsonsmike
Thanks for pointing me to the statement. I think I would still like more clarity on the issue however.
I do not have enough information to agree or disagree with the preamble. We surly have many more Cals in leadership roles that is undeniable, and that does not brother me. Whether or not there is a “conspiracy” I am not in the loop enough to know, if there is that bothers me a great deal. Time will tell.
As far as the theological statements that follow i am in agreement and I do think that reflect the majority of SB in the pews.
Based on this I think some other ingredient must be added to define a Traditionalist.
D.L.,
There is no evidence put forth that points to a conspiracy. None.
Its just the swing of things.
And while it is true I imagine that C’s don’t invite leading Trads to their meetings, it is also true that C’s are not [for the most part, I haven’t read every blog] spending their time speaking about the differences and how bad the Trads theology is.
As noted here in these posts, they are speaking and writing about points of unity and growth.
But many Trad blogs are full of antiC rhetoric.
Listen D.L., even if, and I don’t know anything about much of anything in SBC life, 6 years a SBC person, sitting under a pastor whose concern is our church body and not this bickering, so even if they are a few C’s at the top pushing their like minded and trusted buddies into places of prominence, there is still not a single reason to come after the C’s enmass and continually bash their beliefs like it is some cancer that needs eradicated, as these vocal blogs continue to do.
Just like it is wrong to generalize Trads like a certain person recently has done here. But as far as I know, she is not writing a daily blog doing it but responding to whats out there in frustration.
And finally, there is no more to being a Trad than agreeing with that statement. Debbie was wrong to say that they have been around in different forms for a while. Trads like Rick have been around but the name is recent, the statement is recent, and all this attacking C’s is recent. And I imagine that if you agree with it in general, you fall under the umbrella of the label.
From what I have read and heard the statement is flawed in a few areas [I mean besides my disagreements] and has not been trumpeted too much recently. But if having it makes them happy, I say let them have it.
But it is more than having it, they seem to be fighting a battle to belittle C’s doctrine. Its one thing to have a disagreement, its another to focus on that so much that the many more areas of agreement are overshadowed. And thats what I see them doing.
If they think C doctrine heretical and the C preachers are preaching a false Gospel, then by all means they should stand up and yell as loud as they can, sounding every alarm.
peace in Jesus,
mike
Rick, the amount of polemics of Trads about Calvinism vs polemics by Calvinists about Trad theology is something that someone with more time could pursue.
But just take a look at Connect 316 book list.
I wouldn’t. I mean, there are some Trads bloggers that the only thing I know about them is that they hate Calvinism. They don’t write on anything but Calvinism. SBC Today and Tomorrow come to mind. It seems like the only conference that would be relevant for them is the john 3:16 conference. But I went to T4G this year and the whole conference was about Evangelism. The year before that was about what is and isn’t the Gospel. I also wouldn’t ask a Calvinist who does the same. But we don’t have to worry about me asking anyone because I’ll likely never be in a position to do so 🙂
Do the Traditionalists’ constant complaints about Calvinists remind anyone else of this? – http://www.joeclifford.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/danceswolves.jpg
The Traditionalists get together and complain about Calvinists while most everyone else is excited about Calvinists’ passion for evangelism, the gospel, expository preaching, discipleship, and Baptist distinctives.
Steven
I think a motion should be made at the next convention that if anyone buys a book from LifeWay which has Calvinistic leanings that they also must purchase one with Traditionalist leanings.
Who knows the traditionalist book may end up where a lot of Watchtower propaganda (not making any connection that Traditionalist books are like Watchtower material) end up… the garbage can.
Nah — To many pastors like to have a lot of books on their shelf. Been there, done that. This last move I narrowed my book collection down to about 37. What a blessing not to tote those heavy banana boxes out of the house and then into another.
Does anyone know the percentage of Traditionalists applying for the church planter openings at NAMB in comparison to the Reformers?
Should any of our entities even ask such questions? Is there some basis in the BFM for doing this?
