I don’t have much time today, either to post or to interact with comments. I’m in a week in which I’ve got a meeting every night, Monday through Thursday, then have to go to Des Moines for a Saturday meeting and fly to Ft. Worth later that day. Unless we have a snow day, I’m not going to be around much at SBC Voices. Hope some of my contributors will put some stuff in the queue for us to read!
I’d just like to make an observation about SBC life today. It’s a new world, folks, and we can love it or hate, but we should get used to it.
Some of our more progressive leaders (I mean technologically, not theologically) are making this work for them. Some are lagging behind. But we all need to recognize how things have changed. Here is my point, in a nutshell:
Since the explosion of social media, entities and their leadership are not going to be able to control information as they have in the past.
Duh!
If the crisis going on at Louisiana College happened 10 or 15 years ago, it would have been a very different thing. There would have been some grousing among the students and faculty, some word of mouth whispers in the SBC, and the administration would have been able to proceed with its plans. But in this social media-driven world, it has been a very different thing. Joshua Breland and Drew Wales publicized the changes being made there on their own sites. A couple of other anonymous sites went up that also trumpeted the actions of the administration. (Frankly, I respect that Joshua and Drew have attached their names to their opinions, even though it looks like the college intends to expel them. They demonstrated the courage of their convictions.) The machinations of the administration of this small Baptist college have become national news.
But this is the new reality, my friends. That which you do privately in your little corner of Louisiana can become national news. A preacher says something stupid and someone gets it on a phone cam and it becomes a viral sensation on YouTube. I’m not a fan of award shows, but I saw a clip of Taylor Swift who had a brief scowl on her face at one of those shows when someone else won the award – that became national news. A few years back, during one of our ecclesiological blog wars, I said something on my personal blog (read by well over a dozen people monthly!) about one of the leaders of the SBC. “That guy kinda scares me,” I said. Suddenly, his name appeared in a comment and he asked me, “What is it about me that scares you?” I had to realize that even on a small, personal blog like mine, nothing was hidden.
Things used to be done in secret. Information could be controlled. Dissenters stood alone. Those who were not in the loop could be quieted and controlled. But that is not the world we live in now. If you do something, someone is going to blog, tweet or Facebook about it. News can go viral. And, because it is done by retweeting and Facebook shares, the information is often more accurate to the original than it used to be. And it’s permanent. The flow of information is a powerful force in today’s world – for good or ill.
1) Keeping secrets is harder than it has ever been.
We would do well to realize that. Organization leaders (schools, associations, state or national conventions, even pastors and churches) need to realize that what they do is under public scrutiny. What you say can be repeated, retweeted and shared until it is known nationally. You have to be on guard all the time.
2) Those of us who are in the information loop need to be responsible.
Blogging is a wonderful mechanism to shine the light in the darkness (where people are trying to hide their deeds from public scrutiny). But blogs can also be the purveyors of gossip, innuendo and even lies. Each of us needs to take more care than we ever have before to guard every word we say. Not only will God hold us accountable for those words (which should be enough) but once your words are public, they are there permanently. I recently read through some of my old blogs and comments. I really wish I could travel back in time and not say some of those stupid things I said. But it’s out there, for good or ill.
I try to avoid rumor-mongering and baseless innuendo. Of course, one man’s fact is another man’s rumor. But when we decide to publicly criticize, we need to make sure that we are ready to be held to account for our words; that our words honor God and are true, as best we can determine.
Because we on blogs now have greater influence, we also have greater responsibility.
3) People in power need to realize the genie is not going back in the bottle.
You are not going to control public opinion and information as you might have done in the past. There are just too many ways for average people to put their opinions out there. You need to give up trying to control opinions and suppress dissent, and just do God’s work with transparency and openness. LifeWay has been a leader in this, and NAMB has done well, too. Instead of bemoaning those awful bloggers, they have tried to connect with us, provide information and answers, and work together with us. I’m sure they are often frustrated by our work, but they have been intentional in embracing the new social media and I think that has been wise.
4) Some need to develop thicker skins.
Years ago, I started writing an online devotional. I sent it out to people by email and had a fairly good response from it. Then, as some of my posts went public, I got a couple of notes of criticism. Someone thought I was wrong. “Please delete me from your list.” I took the criticism so hard that I stopped writing. Through the 7 or 8 years I’ve been blogging, I’ve developed a thicker hide (both figuratively and literally, I guess). I still don’t like to be criticized, but I’ve learned to live with the fact that there are people who don’t like me and never will. You can’t survive as long as I have in blogging if you crumble when someone criticizes you or calls you a name.
I am amazed at how sensitive and thin-skinned some public figures and institutions are. I never was much of a Monty Python fan, but I remember the scene from the Holy Grail in which the knight continues to lose limbs, but claims that there is nothing wrong. “Just a flesh wound.” I think some folks went to the Monty Python school of leadership. No matter how bad things are, deny there’s a problem. Never admit reality! Like Lt. Frank Drebin after the fireworks factory blows up telling onlookers, “Nothing to see here.”
You aren’t perfect. Your institution isn’t perfect. Your church isn’t perfect. Why try to hide that? Why pretend that all is well when everyone knows that it isn’t?
My point today is simple. It’s a new world for information distribution. There are some bad aspects of it and some advantages. That is not my point today. My point is simple – things are different today and if you want to control information and suppress dissent as you did in the past, your job is going to be a lot tougher.
I was reflecting on something this morning. I wonder how the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC would have played out if there had been blogging and social media back then.
The moderate faction controlled the Baptist Press at the time (with the exception of a couple of state papers), but both sides tended to plan things in back rooms and then carry out those plans.
Not sure if it would have helped or hurt, but that’s what started me thinking about how different things are today.
Dave,
Do you think many are still operating as if it’s the same world that it was in the 1980’s? Do you think many are still “planning things in back rooms and then carrying out those plans” but our brave new world doesn’t allow for such a thing?
Just curious. I was busy watching He-Man and eating Fruit Loops during the CR. (Which oddly enough I still like Fruit Loops and He-Man).
I think there are some who do not realize how things have changed.
I think things are still being planned in back rooms except at a faster pace and a much wider base with emails and cell phones along with instant messaging. Technology is being used to contact all Baptists about SBC issues, not just Southern Baptists. This in an effort to build support.
I think the back rooms have become the blogs.
David
Dave,
From the “For What It’s Worth Closet”:
I can see a scenario in which the CR would not have been successful in this age of blogging and net. Blogging tends to give a “magnified value” to positions that are not justified by the number of constituents.
Blobbing and Internet could have “muddied” the waters to such a degree that the split would have been much more damaging to the mission of the SBC than it was.
More information, it seems to me, does not always mean “better information.”
My suspicion is that the SBC (or any group) would not be able to make the adjustment and prevent the inevitable decay of liberalism in this day and age.
In thinking of the CR Galatians 4:4 comes to mind.
As an of example of what I am saying consider the debate on Calvinism. According to the Internet I think one would conclude that it is a “huge debate” among SBC’ers. According to my finger (licking it and holding it into the denominational wind) it is not such a big deal.
Just some random thoughts . . . sort of like usual.
I am a SBC minister but also direct social media for our university. I put together a couple presentations on Social Media in ministry. Hope they may be beneficial.
“How Social Media can be beneficial to your ministry.”
http://www.lru.edu/UserFiles/Documents/How%20social%20media%20can%20be%20beneficial%20to%20your%20ministry1.pdf
“How to use social media to find your next ministry position.”
http://www.lru.edu/UserFiles/Documents/Looking%20for%20a%20ministry%20opportunity1.pdf
So we’ve seen the reality of the old Internet community (back when it was primarily academic or technical in nature) spread to the general culture. Back in the day, I expressed it this way:
Now it’s no longer just the academic or technical people that first formed the Internet community going at it, it’s (potentially) everyone. Widespread, individual communications is a game-changer.
My own question is, in the church, should control of information and suppression of dissenters have been accepted as a common leadership tactic in the first place? Is a truly servant leader, who holds his position of authority loosely (Phil 2:5-6), who puts effective ministry ahead of having a ministry that *looks* effective (II Cor 13:7), who *doesn’t* exercise authority the same way worldlings do, going to be exercising and trying to keep his authority in this way?
what is core to the Christian faith survives changes that are transient
God redeems the temporal and makes us eternal?