NAMB, and IMB also, certainly should be thorough enough in vetting to uncover the rabid Cals and Trads alike who show more interest in their crusade for their version of theological purity and denominational politics than in planting churches or advancing the Gospel.
William T
Extremely well said
No, I don’t, Jon, but you wouldn’t happen to be the Jon Estes that graduated from Cedarville about 10 years ago would you? 🙂
Nope,
Studies at…
Criswell & DBU – undergrad
SEBTS – MDiv
Now pastoring in Dubai.
Jon,
Divining the percentage of Calvinist vs. Traditionalist church planters at NAMB is, for all practical purposes, impossible. That is essentially the information I was trying to discern from NAMB, among other statistics regarding institutions.
William may disagree with this grand narrative, but among the people I know, from all over the country, the vast majority of non-ethnic church plants at NAMB lean Calvinistic. One former Southern Baptist leader even referred to our reformed church planting efforts as a “jobs program” for Calvinists who are being turned away from Southern Baptist pulpits due to their theology.
When I ask your question, “Does anyone know…” the answer I usually get is something like, “No, but if the person asking the question really loved Jesus, they wouldn’t care about percentages since it’s all about the gospel and the kingdom and we’re all on the same side here. So go in peace, be warmed and filled. And by the way, thank you for your support.”
Since both Cals and Trads fit within the BFM, on what basis would NAMB make such a division?
Transparency in sharing facts requested by Southern Baptists. We report many other facts that have nothing to do with the BFM.
Can you give comparable “other facts” please.
Some people may be C leaning but do not call themselves a C. Is everything to be defined by this one difference?
Others may be Trad leaning but don’t want that label.
If the doctrine one espouses is desirable, then new ministers will adopt it. Or they may find a different doctrine desirable. But if whatever doctrine they find desirable falls within the BF&M, then who are we to start making rules to ensure ‘fairness’?
C’mon Rick, are C’s going to Heaven? Are SBC C’s preaching the Gospel? If you are saying yes to these two things, then work to STOP all this infighting and instead WORK for cooperation. As i see it, the vocal Trads, and that would include you, are being divisive and promoting disunity.
Make your doctrine desirable and as godly as you can and God’s people will endorse it.
Baptisms. Deaths. Number of people ordained. Salary studies. Number in Sunday School. Year Pastor came. Total giving. VBS Attendance. Bible brought. Lesson read. Boxes for OCC.
Just basic Baptist reporting…
Funding Sources–SBC
Funding Sources–Non-SBC
Not that hard.
Parsonmike
Mostly on target..I sure wish you would have said that there are vocal Cals who are promoting disunity also. From what I read both groups are to blame.
Mike we simply must come to the understanding that it take two vocal views to make a war. As a long time Baptist I have never seen any “fight”, be it pre, post or a, evangelism verses social action, liberals verses conservatives or Non cals vs Cals but what there was enough blame for unChrist like words and actions to go around.
I was a supporter of the CR from the beginning, but I got so mad at Patterson and Pressler sometimes I wanted to spit.
Too what are you into? What would you do with the data once you receive it?
If you were to find out that say, just for discussion, 15% of church plants or at least partially sponsored by, again just for discussion, acts 29 what would be your game plan then?
woukd we cut off those 15% from the SBC funding?
Correction – “Too what are you into?” Should read:
To what end shall the gathering of this information be in your mind?
Further, would other Southern Baptist get to inspect the data?
What if, say for discussion again, we find that 15% of church plants are at least partially funded by churches that believe and teach in speaking tongues…should in NAMB Cut their funding to because hey that’s not “traditional” Southern Baptist teaching.
My point is is this a slippery slope that you really want to go down to warn namb would be determining Who doesn’t who does not get funding based on criteria outside of the commonly agreed-upon Baptist Faith and message of 2000?
Hasn’t the convention voted multiple times since 2000 and affirmed that the Baptist Faith and message of 2000 is a sufficient for the standard for determining matters such as these?
Rick: You reference the article at SBCToday regarding the frontier vs harvest mandate, but I can’t find the explanation that the former is calvinistic and the latter traditionalist.
What is called Calvinism was the original doctrine of the SBC. Decisional regeneration saves no one. Only regeneration by the Holy Spirit will lead to conversion.
Brother Foltz,
Given that the SBC did not have a doctrinal statement until 1925, how can you say, “What is called Calvinism was the original doctrine of the SBC.”?
Thanks,
Robert
It appears that the Traditionalist and the Calvinist need to discover how God forms his church, and put all this silliness aside. Both sides become more juvenile everyday not recognizing the real battle. It’s like not realizing that both of you are on the same side of the tug-o-war, because one is looking over his shoulder blaming the other for pulling with him. Got your eyes on the wrong thing!
Really?
Dual funding of a SBC church plant is a matter of concern. How much allegiance do they really have to the SBC beyond desiring to receive our money?
It is also of concern when only Calvinists are hired by the new leaders of an SBC entity.
Some leaders speak of promoting young, up and coming preachers – when they seem to be only promoting those of the Calvinist variety.
SBC leaders need to be careful to promote and give speaking opportunities to the young, up and coming Traditionalists, non-Calvinists, evangelists, and pastors of evangelistic, growing churches.
Some state and national leaders exercise an enormous amount of power just by who they publish, who they invite to speak at conferences, who they promote, who they endorse.
This also used to be very evident in the days when the Moderates ran the convention.
David R. Brumbelow
It was also very evident and applauded when the CR occurred. I’m sorry for you that the same practices that were used in the CR you now feel are being used against you. I don’t see it that way, but I can understand why someone who used the bully pulpit model to make changes in the past might see it that way now.
Truth is, the dogs of war from the CR need a new “enemy” to fight and they have settled in Calvinists because they are easy to demonize. Sadly, this war is more like the Civil War than WW2. The Trads are fighting their own people- inerrantists, Gospel loving, Jesus seeking people- rather than people who want to do away with Orthodoxy (which was at the center of some of the CR) This will end when the Trads lay down their weapons and stop fighting their brothers. There are very few Cals in this fight and none I can think of in any leadership position in the SBC.
If you think Platt is spending his time at the IMB dreaming up ways to exclude Cals you are fooling yourself. He cares about the Gospel not SBC politics.
Amen, Ryan.
Wow. No weapons, bro. Just disagreements with the current direction of the SBC.
Ryan
the dogs of war of the CR are no longer in power except for a few exceptions.
Much of the Cal not cal agreement is done by those who were very young or not born in 79.
Last sentence should be “much of the Cal non Cal argument”
David:
You make the same point that Rick made – leaders should give Traditionalists equal opportunities for speaking and publishing. However, conferences and publishing costs money. In order for a conference to be effective, people must register and attend. In order for a book to be published, it must be one that people will purchase. In today’s “market”, the people (and with regard to the current issue, church planters) attending conferences and buying books are not interested in hearing about the Traditionalists opinions of Calvinism and the Calvinists. They want to hear about the gospel, discipleship, church planting, and evangelism. There just are not a lot of conferences by Traditionalists that address these issues that are important to church planters. Nor are there many recent books by Traditionalists that address these issues. When SBC Today and Connect3:16 focus so much of their time and resources to “Why I Am Not A Calvinist” and other such themes, to where are the young church planters supposed to turn?
Steven
Steven,
Your comment is not at all what I am speaking about.
I’m not saying you should get Traditionalists to speak at conventions so they can act obnoxious and run down Calvinists.
I am simply saying at SBC state and national conventions, agencies, they should be giving some of the young, up and coming Traditionalist / non-Calvinist, evangelist, etc. preachers the same opportunities to speak and lead as they do the young, up and coming Calvinists. Sometimes they do, often they don’t.
See my comment above.
David R. Brumbelow
So, in general, most of you are okay with fewer churches planted, fewer people reached, if that’s the necessary result of only doing missions/evangelism that we can fund 100% through our trustee board-directed efforts?