We have seen this repeatedly in recent years:
1. When students (or church members, or entity employees) feel they have no legitimate route for feedback within the organization, they quickly go outside. FBCJax, Bellevue, Germantown BC, TWo Rivers BC, NAMB, IMB, The Georgia Baptist Conv., etc. Now LBC.
2. News will get out no matter what and will do so faster, with broader dissemination. I might have read about LBC in our state papers 20 years ago.
3. Cracking down on those who are talking only exaggerates the issues and draws the attention of many more observers.
4. State papers and baptist press, in house PR organs for the most part, are not really players any more.
5. You are on target with all of your points above. Some power structures in the SBC get all this. Some manifestly do not.
The CR had to work around established power structures and control of Baptist media, which they did with extensive grassroots networks and alternative news sources. It would happen today, just faster and without the physical meetings.
Many of the complaints around the SBC could be solved if leadership would be open and transparent. We had the
GCR Task Force meeting secretly and sealing their records. The Calvinist Study Group meets on strict background., etc.
Fre and open discussion, some profitable and some not, happens in venues like this one.
It’s all so “duh” to most of us. One wonders why so many of our big guns are so out of touch.
Dave,
Nice article. Blogging is the new journalism, and we need to accept it. The next time someone says from a pulpit something like, “Bloggers need to quit their gossiping and go tell somebody about Jesus,” we should all groan out loud. Sure, we need to tell people about Jesus, but they don’t say this to the journalists or the broadcasters. We’re telling stories they simply won’t tell.
When we share news and opinions, we’re not just critics grousing. We are Baptists and messengers engaging in a much more thorough debate than one ever hears on the convention floor. Frankly, our discussions online are more comprehensive and rigorous than you can find in any other public forum regarding such issues as the GCR, the GCB, the Sinner’s Prayer, the Traditionalist Statement, Mahaney, Land, Midwestern, Louisiana College, and countless other topics.
It is time for Baptist Bloggers to get more respect. A Baptist Blogger is usually a Pastor and a Messenger who is not content to share his convictions for only three minutes at a microphone only two days each June. Today, the conversation lasts all year long. And that is not a bad thing.
Hi Rick,
Been waitin’ for you to show up here.
When might we expect you to rigorously take LC to task for falling below their 15% Calvinist quota and no longer reflecting the folks in the pew? 🙂
From what I understand, this move brings Calvinist influence there down to more appropriate, denominationally proportional levels. Maybe right now, for every ten faculty, one or two are Calvinists–but not five or six.
Louisiana College is as free and autonomous an institution as Southern Seminary. Thus, their President is accountable to his trustees. He has the same freedom to lead his institution in becoming less Calvinistic that Al Mohler has to lead his institution in becoming more Calvinistic. I will take Louisiana College to task when you guys take Southern to task.
Having said that, from what I have heard, there are other issues besides Calvinism at work here. By that I assume it is an issue of funding, support, institutional vision and keeping the trustee board happy.
Within the past year I have read comments from a Southern student unhappy with the administration there who commented anonymously due to concerns of recrimination. Students take a great risk when they comment against the direction of their institution, especially if their student handbook forbids such comments. While I applaud their conviction, it may mean a transfer to a school whose philosophy and theology they can more wholeheartedly embrace.
Rick, as a student at the Casky School of Divinty at Louisiana College, I want to support you and your comment in the second paragraph of your post. I personally support our president and the administration on their stand and decisions that have been made. I am glad you have blogged your comments, keep supporting (thru blogs and other means) Louisiana College until the other’s take issue with southern seminary. LC needs some support through blogging right now, for some reason “calvinist” blogs everywhere are attempting to bring a bashing on the school, just because an autonomous institution does not want “calvinisim” advocated in their school.
Trey,
It is no surprise you ‘support’ your president. Unfortunately, your president, with the decisions he has made recently, is not supporting LC as much as he is supporting the attempt to keep his own job by cozing up to David Hankins. The intentional failure to retain faculty will not sit well with SACS. The failed moral compass of your president, when brought to light on Monday, will not sit well with the Trustees. The SBC churches of Louisiana will not be pleased to discover, if ever they do, of the mismanagement and misappropriation of funds under his ‘careful’ watch.
LC is not an ‘autonomous institution.’ She is owned by the Louisiana Baptist Convention and is responsible both in her ethics and her management to the Trustees. And while folks like you and Tim Norris are all “rah rah rah” for Joe, there are other Louisiana Baptists who will not tolerate mismanagement of funds, unethical practices, or an overall lack of institutional control that is leading LC to lose its accreditation.
Rick, come on. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Mohler returned Southern Baptist Theological Seminary back to their original confession of faith that their charter demanded. That’s not what Aguillard is doing.
Thank you for pointing this out Jared. Southern isn’t the lightening rod answer for all situation. Those two situations aren’t even in the same vicinity.
Let me just say that as a Southern Baptist who did not attend Southern Seminary, I could not care less about their original confession of faith or their original charter. For Mohler to take Southern BACK to something that DOES NOT represent the SBC today is not more sacred than for Aguillard to take Louisiana College FORWARD to something that DOES represent the SBC today. I just don’t care what either of them used to be. I care what they are right now. They need to represent the SBC today.
I also believe all Southern Baptist institutions should “sing from the same hymnal” regarding denominational confessions, which is to say I think we should have one and only one confessional requirement across the board for all institutions–the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Throw the AP in the trash. I never voted for it.
Rick, Wow! That’s a very telling statement. Do you want to change anything you just said?
“Throw the AP in the trash. I never voted for it.”
And if Rick Patrick didn’t vote for it, it should be removed from the SBC.
Jared,
I am not sure I understand the logic used to justify one institutions letting professors go but not another.I do understand the the AP was used as the means to realign SBTS, but I would have to agree our entities and institutions should have no other standard or confession than what the convention has adopted as the standard of Baptist faith. What is happening here is a prime example why this should be the case. Everyone of our institutions can create or find some additional standard and use it to eliminate employees. I do understand that AP was a founding document, does this mean there can never be a change to the document or a shift from the document? Until our denomination comes to grips with the fact that every time we allow someone to add a new criteria to the agreed on confession, we set ourselves up for further instances of this sort.
This is a very sad situation at LC, but it does illustrate several deeper issues in the SBC.
Rick,
Do you believe its ‘unbaptistic’ to let people who haven’t been baptized by immersion to take the Lord’s Supper? Or, put positively, do you restrict the Lord’s Supper to only people who have been baptized as believers?
Rick,
So…are we to understand that you approve of the firing…ahem…I mean the “non-renewal” of Calvinist’s contracts–with no prior notice–placing them and their families in financial jeopardy, for no other reason than “denominational proportionality”?
And come, now, Rick. This handful of “firings” brought the proportion of Cals down from 5:5 to 9:2?!! That seems an awful lot like “fuzzy” math done on a tribal calculator…
That statement presupposes “we” agree with your “denominational proportionality” paradigm.
We don’t.
You might be surprised at how many SBs don’t agree with you.
And, I might add, that statement seems rather “tribal,” leaving the appearance that you are willing to apply your paradigm only when it benefits your “tribe.”
In 2013, Aguillard fires a handful of people to bring his institution in line with the theological vision of his trustee board. (Frankly, I understand that and I can live with that.)
In 2010, Ezell fires about one hundred people at NAMB to bring his institution in line with his new list of priorities. (Personally, I have a much bigger problem with this much larger downsizing.)
Also, it’s not like Al Mohler never fired anyone for their theology. I hope and pray these professors do find a place of service in an institution where they are a better fit. I also would hope that they received a severance agreement to provide for their families in the transitional period.
Hey Rick. Since you and I often disagree I want to take this opportunity to agree with you wholeheartedly. Blogging is a new and generally Bette form o journalism. It really levels the playing field and is probably the best ad truest form of democracy to come along in decades. Anyone with an Internet connection can get their voice out there and if that voice can prove its accuracy and build its trust t can become a part of setting the agenda. That’s good for everyone.
Nice to agree with you, Ryan. We probably agree on many other things as well. Have a great day!
Rick, I agree, to some extent. Blogging CAN be everything you mentioned. It can also be everything the critics have said.
Paint is not good or evil. It’s how it is used. Applied to the wall, paint is good. Poured over someone’s head, not so good.
Blogging can be a great evil when unsubstantiated rumors are reported, when insinuation and unfair charges are leveled. It can be good when light is shined in dark places and information is passed to God’s people that should not be kept from them.
We cannot say that blogging is good or bad. It depends on the blogger and the way he uses his words.
Rick, this comment (Feb 20, 9:06am comment) is fantastic and dead on.