In other words, you would rather local church A, being potentially Calvinistic, not provide 30%, state convention B 20%, association C 10%, and NAMB 50%, because that might result in a church that’s loyal to more than just NAMB?
Or, perhaps even worse, the partnership church plant in Pine Bluff that’s funded mostly by local churches (some not-SBC because of racial heritage) and a little bit from ABSC/NAMB, because even though all the partners are willing to fund a church using the BFM, some of them still feel that the SBC (and NAMB, by extension) isn’t interested in their ethnic group except as showpieces to cover our past?
Should we shut those down for lack of purity?
On the one hand, we lament that churches don’t give enough to the CP, that states don’t forward enough to Nashville, and so forth…but then I read some of these comments and realize exactly why all the church planting decisions shouldn’t come from just the NAMB trustees. There’s no possible way for NAMB to know every place that an effective church can be planted. That falls to people on the ground, in the middle of it. And those people have pre-existing involvements and churches, associations, networks, friends, states, even other nation-wide groups (at times) that are willing to help as well. If a dime from NAMB means 100% NAMB control, I’d rather cut the CP from the church, give it straight to a church plant, and let them be free to follow the Word without the bureaucracy of getting permission from Alpharetta for everything.
If we want to do less, then by all means, let’s make sure we never work with anyone outside the good-ol’-boy network of the SBC. But let’s also quit talking like we want to still be an effective force for missions and ministry together in the 21st century, because we won’t be.
Great points – Doug.
And some Pastors wonder why the CP is in decline? Wow! Simple stuff! This Traditionalist vs. Calvinist thing is an imaginary tangled web of uselessness.
Yep.
I don’t know how it goes down in “legacy” areas, but out here on the frontier, there almost never a church plant funded by a single source – no “PURE” churches here.
If we don’t want our pastors/planters on starvation diets, we have to seek multiple funding sources.
NAMB has certain requirements for plants, and those must be met. But unless NAMB provides 100% funding, it cannot demand 100% control. If someone sought funding from a group completely outside SBC orthodoxy, that would be a problem. But within those boundaries, a planter seeks as many sources as he can find.
For the record, just to put the hounds at ease, I know of NO churches in Iowa which are A-29 funded. Not a one. If there is, I’m not aware. Here in Iowa, where one stands on the soteriology scale is not one of the primary questions we have.
“I don’t know how it goes down in “legacy” areas, but out here on the frontier, there almost never a church plant funded by a single source – no “PURE” churches here.”
Virginia is a legacy state – and miller has nailed it. I like him ain’t sure how it happens in Alabama but –
The 3 southern baptist churches (working on 4th) churches that our church has helped plant in the last 10 years – every one has been a co-partnership with the SBCV and other churches.
And that’s the standard in Viginia.
Pure – smure – we ain’t building an SBC kingdom – we’re planting local churches to make disciples of all peoples.
That’s great, but you do realize that you will draw your line in the sand at some point to this so-called cooperation. You will define it in a number of ways, but you define the line all the same. Are you saying you would be okay with NAMB giving money to a church-plant that also gets money from the Unitarians or the Nazarenes? Of course not!
Yes, I draw a line – as I said in my previous comment.
If a church affirms the BF&M and basic Baptist practice, then what’s the problem?
NAMB isn’t funding Unitarian or Nazarene churches. It’s funding Baptist churches.
See, this is where the words become a little garbled. We hear “No one wants to marginalize the Calvinists” then we see this, “you don’t want someone getting money from Unitarians or Nazarenes” – clearly outside the parameters of SBC life.
Either Calvinists ARE within SBC life or they are not. If they are, then NAMB ought to help fund church plants. If they are not, then NAMB should not.
But the anti-Calvinists need to be clearer. If Calvinism is within the boundaries of Baptist orthodoxy and supported within the BF&M, then why the clanging of the gongs? If Calvinism is NOT within the boundaries of BF&M orthodoxy (a position some of the 316ers have advocated) then they ought to stop saying, “We aren’t trying to marginalize anyone.”
No A29 funded church starts in Montana
BillMac says “a non Calvinist does not equal a Trad”. Fair enough. Hence I must ask again “What is a Trad”?
When this discussion began, I thought Rick was sounding very open, affable, and willing to work together. After review, I realize now that I had him all wrong. Rick you waste a lot of time and effort over nothing. And Debbie you, too, are wasting time. For example, I have known DL for at least 55 years, and he treats Cals and Trads the same way. I am a Sovereign Grace believer (after all folks believing those doctrines were dying for them at the hands of the inquisition before John Calvin was ever born – so I don’t care for the term Cal. I prefer Sovereign Grace as it is closest to the Scripture…reign in Roms.5:21), and my brother-in-law is a Trad. and I should know. I also know about how he evaluates both groups – even handed and balanced. The agreement that was made in the period from 1787-1800 between the Separates and the Regulars has endured for over 200 years. Baptists like to argue; it is a part of the reality of being free. I have had Trads. preach for me, and I have preached for them. They win souls, and I win souls. I trust that we both truly win souls to Christ.
When I was ordained, I was a Trad. and my ordaining pastor (the same one that DL had) was a supralapsarian Hyper Calvinist. A year later, after pastoring for that year, I had come to the conclusion that Dr. Ernest Campbell was right. I had been persuaded by the Bible’s use of the word “can” in Jn.6:44,65 as in “no man can” (most Separate Baptist would state that as “man is utterly impotent to do anything to save himself), inability, if you please, and by a church with a lot of depraved people in it, people who had been let down really hard by a fellow who was guilty of some serious failings. At the end of that first year I preached on Ephs.1:3-14, taking the position that Grace was irresistible. It had to be, if man was unable to come without it being given to him by God. I could say more, but my brother-in-law has continued to hold his Trad. position for the same years. His treatment of both groups in his ministry has been remarkably good as I have reason to know.
Rick and Debbie, as representatives of both groups, you both are wasting time and energy. No one is going to show up on your doorstep demanding that you change. Every Baptist preacher worth his salt does his thinking for himself, and so does every Baptist member. We agree to disagree and get on with what we are doing, evangelizing.
I should tell you about a woman I know who became a Cal. preacher, founded a church, then gave it to Southern Baptists, who turned it into a Trad. church. There just didn’t happen to be any Cals. in that area. Life is that way. But God is in charge. When He gets ready to change someone, there is no stopping Him. Why He allows such differences is His business – not mine. So I will leave it to Him to conduct His business as He sees fit.
Dr. Willingham,
I am more than happy to work *together.* But as people brush this off and dismiss it, saying, “Quit talking about this,” that attempt to muzzle the conversation does not help anyone understand our marginalization.
In the discussion, as usual, I tend to get more direct and defensive the more people just sort of attack me for my convictions and pepper me with leading questions. I am seriously outnumbered here.
I am also not the only one who sees the Calvinization and is concerned about it. But I am one of the few actually attempting dialogue with the very brothers with whom I disagree.
Blessings,
Rick
What do you expect from “those brothers with whom you disagree”. I mean really – what do you want?
Rick,….maybe I missed it earlier, but how are you being attacked for your convictions? What specifically are you being attacked on?
One more thing Rick,…. the Traditionalist vs Calvinistic discussion is a good to have, and it will probably not go away because it does bring up very important distinctions concerning the scriptures. The crux of the understanding of grace, sovereignty, election, etc. are very important doctrines, and these are doctrines that all Christians should immerse themselves by bathing in the Word of God daily. If there is a question of marginalizing sovereignty, when some do not believe it can be marginalized,… is a question we should all be interested in how that is accomplished or not,… which is always a good for a little light of day.
I would not put that type of learning into a category of attack, but moreover into the realm of maturing. Convictions are convictions for a time,…some last longer than others, some change, and some go to the grave.