I am not a blogger, but I totally agree with your comment…and perhaps when something like that is said at the SBC this year (and it probably will) we can all audibly groan together.
Everyone to whom I have spoken on this says that Calvinism is not the real issue at LC, but more of a smokescreen to hide other issues. Exactly what those other issues are seems to be kept hidden, at least at this point. Perhaps things will come to a head soon.
But to me, the biggest issue is a Baptist college president bullying a couple of students who have done nothing but express opinions about actions he has taken.
If LC made a decision that that it would be a Calvinism-free zone, I would say that is the college’s right, though I might find the decision unfortunate and unnecessary.
That is not the point. The college is trying to damage the future of a couple of young men I call friends. I have read their posts and their words were measured and careful.
If Louisiana College and Dr. Aguillard want to train their guns on Josh and Drew, I’m going to use whatever power I have here to shine a light on that.
Dave,
I agree, you are right to stand up for Josh and Drew. This is clearly wrong and demonstrates poor leadership. My prayer is that everyone who is upset about this situation would find the same level of empathy for others who find themselves needing to speak truth to power.
Rick,
Why don’t you bring a motion to have the Abstract removed being used by any SBC agency?
First, I would not word it that way. I would simply promote the BFM 2000 as the exclusive confessional requirement for all SBC institutions, inviting them to change any bylaws or constitutions as necessary.
More importantly, it is my experience that initiatives from the floor have no real chance at the convention. This would only work if it came from a committee with support from SBC heavyweights.
Rick,
I actually would agree that one confession would be a good thing. The institutions and agencies would need to hire only those who can affirm agreement with that confession.
Question then becomes, would that put an end to the idea of proportionality? i.e. both Calvinists and non-Calvinists can affirm the BFM. Or, would there then become questioning about how each candidate interprets it?
Les
That’s a good question, Les. I would say that once we are all on the same page, we can then discuss more precisely the meaning of that page. It may need further clarification.
But the elephant in the room must be eaten one bite at a time. First, let’s get on the same page. Then, let’s figure out what that page means.
Rick,
As I said, I’m in agreement that there should be one standard…FWIW seeing that I’m not now in a SBC church but do have family, friends and ministry partners in the SBC.
But, I think that all involved would want to know ahead of time that their views would be acceptable. Not sure that the SBC is or can be structured that way.
Example, Trads would want assurances that their interpretation of original sin would be acceptable. Calvinists would want to be assured that their view of original guilt would be acceptable, right on both?
I don’t think there is agreement even now on those two points. Or is there?
Les
Rick,
To illustrate what I mean by wondering about how agreement around the BFM and who can affirm what, Adam Harwood made this comment just today about why the conference and his discussion is needed (at a site wherein I am now banned from commenting):
“The reason this matters is that some Calvinistic brothers (both inside and outside the SBC) regard such a view to be unorthodox. Also, the SBTS Faculty Exposition of the BFM explains that all people inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin. But that view cannot be found in the BFM. Will SBTS alter their document? Will SB’s amend the BFM?”
See the difficulty? Adam maintains that the inheritance of Adamic guilt is outside the BFM.
As I said earlier, “both Calvinists and non-Calvinists can affirm the BFM. Or, would there then become questioning about how each candidate interprets it?”
Les
We would still need to iron out the meaning of our one confessional statement.
But at least we would not have to mess with two.
Rick,
“We would still need to iron out the meaning of our one confessional statement.”
Would that be done in such a way that room remains for conflicting positions, or do you see it resulting in only one perspective for the BF&M?
If Rick’s answer is the former, then what is the use. If it is the latter, then no thanks.
Chris,
My comment below indicates a willingness to amend the BFM 2000 to include explicitly all SBC approved positions on communion, inherited guilt and the ordo salutis.
If we are going to have a big tent, let’s make it clear, rather than fuzzy. At the moment, I am not so interested in excluding your Calvinism from the document as I am in clearly allowing my so-called semi-Pelagianism. 🙂
I did not appreciate last summer’s discussion insinuating that the view of thousands of Southern Baptists might be semi-heretical.
In other words, I am not so interested in excluding you as I am in including me.
Rick,
Curious where you see SP being permitted in the categories you suggest? Contrary to what Harwood claimed in his interview, inherited guilt has nothing to do with semi-Pelagianism. Nor does communion. The ordo-salutis might, depending on how one approaches it.
Currently, it already requires a little bit of linguistic gymnastics to deny regeneration preceding faith while affirming the BF&M, but it can be done. This same interpretive wiggle room also already permits room to the SP position, and I don’t think anyone has suggested otherwise.
Of course I disagree that it’s SP. I also disagree that my view requires wiggle room and such while yours is plain as day.
Let me be as diplomatic as possible and simply say that wording is possible clearly and plainly to accommodate both of our views, whereas right now we don’t really recognize the other’s position in the BFM.
So Rick, you disagree with Adam H. that inherited guilt is outside the BFM?
Les,
Wherever did I imply that? I agree with Dr. Harwood’s position.
I think if we want the BFM to be a big tent, we should write the inherited guilt position into it, so that condemnation for Adamic guilt could optionally be viewed as occurring before our own personal sins, as opposed to the current wording which places it afterward.
Friends, I am in a congenial mood. I realize we each think the BFM favors our own side. At times, we think it excludes the opposing views of others.
All I’m saying is, if we want the BFM to be inclusive of both Calvinists and Traditionalists, amending it so the wording is a little clearer, for the benefit of BOTH sides, might be helpful.
Sorry Rick. I misunderstood. God bless.
Les
Chris, Jared, and Joshua,
Let me say it more generally and without reference to specific team names and see if it strikes you as a bit less alarming or provocative:
“I believe there is value in any denomination choosing to embrace a single confessional statement to be applied uniformly to all of its member institutions and especially to its academies. The reason I favor one and only one uniform confessional statement is my conviction that by appealing to the same document, and no other, there will be much less division and a much greater measure of unity throughout all denominational entities.”
A much more reasonable statement, but the devil, as they say, is in the details.
For instance, we know the BF&M has room for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists. As far as I know, LC has not affirmed any statement of faith beyond the BF&M.
It is your position that institutions should only hold by the BF&M, and yet you support LC’s actions to remove Calvinist professors, even though such actions puts them in a position that goes beyond the BF&M. Even though they have not adopted a more specific confession, they are implicitly upholding confessional requirements that go beyond the BF&M. How is their action reconcilable with your position that the BF&M be our “one and only one uniform confessional statement”? How do you see it promoting unity to hold only to the BF&M yet still maintain theological requirements that go beyond the BF&M? Do you therefore also support Southern’s rights to uphold the theological perspective of its trustees and hire and fire as it sees fit so long as it fits within the BF&M even if it is more specific than the BF&M?
It is all well and good to claim a desire for confessional unity, but this breaks down in the details with a confession such as ours that is designed to give a measure of theological liberty.
Granted, we would still have work to do in ironing out the manner in which each institution would conform to the BFM 2000, but at least we would be looking at one document instead of two. One step at a time.
It is unwise to take the first step without knowing where the second will lead.
Rick Patrick,
If you still have my phone number, I would like to talk to you. If you do not have it and would be willing to talk to me, ask Dave to give it to you.
Or, here is my email: cbscott5512@gmail.com. I really would like to talk to you.
Rick,
I agree 100% on the benefit of the ideal “one confession denomination”.
However, mandating it upon the member’s institutions and not allowing them to adopt other confessions seems the most non-Baptist thing possible. Would you also require that each SBC church remove additional doctrinal statements to their constitutions for fear of a similar thing?
JT,
For the record, there’s a huge difference in a Church and a SBC entity.
David
JT,
SBC entities should be held to a single confession. Individual Churches…not so much.
David
David,
I wasn’t making assumption and I am complete agreement with you. I was asking for clarification from Rick. He said, “applied uniformly to all of its member institutions and especially to its academies”.
So I am asking if he would include churches in the class of “institutions”. I’m not seeking to argue or discuss the point. Just asking for clarification.
“For the record, there’s a huge difference in a Church and a SBC entity.”
Thank Holy God.
Except in the eyes of the court the entities need to carry the imprimatur of the First Amendment and, therefore, represent themselves as a religious-focused institution i.e. a “church”.
That’s how SWBTS avoided problems in the Klouda case for instance. And, arguably, regardless of how you felt about that case, that decision was in the best interests of religion and specifically of the SBC, her entities, and the associated churches and associations/conventions.