I think you get the gist of my sentences…. typing while moving around the house…. not a good habit.
Dr.JW
Paragraph 3 well said. This must happen. We cannot continue to argue while the world goes to hell. While I sm not a Cal I am about to the point that I would give the whole convention over to the Cals if it would help us get down to the business of seeking the lost.
I will be blunt and plain (1) Non Cals who want to spend all day bashing Cals, I have little use for (2) Cals who spend all day bashing non Cals I have little use for (3) Non Cals who have no passion for the lost I have little use for (4) Cals whose theology tells them we do not need to witness or do missions I have little use for. Cals and Non Cals who have a passion for should I will work with.
Dr JW, Do you remember Miss Eberlee at Beaumont. All of my dangled participles is why she flunked me twice in English 6.
Mike
I will start down here, the “reply” button is to far away. thanks for the analysis. I agree that Cal bashing is unacceptable as is Non Cal bashing. While most of my Cal friends simply disagree with me, there is one brother who plainly says I am a heretic because I am not a Cal. I guess that goes with man’s sin problem. However I do expect more from God’s people as you have said at times.
The phrase “swing of things” caught my attention. I suspect that this is true. I doubt that a bunch of Cals got in a room and divided this all up and decided who gets what job. People tend to elect or hire their friends or former co workers for jobs. Then tend to think alike. That has always been the case. I think this is what is happening now.
However, I do see a problem. We are in bad fix as a convention with this argument. The men in top post should be unifiers and healers. I expect more of them than I do the run of the mill guys like me. They know the division that is in our convention. I would like to see a little more sensitivity by them to this issue rather than continuing to add to the issue. We need healing and that SHOULD start at the executive level. Southern needs more non Cals and Southwestern needs more Cals. But I have always been a dreamer.
I have absolutely no interest in who speaks at what meeting. I will let others deal with that.
I believe in and have given my life to the local church, but I care a great deal about what happens in my convention.
D.L.,
Some people will not be happy unless things are going their way. Now there are many diverse points of view on a myriad of subjects in the SBC. The men at the top can’t just unite and heal every group that is dissatisfied. They did have a committee on the division and I suppose they recommended appropriate steps. But either these steps were not taken, or they weren’t enough to satisfy everyone.
Sometimes a person or a group has to allow God to work out the splinter, and sometimes God leaves the splinter in. Either way, we trust in God. What we don’t do, or shouldn’t is too cause division needlessly.
Whew! What a comment stream! I am now trying to balance “forsake not the assembling of yourselves together” with “come out from among them and be not a partaker of their sins”. I doubt very seriously if NAMB has a check box for “Trad” vs. “Cal” on its application for church planters. Given SBC’s current theo-political climate, it’s best to have a don’t ask don’t tell policy on theological persuasion. I doubt that this information is available even at the associational level.
It certainly didn’t come up in the meeting we had a couple of weeks ago……
… on the other hand, my mama’s moral instructions included “if asked, don’t lie”.
Question of curiosity, can a Calvinist Baptist affirm the following statement from Article VII Regeneration of the 1925 BF&M:
“It [Regeneration] is a work of God’s free grace conditioned upon faith in Christ and made manifest by the fruit which we bring forth to the glory of God.”
Question of curiosity, can a Traditional Baptist affirm the following statement from Article VIII Repentance and Faith of the 1925 BF&M:
“We believe that repentance and faith are sacred duties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God;”
I’m not a Trad nor a Cal but I can’t see where a Trad couldn’t assent to it, because it doesn’t necessitate regeneration before faith.
Yep… that statement is about like a nice 4-car garage. Nice and roomy!
Chris – Your big garage analogy is a good way to illustrate this! The BFM2000 revision certainly provides lots of theological wiggle room under one big SBC tent. While a large garage prevents you from dinging the doors of an adjacent car, it appears that the BFM2000 has not prevented Southern Baptists from running into each other.
yes… that is one of the problems with roomy. On the other hand,…You would think that defining sovereign, and if God is the only actor, would not be too difficult. But, the SBC has a habit of making simple things a bit difficult at times. Yet, the big tent seems to create a broad enough shelter without getting too bizarre as well. Putting up with a few door dings is part of the experience!
being too lazy to go downstairs and check, does anybody know how this indifferent than 1963 BFM
should be is different
my point being if the 2000 is the same as 1963 Dr Hobbs little commentary will explain what the 63 committee meant by these statements
Brother Wylie,
Sure you did mean to say that it does necessitate regeneration before faith?
At least that’s how I read it, and understand that to be a Calvinist position, therefore, a Trad would not be able to affirm it.
Maybe, I’m not reading it right.
No brother, that’s not what I mean. It didn’t saying by the regenerating of the Spirit of God. When faith occurs that’s when regeneration occurs, not before.
“When faith occurs that’s when regeneration occurs, not before.”
I think that’s what Article VII is saying. That regeneration is conditioned upon faith. In other words, faith precedes regeneration.
Article VIII seems to say that faith is a duty that we exercise and is brought about or “wrought” by “the regenerating Spirit of God.” In other words, regeneration precedes faith.
Perhaps reading Article VIII in its entirety will help:
“We believe that repentance and faith are sacred duties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God; whereby being deeply convinced of our guilt, danger, and helplessness, and of the way of salvation by Christ, we turn to God with unfeigned contrition, confession, and supplication for mercy; at the same time heartily receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our Prophet, Priest, and King, and relying on him alone as the only and all-sufficient Saviour.”
Again, maybe I’m reading it wrong.
John,
Perhaps you need to clarify the meaning of the word “wrought”. If the statement says faith is wrought in the soul by the regenerating work of God, that pretty inescapably means regeneration comes first and faith is produced (wrought) by that regeneration.
Wrought means “to work.” Really from the past participle of work. So repentance and faith are “worked” into the soul.
Chris,
That article makes no claim concerning the timing whatsoever. The word regenerating is modifying the word Spirit. The regenerating Spirit (ie He is the agent in the New Birth). It could very well be interpreted as saying when the Spirit brings about faith in a sinner’s heart He regenerates them.
John,
Only if we are allowed to change the rules of English grammar while redefining “wrought”.
Les,
I agree with what you are saying. Even Trads believe that salvation is the work of the Spirit of God.
Actually no Chris, I think we agree on what the word wrought means. It still has no bearing in when regeneration happens, since the word regenerating is modifying the word Spirit not soul.
John we all agree that salvation (the whole thing) is of the Lord. But the statement is talking about one aspect of salvation. Regeneration.
Calling the Holy Spirit “the regenerating Spirit of God” makes no claim one way or the other concerning the timing.
Les, What do you do with Article VII then brother?
In fact Article VII is the article on regeneration.
Not before and not after.
God works faith in our soul and repentance by that faith. That is regeneration’s effects [faith and repentance]. And NT times, at least since after the 1st century, He also indwells the believer then as well.
John,
“Regeneration or the new birth is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit, whereby we become partakers of the divine nature and a holy disposition is given, leading to the love and practice of righteousness. It is a work of God’s free grace conditioned upon faith in Christ and made manifest by the fruit which we bring forth to the glory of God.”
I’d have to say that this section is of two minds. What is clear to me is that the first part is saying that regeneration precedes conversion. The second part seems to take that away.
I like the 2000 version where it is much clearer.
“Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.’
Much clearer statement that conversion comes only after the work of regeneration has happened.
Blessings brother. Les
I respect you brother, but I could not disagree more. The New Birth occurs as a product of saving faith.
Mr Plodder,
I always enjoy reading your contributions, if for no other reason but to expand my vocabulary 🙂 I am curious as to why it would be difficult for a church plant to enumerate their funding sources? When I planted a church about a decade ago, that was required. If NAMB mandates that 6% of offerings be returned back, how does it know if they are getting 6% if they don’t know the totals? Very simple to require sponsor info from a new church.