The irony of using holy/sacred to celebrate a separation shouldn’t be lost on us, either. “Set apart for a purpose”??
I make a distinction between the autonomous church and the SBC institutions accountable to all of those churches.
Thanks for the clarification Rick. God bless.
I agree with Rick: no entity should be able to establish a distinct confession or confession-like statement has a proxy for the BF&M. At the very least, Southern and Southeastern need to demonstrate that the AoP is a separate, historic document that is not in conflict with the BF&M and ought to also follow the convention (no pun intended) of having ministerial faculty and staff sign the BF&M 2K as the overriding document. A signature on the AoP in addition for historical purposes should be acceptable to the Convention.
The AoP and all BF&M versions are MUCH more tolerant on soteriology than the predecessor confessions: New Hampshire, Philadelphia, and Second London. So I don’t necessarily agree that having them sign the BF&M instead changes anything.
Similarly, if the Convention had succeeded in outlawing premillenialism as it became popular by instituting some kind of quota on premillenialists in our entities, most of us would have viewed that as being wrong if not also wrongheaded because most of us are premillenialists at this point. That Dallas Theological led that charge with its emphasis on dispensationalism in Texas is just half the story. The other half is the similarity might very well be between the Landmark charting of James Milton Carroll and the somewhat similar dispensational charting that led the adoption of dispensationalism and premillenialism at least in Texas.
The irony that Carroll’s older brother Benajah Harvey was a postmillenialist (not to mention being thought of by many as a moderate Calvinist) ought to provide most of us with a chuckle
P.S. TWO LINKS!!! SET ME FREE FROM MODERATION!!!
Thou art loosed!
Go, and link no more.
There are many good considerations in here, Dave. A few scattered thoughts came to mind as I read:
1) The old adage is true that discretion is the better part of valor. This is related to the admonition to pick our battles wisely. I don’t know if my wife or I came up with it together or independently, but we always try to do this. She’s better at it than I am.
2) James’ admonitions regarding the tongue also come to mind. I don’t see that biblical admonition followed in enough blog comments (not that I’m guiltless).
3) Amen to thicker skins. I see Christians all over the world where their lives are in danger who shrug it off as normal… and we can’t seem to handle being offended by a few words. I saw some photos from Marine Corps boot camp of Drill Instructors recently yelling at the recruits. As someone who has been there (I have fond memories of that), I can testify that the DIs yell at you fairly constantly and try to break you by being entirely unreasonable. But if you can’t handle a barrage of venomous verbiage and an unreasonable control over your life, you certainly won’t be able to handle being shot at… or shot, for that matter.
I have to say again, as far as I have read no one was fired. LC decided not to renew contracts. Is there something really wrong with this? Yes, there were reasons for this decision. Some of those reasons may be valid and some may not. Some people will agree and some will not agree. What criteria should be used to decide whether contracts will be renewed? Who decides. I really do not care about the non-renewal issue, that is the danger of being a contract worker. If you want permanency in employment work for your own school or an institution that promises they will. never fire you. The real issue here is how do leaders react to bloggers and critics. I said this earlier or in another comment stream, I am amazed so many people are concerned about the two bloggers yet so few people demonstrated care in similar cases where bloggers were being persecuted because they dared to question some leader. Perhaps this situation will bring some new understanding concerning no blogging but the need for free exchange of ideas and the idea that questioning is not sin but is part of the process of leadership.
“If you want permanency in employment work for your own school or an institution that promises they will. never fire you.”?????
Mitch Bryant,
I question everybody. So, as a blogger, I am going to question you. Is that OK with you? Thank you for saying , “Yes.”
Here is the question:
Based upon the statement you made and I placed in quotation marks above, the question I have for you is; Have you ever had a real job with a boss over you or is your work history kinda like some folk’s FOOTBALL history (Fantasy League), meaning only a Fantasy Job?
If I could have figured out a way to live on a fantasy job I certainly would have taken advantage of that idea. Yes I have had multiple jobs. As a matter of fact except for the time where I worked for myself at no time was my employment completely secure. I have been and am currently working under contract. When my contract period is up my employer may decide they do not wish to use me or my services again. Now I certainly hope that they chose to use me again but since I am a contract employee they may decide to go in another direction or they may decide to continue in the same direction just without my services. Again that is the danger or the benefit of using contract workers.
Let’s do this let’s reverse this situation. Suppose for a second that the two professors in question decided that they no longer wanted to teaching at the school, despite the fact that the school desired to renew their contract. I assume here that no one objects to the two professors moving on. If that is the case then I still cannot understand the problem with the institutions choice in not renewing these two contracts.
I am willing to see it another way but it will take more than an attack on my experience and a lot of empty bluster to convince me of a different position.
Again, my position on the contracts has no bearing on the treatment of the two students and their blogs. I think it is extreme to expel them and very short sighted. If experience has demonstrated anything, everyone should know that attempting to control information by this means only insures that more communication takes place.
Is it any wonder that when governments go bad the first thing hey attempt to control is the free exchange of communication and ideas?
I want to ad one other note, in addition to having real jobs I have also been in the position where workers have had to be eliminated and while none of these have been contracted positions, I do have experience with having to sit across from someone and saying I am sorry but your services are no longer needed here.
Not sure what my personal experience has to do with this but I don’t mind being questioned as long as you don’t mind when I answer.
OK. I get it, Mitch Bryant. Now I understand.
You had real jobs, but on a fantasy planet, not earth.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Now if I could only spend all of my fantasy money from my fantasy planet!
C. B. perhaps I am mistaken but it is my but it seems as if some how I have either missed your point or failed to answer your question. If that is the case I certainly apologize, and will try to do better next time.
Let me try to be clear. Yes I have had real jobs. Does that change the facts of this issue? Does that information somehow affect my assertion that these men were not fired?
I realize this does not change their personal employment situation. I didn’t think that was what we were discussing.
Mitch Bryant,
On planet SBC, if one does not get his/her contract renewed, that is being: 86ed, fired, canned, eliminated, sent on down the road, Hank Snowed, Terminated by the Terminator. It is, “We are going in another direction.” It is, “We need to cut back on personnel.”
But, in the end, it means: Fired. It means: No paycheck. It means, and I quote, “We have to let you go, but remember we love you in Jesus and will be praying for you that God works mightily in your life. Now let us pray with you and for you before you go and be sure to tell your wife we are praying for her too.”
NOTE: I self-censored a comment thread speculating on the motives of President Aguillard, the student bloggers and the issue of Calvinism at Louisiana College, which is certainly not the only issue they currently face.
I pray for the sake of the school, the administration and the student bloggers, that this conflict is resolved soon.
Amen to that.
Yep.
Is not Fred Luter from this State…….does he not have something to say on this issue.?
Robert I Masters,
How do you know he hasn’t?
C. B.
That is a very good point. There are a lot of things being mentioned here that are not part of what the public knows.
CB Scott,
I was speaking of what I have seen publicly…and you could very well be right.!
Rick Patrick,
At approximately 1.30pm today, I asked of you a question. You may have missed it so I want to direct it to you again for your consideration:
Do you believe its ‘unbaptistic’ to let people who haven’t been baptized by immersion to take the Lord’s Supper? Or, put positively, do you restrict the Lord’s Supper to only people who have been baptized as believers?
SBC Historian,
The church I serve joins the majority of SBC churches in our violation of the BFM 2000 on the issue of Open Communion. I think the BFM 2000 is not a perfect document. It has been amended before and may need to be amended again.
My point in that discussion is that I would rather have to amend one document than to consider two.
Thank you for your response. My question was not intended to probe your thoughts as to the inerrency of the BFM2000. Instead, it was to get at another point you made earlier. My paraphrase of your comment in question: “I dont care where we were or came from as a convention, I care where we are now.” In light of ‘caring for where we are now’, would you be willing to join a movement to edit Article 7 to remove language of baptism as a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper?
Thanks
I could support a movement to review the BFM to be inclusive of all major communion views, positions on inherited guilt, and viewpoints on the ordo salutis.
If we really want a big tent, let’s reduce it to writing. The absence of clear wording on some of these matters has been needlessly controversial.
Question:
During the CR, did conservative students at SBC state colleges and seminaries ever oppose the moderate-liberal administration and faculty publicly? Did they ever side with CR leadership in the attempt to take over the SBC?
When this happened, did conservative leaders ever point out the handbook and say that conservative students should not voice concerns over the direction of their schools?
I seem to remember that one of the major things that got the CR started was students from SBC colleges and seminaries returning home and telling their conservative pastors that these schools were not teaching the Bible but were teaching higher criticism. Some of this could be proven but some of it could not. At any rate, I do not remember hearing about any concern being levied about students expressing their opinion against administration during the CR.
So, why have a problem with Josh and Drew now?
Here is the issue: LC is supported through CP dollars in Louisiana. If Louisiana Baptists want to disavow Calvinism at LC, they need to be consistent and stop sending CP dollars on to Southern, Southeastern, New Orleans, etc. They also need to stop supporting Lottie, Annie, and other SBC programs. Tell their churches that they are pulling out of the SBC altogether, for that matter.
If Louisiana completely disavows Calvinism, they will be the only state convention to do so and it would be wrong for them to support Calvinist influence anywhere else in the SBC.
But, it would also be wrong for them to disavow Calvinism without direction from a trustee board or from Louisiana Baptists in some way that goes beyond the personal desire of David Hankins.
My guess is twofold: 1) No one has really thought this through. 2) This is not really about Calvinism.
Alan Cross: “This is not really about Calvinism.”
What’s your best guess as to the real, genuine, underlying issue?
I’ve heard some things that are not good. At the end of the day, my guess is that this is about power and keeping power and keeping other people out of power. Calvinism is a front for that, in my opinion. There is other stuff being talked about behind the scenes that A LOT of people know about. The trustees meet on Monday. We’ll see what they do.
Actually, I did exactly that, and was invited by an admin rep to leave the school. I didn’t.
Ahhh, don’t feel bad fellows about being asked to leave schools, colleges or seminaries, towns, cities, villages, barrios, industrialized or third world countries. None of that hurts so bad and usually works out for the better.
What really hurts is to be 10 years old and be told not to come back to the Boy Scouts. That’ll change your outlook on life forever.
People shouldnt jump the gun, and start laying the wood to someone without knowing all the facts. Before taking someone to the woodshed, we all need to be more sure about what’s going on….do we know all the facts, or at least enough to make an intelligent judgment on what’s going on…. or, are we just having a knee jerk reaction to something, and then all of our Buddy’s are just piling on….
I wonder how many have commented on the LA College thing, and they really dont know what’s going on, down there….maybe we should know more facts before writing blog posts, making comments, and taking people back behind the barn to teach them a lesson.
David
David,
I agree. And I really don’t mean for this to sound condescending in any way, but some of us do know the facts and our statements are anything BUT a knee-jerk reaction. I have spoken with alumni, trustees, administrators, and (though not directly) indirectly with current students. My claims are by no means a result of herd mentality.
David, I agree. Depending on what comes out of the Trustee meeting on Monday, we might look back and look at the blogs as being remarkably restrained and mature about all of this.
David Volfan007,
Wise words.
David R. Brumbelow
David (007),
I agree.
However, I pose this question…how much do the blog posts and internet discussions cause real-life discussions that actually influence the Trustees (for the better) to ask questions rather than just follow along with the decisions of the President? If some things are happening there that need to be addressed, did the fact that blogs are talking about it influence the likelihood of those things coming to light? I think they have. So, in that sense, talking about it has been a positive thing.
That said…there is a right way and a wrong way to talk about it and to make accusations. Making accusations is not wrong, but they need to be founded and they need to have some evidence behind them (verifiable evidence!). Some have piled on in ignorance, and that is not helpful. But this has also been brought to light by people who know about the situation talking about it. It isn’t always easy to discern who is who in these situations.
BTW, I also agree with you about jumping in because our buddy’s are jumping in, or as SBC Historian called it “the herd mentality”. I think this is always a danger. I can think of multiple situations (some glaring) where people joined in attacking and/or defending someone because of that person’s theological viewpoint on a particular issue, rather than the merits of the actual situation being discussed. That can (and has) backfired big time on people. We should be people of truth and that means calling out sin and error, even if that person is someone we love, admire, and agree with theologically…less we seem partisan and more concerned with advancing our cause rather than advancing truth and holiness. That is a great lesson that I learned, as I saw it play out before me just a few years ago on this site and others. It would be helpful here as well.
It is difficult to call a spade a spade at times, and it is difficult to wait for all the evidence to come to light…and it is even more difficult when one is predicated on the other (both ways). May God give us wisdom to know when to speak (type) or wait.
I’m just saying that a lot of people jumped on LA College people, when they thought all of this was about Calvinism. I mean, they jumped in with both fists flying. They were ready to lynch the President, Hankins, and everyone else that MIGHT BE firing Calvinists. They came in with both guns blazing…to rid the Baptist School of those Calvinist hating, bad guys.
This does not promote unity, at all. It does not edify. It does not get to the truth. It just turns into an ugly, “I’ll let you have it in the teeth,” get back at you, divisive fight.
Well, let’s wait til we have all the facts before we start slapping leather and shooting…..
David
You mean like the way Rick Patrick thinks that they’re just trying to pare back the number of Calvinists and it’s a good thing? That would be a rush to judgment as well.
Greg,
I no longer believe that. Please note my comment (on February 20, 2013 at 5:08 pm) in which I removed an entire comment thread (at least eight posts from various people) suggesting that any of this has anything at all to do with Calvinism.
For what it’s worth, all the blogs have assumed this Calvinism connection, so I was not alone in that view, but what if Calvinism was a smokescreen to cover up something else? Such is my current assumption until we hear more from Louisiana College.
By the way, it’s not a “rush” to judgment on the part of all the pundits, bloggers and interested observers. Rather, it’s a “snail’s pace explanation” on the part of the school to set the record straight that has only fueled all this speculation.
Whatever the case, I have clearly, publicly and obviously repented of the notion that Calvinism is the issue here. I deleted every reference to it in my mini-discussion.
Thanks for the update, Rick. My apology for not searching for your comment before referring to it.
The broad point I was getting at is that it’s easy for all sides of a story to get the narrative wrong especially early. And that we have an obligation to be patient, careful, and judicious.
I do not think that is a fair representation of what has happened, David. People responded to Aguillard’s actions. Students spoke their minds and the admin trained their weapons on these students.
I thought that was an inaccurate representation of the discussion as well. But I, admittedly, am a late-comer to the discussion on LC. I heard about it, but just sort of rolled my eyes and paid it little attention. After I realized who was let go, it took a more personal turn for me, and now I am very interested in the discussion.
I would not call for anyone’s head nor would I (have I or will I) gone “guns blazing” on Aguillard or anyone else. I have not even seen that. Heck, the 2 guys who are students there who are now being attacked by the school itself haven’t even gone “guns blazing”. They raised honest and fair questions.
I searched and haven’t seen anyone calling for Aguillard’s head, seeking to “lynch” him, Hankins, or anyone else. I have seen no examples of what was described by David. Have I missed something? Can someone cite or link to those people doing so?
Look…I don’t think asking questions and expecting a bit of honesty, and even a bit of transparency, from entities that are supported by SBC monies is out of line. Accountability is a given for such entities, to be called to account should not be a shock. As Rick said, blogs are the media now calling them to account. How is that wrong? If there is nothing to hide and everything is above board, then there should be no issue.
“”trained their weapons on these students.””
Emotions seem to be riding high in this event.
Volfan,
I’ve read all I could find on the LC issue and didn’t find anything resembling your characterizatoin here.
Hyperbole?
If not, links please….
David, you know that I have been involved in Baptist blogging since 2006. I have seen happen what you are talking about here in other cases. Your description has not happened here at all. People have been very restrained, in my opinion. And, as I continue to maintain, I doubt that this is really about Calvinism at all. Let’s see what happens with the Trustees on Monday.
David (007),
Again, I agree.
But will we ever have the facts? When will there be enough facts to comment? At what point is it ok to speak about things with the information we currently have?
Those are important questions. I agree with saying “wait”, but “how long?” is an appropriate question.
Are there already enough facts out there to make SOME comments? I think there are. Is there a danger in “waiting” too long and thus missing the opportunity to impact and influence the resulting discussions at LC? I think there is.
There is a balance to strike here…and it is not an easy one. It is naive to think this is a simple situation and one that means we just sit and wait and see the outcome. I think it demands questions now.
May I add…It seems to me that the same theological biases cause people to say “wait” in some situations, but to be guilty of going guns blazing in others. True? (Should I cite examples? Or have some sufficiently come to your mind?)