I agree with Rick that to some people, especially Southern Baptists, it is still important as to the issue of whether Jesus died for the whole world, or for only a select few. Now, we are still brothers regardless of the answer to that, but I won’t be attending any conferences that would promote a position that is theologically contrary to what I understand it to be. I think it would be disingenuous to do so…..an implicit affirmation if you will.
When we started our church, I had no reservations regarding disclosing any affiliations or sponsors. Why would I ? Nor would I see it being a problem for requiring that for new works who are being financially subsidized by Baptist dollars…..Just my $.02
Below is an excerpt from William Bullein Johnson’s sermon The Sovereignty of God and the Free Agency of Man.
Seems to me that Brother Johnson held to what Brother Patrick calls the Traditional Southern Baptist understanding about salvation. Please note the sentence I placed in bold.
By the way, if you didn’t know, Brother Johnson was the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Brother Johnson was also the chairman of the committee appointed to draft the Convention’s constitution.
That, as a Free Agent, man has life and death set before him, with the liberty of choosing the one, and rejecting the other. As a fallen creature, he is an enemy of God, and without the provision of mercy in his Son, would for ever remain such. Descending to the abode of the Devil and his angels, as a company of kindred spirits, he would for ever unite with them, in their unhallowed opposition to their common creator. Mutual crimination and joint blasphemy against their maker would render them as miserable as their capacity would admit. But now the announcement of pardon and restoration invites him to return. “Come, now, let us reason together saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow: though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” “Ho! everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat: yea, come buy wine and milk without price.”
As moral agents, for whom there is hope, I call upon you, then, fellow sinners to turn to the Lord, For he saith the Lord; “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his evil way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?” Your God commands, invites, entreats. Open your ears–hear “the word of this salvation, Which is sent unto you.” “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.” As disobedient subjects, as prodigal sons, come back. Your sovereign is ready to receive you–your father’s arms and house are open to embrace, and entertain you. Come, then, the fatted calf shall be killed for you, the best robe shall be put on you, joy and gladness shall thrill your ransomed heaven born souls. The Church on earth shall rejoice. Attending angels shall bear the tidings to the throne of the eternal, and the holy company of Cherumbim and Seraphim in his presence, shall make all Heaven resound with hallelujahs of praise to God and the Lamb.
But if ye refuse the invitations of love and mercy, and will not have the man Christ Jesus to reign over you, if ye will continue in sin, you must receive its wages–death–eternal death. You must see, that man Christ Jesus on the judgment seat, and hear from his sacred lips, the sentence–“Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.” But you will be your own destroyer; the Judge will only, as the organ of insulted justice and violated law, pronounce sentence, which you will have already drawn down upon your head.
Now, Now, O fellow sinners, you have it in your power to place yourselves under influences, that are spiritual and saving; or under influences that are carnal and damning. You can read the Bible, or the book of infidelity; the sermon of truth, or the novel of fiction; you can attend the party of sinful pleasure, or the meeting for holy prayer; you can go to the midnight revel, or to the house of God. You can lift up the prayer of the publican, or the howl of the bacchanal. You can utter the praise of the Most High, or belch out the blasphemy of the Arch fiend. How solemn the responsibilities that are upon you. Under what awful accountability does your free agency place you? The freedom to chose is the freedom to reject. O! Exercise this freedom aright. Pause, consider your latter end. “Chose you this day whom you will serve.” Difficulties attend the decision. For their removal, search the scriptures, implore the teaching of that Holy Spirit, whom God will give to all that ask for in sincerity. And oh may He enlighten the eyes of your understanding, and give you to see Christ in the scriptures as your “wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.”
So much for Classic Five-Point Calvinism being “the original doctrine of the SBC.”
William Bullein Johnson, The Sovereignty of God and the Free Agency of Man: A Sermon Delivered Lord’s Day, May 30, 1842 (Published at the request of the Congregation, by William Bullein Johnson)