I would like to point out that the very first blogs and comments I have read about any controversy at LC began when three Calvinistic professors were fired. When Dr. Quarles was given hiring power and hired exclusively reformed pastors there was no cry for injustices to be corrected at LC. When that hiring power was removed and non-reformed professors hired and three reformed professors non-renewed the handwriting was clear that there was a theological correction taking place. Then we started reading in extreme vagueness about sinful conduct at LC. We will see what happens Monday but you are fooling yourselves if you believe the uproar is not about reformed professors being non-renewed. Simply go back to the first blogs about this controversy. It was about the professors being non-renewed. When LBC didn’t care about the non-renewals and this issue got no traction then the tone and accusations changed and LC was “set afire.”
should read hired reformed professors.
Dean,
You said Dr. Quarles hired “exclusively reformed professors.” Do you know who he has hired? If you did, you would know he has hired half a dozen non-Calvinist Christian Studies/Caskey faculty.
You are being fed talking points by people who wish to damage Chuck Quarles. I suggest you get new friends who will not feed you lies and distortions.
Wait…didn’t Aguillard hire all of these guys? So, why are the hiring practices of Quarles coming into question?
What changed? Why were they good enough to be endorsed by the president, approved by the trustees, and hired…but now they are not?
Dean,
Amen! Where was the outcry back then? Where’s the outcry about Southern only hiring Calvinists to teach theology? Where is that outcry??????
David
Volfan,
“That” outcry doesn’t exist because Southern does not hire “only” Calvinists. They hire “only” those who affirm and teach in accordance with the Abstract of Principles–the institution’s founding document.
Now, if you want to address hypocrisy, address this: Mohler used the A of P to wrest Southern Seminary from the death-grip of Liberalism–firing those liberals who would not affirm it and teach in accordance with it.
Now you (and many others in the Trad camp) want to castigate Mohler for enforcing the same A of P that was used to rescue the Seminary.
That’s hypocrisy with a capital “H.”
Randall,
Has Southern hired any Professors to teach theology, who arent Calvinists? at least, 4 pt. Calvinists?
Also, Randall, I have no idea what you’re talking about with all the hypocrisy accusations you’re hurling at me. What in the world are you talking about?
David
David,
Yes, Southern has hired Profs that are not 5-pointers. Quite a few, actually.
Joshua, I have no desire to damage anyone. As I stated above, it has been explained to me that Dr. Quarles does not have the hiring power any longer. Since then non-reform professors have been hired. It was stated to me six for six his first hires were reformed and that predicated the correction. I will recant all of that if it is not true and offer Christian apologies in writing to Dr. Quarles. Now please understand the point of my comment has nothing to do with Dr. Quarles. I wish I would have not mentioned him now. I find it interesting that is what you chose to comment on about my post. The point of my post is that you nor anyone else I have read offered any condemnation publicly of Dr. Aguillard until reform professors were let go. I have read your posts and I see nothing a year ago about LC being on fire. My contention is even if Dr. Aguillard was selling crystal meth out the back of his office your beef and others is over the professors because you were silent until they were non-renewed.
Dean,
Read my first post. It is about Aguillard’s public, on the LC website, condemnation of Calvinism. My first post was not about the professors but about Aguillard saying Calvinism was not within the bounds of the BFM2000. So, your contention about me overlooking Aguillard’s leadership until profs were let go is in error.
Come at me if you wish, but there is nothing to gain by trying to discredit me in this.
Joshua, quit being a victim and playing the role of a martyr. I have not come at you and have no desire to discredit anyone. I will stand by statements. There have been some who have through innuendo and vague accusations say something sinister is in the air at LC. My point is no one seemed to write anything about that until the professors were let go. If I missed your first article then I apologize and will amend my statement – no one was publicly addressing Aguillard’s leadership until he attacked reform theology. He may very well be fired Monday for running a call girl ring out the cafeteria for all I know. If he is let me know when and I will get some tar and feathers and join you. However, if he had not decided to change the direction of the religion department it appears no one would have said a word about anything unseemly going on at LC. They hadn’t before, at least not in public. To me, with honest open eyes, this is an issue that has come about because of the reform/trad battle in our convention.
Wow, Dean. I hope if you are ever under the scrutiny that Josh is, and the “powers-that-be” are coming at you as they are against him, that people would show more compassion than that.
I have had plenty of conversations with people – none of whom want to go on the record here, but who seem to be in the know (both Calvinist and not) – that have convinced me of several things:
*This is not primarily a Calvinism issue.
*There is fire here, not just smoke.
*Joshua and Drew did not cause the problem, they only called attention to it.
*The college’s treatment of them is unfair.
More will be known in the next few days, but I just think your characterization of Joshua as a victim and martyr is really not fair.
Dave, I want to offer compassion and pray I can. My victim comment was aimed at Josh saying I was trying to discredit him. Nothing can be further from the truth. I am saddened he has withdrawn from school. We will see what happens Monday. Dave, please answer this question, was there any public outcry among bloggers, students, alumni calling for the president’s ouster before the non-renewals or his issues with Calvinism? I have not seen any. He may indeed turn out to be a bad person and president and may be fired but NO ONE was blogging that when the religion department was planting tulips everywhere. That is the point of all my interaction today not to discredit Josh who to me seems to have beat his drum consistently on this issue.
Dean,
Here is one site I found calling for Aguillard’s resignation due to fiscal irresponsibility and accreditation issues for LC…among other things…almost 1 year ago.
http://cenlamar.com/2012/03/27/lc-president-joe-aguillard-should-immediately-resign-or-be-fired/
I would assume there are others that were calling for the same thing.
In the last ten days or so I have heard in person and read online several folks suggest that we amend the BFM. One suggestion is to tighten it, another is to loosen it up, while yet others require more explanation in it.
I think this is a hightly premature and unwise idea, one that would be deleterious to the SBC as a whole. Did we not just go through a non-binding escapade over the name, and are not people still complaining about the process and the results, or non-results, of that?
The name change was unnecessary and foolish, dividing us into two.
Clarifying the BFM position relative to Calvinism can be helpful, definitive and wise, bringing us together with greater clarity by stating clearly our position on soteriology.
This issue was hardly on the front burner in 2000, which was the year the Acts 29 Network was founded. Lack of clarity on this matter has given way to a large number of “cats and dogs” debates.
If indeed the BFM is neutral on Calvinism and Traditionalism, then don’t make it subtle, but clear. Present both options. I don’t ever want to be associated with a semi-heretical position again while affirming the BFM.
Somebody needs to tell the Calvinists that Traditionalist doctrine fits within the BFM. If we need to clarify it, then do so.
I just don’t see the name change and the BFM clarification as similar in the least.
I am ok with clarity being provided on this issue. Of course, all I have wanted all along was for us to admit that calvinists are well within the BFM2K parameters. They are. If they are, then why the over-reaction about people who fit within those parameters being in leadership of SBC entities? Why would some churches withhold CP dollars (not very cooperative-y, or SBC-y/CP-y of them, BTW) from said institutions? If they feel calvinists are outside of the BFM2K parameters, then those moves would make sense. But if they are not outside the parameters, then those moves are sketchy.
So, if revisiting the BFM2K is to clarify that BOTH groups (trads and calvinists) are INSIDE the parameters, then I am ok with that.
But if the goal is to re-define articles to include something that was not previously included, or to exclude those who were previously included by the BFM2K – then I am not in favor of that.
The SBC is big enough for all of us – and that there is no reason to try and force people who differ from us theologically out of leadership or out of the SBC completely.
Jason,
Although I think a better BFM would contribute to SBC harmony, it would not resolve every matter of fairness among us.
For example, just because someone’s beliefs were within the BFM would not mean that a Calvinist church would call a Traditionalist pastor or vice versa. It would not mean that Traditionalist churches would necessarily feel comfortable sponsoring Calvinist plants or vice versa. It would not mean that Calvinists or Traditionalists would be represented on boards and leadership posts without regard to soteriological fairness and balance.
A better BFM would help us, but it is not a panacea.
I agree.
It just appears that some want to criticize calvinists being in denominational leadership, and my point is that with the current BFM, there is no reason to exclude them from those positions. Some may not like it, but nothing untoward has happened. If they are within those boundaries, then they can serve those positions.
Any alteration to the BFM that would SEEK TO exclude them would be going in the opposite direction from cooperation. (And I doubt it would pass.)
Do you feel that the current “Tradionalist” position on sin/guilt/nature fits within or outside of the BFM? If you feel it fits in, then what suggestions would you make of alterations to make it a “better BFM”? I guess I am just curious what changes you would want to make.
Jason,
That would involve an entire committee of wordsmiths, but basically, for example, on the relatively easier issue of communion, a statement could be inserted acknowledging the validity of Open, Close and Closed Communion positions as practiced by various Southern Baptist congregations.
I favor wording that shores up the ambiguity, even while allowing Southern Baptists a measure of freedom in their interpretations. If a number of views are acceptable, replace the current approach of subtle neutrality with one of blatant mutual acceptance.
Rick,
You stated:
Brother, the associations of which you complain are not due to your affirmation of the BFM. These associations arise from the imprecise language of the positions Traditionalists are espousing.
Both the Traditional Statement and its subsequent defenses are riddled with language that is historically associated with positions which have been repeatedly shown to be unorthodox.
For example, Traditionalists’ denial of Original Sin/Imputed Guilt, which is at this very moment being defended at SBC Today—and which is integral to the Traditional Statement—is startlingly similar to historical positions from which Traditionalists wish to distance themselves.
Please consider the following summaries and compare them to the arguments Traditionalists are advancing.
NOTE: I AM NOT LABELING TRADITIONALISTS AS PELAGIANS, SEMI-PELAGIANS, OR ARMINIANS. I AM SIMPLY POINTING OUT THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN YOUR ARGUMENTS AND THEIRS—ARGUMENTS THAT CALVINISTS FIND DISCONCERTING.
PELAGIANISM
Pelagius contended that man is fundamentally good and determines his eternal destiny for himself. Denying the doctrine of Original Sin, Pelagius also denied that Christ’s atoning sacrifice was necessary for salvation.
Pelagius’ Interpretation of Romans 5:12
Pelagius insisted that Original Sin was not imputed to all men descending from Adam, and that man is responsible only for his personal sins.
Additionally, Pelagius contended that every man is born with a sinless nature and with the uninhibited ability to choose good or evil. Hence, man has the ability to volitionally earn salvation by keeping the Law.
SEMI-PELAGIANSIM
Historical semi-Pelagians contend that the doctrine of Original/Imputed Sin denies libertarian free will; they insist that man’s will plays some unaided role in the initial act of faith.
Semi-Pelagians’ Interpretation of Romans 5:12
Historically, Semi-Pelagians flatly deny the doctrine of Imputed Guilt, insisting that man is not held legally responsible for Adam’s sin. All things created by God are good (including human souls), therefore man is born neutral, neither good nor bad, nor dead in sin. Man is depraved, but only physically and mentally, not volitionally. Adam did not possess a sinful nature–only a moral weakness inclined toward evil. This pollution of an inclination toward evil is passed to Adam’s progeny.
According to semi-Pelagianism, man is able, by unaided volition, to overcome this inclination to evil and cooperate with the Spirit in regeneration. Hence, if some are not saved, it is due solely to their personal, volitional failure to cooperate with the Holy Spirit.
ARMINIANISM
Arminius, who was once a strong advocate of Reformed theology, later held that man participates in determining his own eternal destiny. His beliefs were posthumously further developed by his followers and were published as the five Arminian Articles of Remonstrance in 1610.
The Arminian Interpretation of Romans 5:12
Historically, Arminians contend that the phrase “because all sinned” indicates that man incurs the consequence of Adam’s sin only when he commits personal sinful acts. Hence, condemnation occurs only when one sins consciously and volitionally.
Arminians deny Imputed Guilt, insisting instead that man only inherits a nature inclined toward sin. In the historical Arminian framework, this corrupt nature is not itself sin, hence said nature does not incur condemnation.
Historical Arminians contend that though man cannot attain to righteousness, the corruption passed to us through Adam does not affect the ability of the will to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in achieving justification.
Brother, do you see the similarities and do you understand why we are having problems with the positions you are advocating?
Randall,
Yeah, I get it. I just disagree with your definition of SP. I’m not interested in rehashing the whole debate, just clarifying that both of our positions are SBC approved. I want the BFM to state clearly that both positions are legit.
Rick
Rick
All I know about SP I’ve learned on blogs, so I really know nothing. 🙂 Therefore, since I’d like a better understanding of your position, would you mind defining SP since you disagree with the above? Thanks in advance, my brother.
Rick,
I’m not interested in rehashing the whole debate either, but the SP arguments I spelled out above are pretty standard fare, whether you “agree” with my presentation of them or not. And the arguments coming out of Traditionalism are startlingly similar to all three–P, SP, and A.
So brother…if you do indeed see and get that you are using the same arguments that Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, and Armininianism use…why continue to use them?
Wouldn’t Traditionalism be better served by formulating their own arguments for their position instead of borrowing ancient “semi-heretical” arguments?
In other words, if you don’t want to be associated with anything “semi-heretical” while affirming the BF&M, wouldn’t the answer be to stop using “semi-heretical” arguments rather than change the BF&M?
Randall,
The part that I “get” is that you have a certain position on this, not that you are right to hold that position. I simply disagree with the way you characterize my view.
Blessings,
Rick
Joe,
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article Semipelagianism:
In Semipelagian thought, therefore, a distinction is made between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half – growing in faith – is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later.
Since Traditionalists don’t believe that man initiates salvation, our view is distinct from Semi-Pelagian thought. However, we do affirm the “response ability” of man, made in God’s image, to embrace freely the drawing of God’s Holy Spirit through the gospel.
Rick,
As you know, the OD hardly gives more than the briefest summary. The Traditionalist Statement remains semi-Pelagian and even its summary has been badly used by Traditionalists attempting to avoid the label.
Here is one of my several posts on the subject, in case you need the reminder: http://www.seektheholy.com/2012/06/04/is-the-statement-semi-pelagian/
Chris,
I need no such reminder. I will not soon forget last summer’s offensive accusations. Without rehashing the whole debate, let me simply say I believe you have wrongly defined the Semi-Pelagian view with this definition of it: People are greatly corrupt, yet retain the natural ability to do some good, including respond to the gospel in saving faith. We are able to respond to the gospel without God having to first deal with corruption and deadness in our hearts.
The denial of Total Inability does not make one Semi-Pelagian.
Rick,
I’m not attempting to characterize your view. I’m simply pointing out that you guys are defending your views with arguments virtually identical to those of P, SP, and A.
You and others from the Traditionalist camp have admitted that you need to do a better job articulating your views. I’m just trying to help you out.
If you don’t want to be associated with “semi-heretical positions” (your words), formulate some original arguments…instead of just repackaging the arguments of the positions you don’t want to be associated with.
If you do so, you will have a much better chance of advancing your beliefs.
If you cannot, you shouldn’t take offense at being associated with those views whose arguments you are using.
Simply put, some Original Arguments against Original Sin should be the first order of business in the Traditional camp–not calling for changes to the BF&M.
BTW: Wouldn’t the changes you are proposing concerning the BF&M be sorta’ self-defeating to your “denominational proportionality” paradigm?
“The denial of Total Inability does not make one Semi-Pelagian.”
At risk of devolving to the level of a 5-yr-old debate tactic, I will simply say: Yes it does.
Randall,
I affirm Original Sin, as in our inherited sinful nature. What I disaffirm is Original Guilt, or imputed Adamic guilt. I am guilty and condemned for my own sin, not his. I really do see this expressly discussed in Article Three.
You ask about the effect of a reworded BFM that more clearly accepted all views of communion, ordo salutis and imputed guilt, questioning the impact that such clarity would bring regarding the fair and balanced representation of Southern Baptists on our various boards and commissions. I see no link between the two.
The advantage of a reworded BFM lies in establishing the blatant acceptance of all current Southern Baptist views, rather than hinting at such through an approach of subtle neutrality.
The advantage of placing in leadership positions Southern Baptists from churches both big and small, north and south and east and west, older and younger, Calvinist and Traditionalist, male and female, ethnic majority and ethnic minority–all in a proper measure reflective of our denomination is a worthy goal in its own right, regardless of how we choose to word our confession.
I only did a quick read, and have to get ready for class, but it seems to me that the Trad statement is more in line with what you have written about Arminians than Semi-Pelagians. Arminians are certainly not heretics.
I’ll look at it more closely later, but I am one Calvinist who is not convinced of imputed guilt.
Bill Mac,
My point was not to put Trads in any of the three categories.
I’m simply pointing out that if you read the defenses of the TS and the arguments being offered in defense of the rejection of Original Sin…Traditionalist arguments are startlingly similar to those of all three–P, SP, and A.
It seems to me that the answer is not to change the BF&M–as Rick seems to be proposing–but for the Trads to formulate Original Arguments for rejecting Original Sin and defending their TS.
Using the same arguments as P, SP, and A is just not helping their case…
Bill,
Classical Arminians believe in the concept of prevenient grace, that God must first enable man to respond before man is capable of responding. This is in recognition of the Bible’s teaching that no natural man ever seeks or desires God or does anything except evil.
On the other hand, the Traditionalist statement is firm in its insistence that no change is necessary, natural man is able to reach out to God without God first changing him. That is semi-Pelagianism: I can pursue salvation before God does any salvific work in my heart. Traditionalists certainly acknowledge that God will woo a person – seek to make himself and his salvation desirable, particularly in the face of human sin and evil – but they do not believe any change is necessary. The Statement defends the idea that man, though fallen, is not so fallen as to make us incapacitated.
The campus revival at Louisiana College is scheduled for March 4–6. Ironically, the speaker was “no longer welcome” at the college. Who was the speaker scheduled for revival? Aguillard uninvited the highly esteemed and respected Dr. Russell Moore from Southern Seminary. This move by the president is yet another example of his ignorance of the political climate within the SBC. Dr. Moore is not a Calvinist, but Aguillard falsely assumed that he was due to his connection with Southern. How many times does Aguillard have to disgrace the college before something is done? He is Baptist in name only. It is time the neo-pentacostal with questionable ethics be removed from the office of president. I will be the first to sign, and not forge, someone else’s signature on a petition for his removal. If anyone else is interested in signing the petition just respond, unless, that is, you have had Aguillard cover up a weekend bender with a buddy. I want the petition to be transparent, even for the trustees–Executive Committee and/or the General Trustee Assembly. At some point, Louisiana Baptists must take responsibility of this mess, particularly since our CP giving is helping fund a sinful administration. If Louisiana Baptists don’t step up to the plate and fix this problem, I am sure Dr. Mohler will gladly repay Aguillard for his cavalier and utterly, stupid decision to un-invite Dr. Moore.
“”” the neo-pentacostal with questionable ethics “””
“””unless, that is, you have had Aguillard cover up a weekend bender with a buddy.””
Any proof of these devastating accusations?
If this is true, then facts are in order. If it is not true, then it is the lowest form of blogging.
Many people have experienced his neo-pentecostal theology. I personally have heard him claim that God gave him vision and it come true. This example is not an isolated incident. If you ask around (e.g., faculty, staff, friends, etc.) this claim will be substantiated. As for the “devastating accusations,” you will have to wait for the special called Trustee meeting on Monday. By next week, you will have the “proof” and it will sadden you; however, if for some unforetold reason the trustees do not expose Aguillard’s moral bankruptcy, you can rest assured Dr. Mohler will bring everything to light. As for the campus revival, I encourage you to call the school and ask who will be speaking March 4–6. The number is 318-487-7011.
There are others who know what I am talking about, but they are being benign in their posts. Frank, rest assured, I am not in the business of slandering someone, even if you think what I said is slander. The truth is, we are all responsible to God and his kingdom. As members of his kingdom, we have the right to stand up for what is right. Moreover, you need to know that trustees are pressured, misled, and/or lied to by administrations. This TRUTH is not an anomalous occurrence at SBC entities (e.g., IMB, SWBTS, and NOBTS).
Yep.
I understand that there are some strong feelings about all of this. And varied as well.
I got involved in this for one reason – a couple of young men I consider friends were getting treated unjustly.
I now know way more about Dr. Joe Aguillard than I ever thought I would.
However, while I do not support what he has done, I am not willing for this comment stream to become a Joe-bashing exercise. Let’s just be careful. Okay?
For the record, the comment which most offended has been removed. But in general, I’d ask people to be charitable even in the face of strong feelings.
I agree Dave. Joe-bashing is not helpful. When people are hurt, we tend to lean towards the flesh’s desire to create martyrs rather than enjoy the glorious strength he provides in the midst of suffering. May all the brothers stop bickering for “what about me” here, and start fighting for the defense of we. I believe that Jesus would be grieved by a posture of defense for the theology of me or my side. At the end of the day, there is Jesus’ side and there is the Devil’s side. Is it wrong to state that anyone not arguing for Jesus Christ to be magnified and proclaimed as worthy is the wrong side? By no means. But rather, to argue for anything else is to argue for the enemy’s continued enthronement. Yet, let me be clear. I am not alluding to the favor of another “side” of any one man’s privy. I am more frankly referring to any Calvinist or non-Calvinist (Traditionalist is such a damaging self-entitlement) who argues for any theological truth divorced from that aforementioned motive—to see Christ Jesus magnified among the nations, being heralded as King. Such an endeavor is already bias for demonic agenda. But, what I believe would be holy is arguing for your theological position from a Spirit-driven conviction. But, what must be noted and nested within us, is that any Spirit-given conviction that compels us to fight for truth (even a systematically theological one) will always be adorned with humility, grace, tears, repentance and above all else—love. Furthermore detailed, it must be said that a fight for spiritual truth to prevail that is authored by the Spirit will always resemble Paul’s words for his people, wishing almost that we would be inflicted with pain if that meant it would grace our fellow people with the truth. The kind of truths that erupt a wellspring of life-giving water. But, here is where so many Calvinists and Non-Calvinists go wrong.
I hear some Calvinists say, referencing non-Calvinists, “Their view of God is so small! They have minimized the glorious grace of God in giving new life! Why do they debate for taking even a morsel of His credit for themselves? Why does they so foolishly attempt to argue that they can commend a portion of their salvation to their free will?” Those words ring of a heart that is ferociously zealous to see God exalted. Indeed! Such a motive is righteous. But, rather, why respond by arguing that Calvinism is the solution? If a non-Calvinist, or Traditionalist—one who seeks to lay their signature on a document to make a definitive division among brothers—is then doing such a thing, the Calvinist should recognize that his heart’s conviction is not for Calvinist doctrine. He is convicted of a low view of God that he may feel is prevalent among his people. If such is the case, he should not respond by arguing Calvinism. But, follow his conviction by preaching and teaching the Scriptures that exalt his God and set aflame the hearts of men for his kingship.
I hear some non-Calvinistic brothers say, “These men are getting lazy! They are just fearful of getting dirty and unloving towards non-Christians! They just want to go deep because its cool and hip. These men need to get off their saddle and fill their hearts with love, and preach the Gospel to the nations!” If this man has a conviction to see Christ preached for sinners’ salvation like us, and likewise taste the sweet salvation of Christ, then indeed, these are also righteous motives! But as the former, the improper response would be to respond by defending against what they believe is heresy (Calvinism). They must too follow their heart’s conviction and address the immediate issue at hand. Preach love for the nations! Confront arrogant brothers who oppose active evangelism, not their systematized doctrine! Preach love for sinners and preach against idol hands of laziness! Preach the message to pick up your cross and die to yourselves!
These two situations are of course assuming that someone has a conviction for correcting certain behaviors and doctrine. I believe it is publicly evident for a lot of people in our convention that there are plenty of men that are not however opposing or advocating a doctrine out of love. They are men who love controversy. Of such men, in them is no love.
As Frank Paige said, “Friends, I’m concerned because there seem to be some non-Calvinists who are more concerned about rooting out Calvinists than they are about winning the lost for Christ…But I am not among that number…[Some Calvinists] seem to think that if we do not believe the same thing about soteriology that they believe, then somehow we are less intelligent or ignorant at best…I simply say to you today that it’s time to realize that a Great Commission advance needs everyone. A Great Commission advance needs everyone…Calvinists and non-Calvinists have worked together for decade upon decade upon decade in this convention.”
So, my prayer, and exhortation is that we stop fighting for theological niches and just man up and confront the real sins of the heart. A traditionalist can be lazy and unloving in evangelism and a Calvinist can profess an exalted sovereign understanding of God but live a life that states God does not sit on the throne of his heart and exude a contradictory arrogance. The real issues to be addressed are harbored sins of the heart.
I’d like to go on the record as saying I am also anti-Joe bashing.
Oh, wait, you weren’t talking about me, where you?
Nevermind. Roll Tide anyway.
Like usual, a discussion of Calvinism seems to devolve to name calling. It needs to stop. Now!
I will never understand the need of some to pin insulting labels on others and their views. But check your words and attitudes to see if they are of Christ.
I’m about to shut this down if the level of discussion continues to be as petty and silly as it has become.