God saves a wide variety of people from a wide variety of backgrounds. He then places in us his Holy Spirit to guide us in the process of becoming like Christ and preparing us for eternal glory. One day, all who have truly repented of their sins and trusted Jesus as Savior and Lord will be completely like Jesus.
In the meantime, we are different. We start at different places and grow at different paces. We are headed toward the amazing eternal unity of the saints. In the meantime, we disagree. We disagree about the so-called “doctrines of grace.” Some of us like big churches, some don’t. Some prefer culturally cool worship styles and some like the button-down days gone by. While we are moving toward Christ Christians will always diverge, disagree, and divide into our denominational camps.
I am a Southern Baptist and I’ve been one since about nine months before I was born. I have no desire to be anything but a Southern Baptist, but I believe my denomination is in trouble. Some have argued that these fault lines have always been there and always will. William Thornton published a humorous and poignant article this morning about the SBC in 2064 that seemed to suggest that the SBC would not seen the kind of splintering I forsee.
I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I have trouble seeing the current fracturing as anything but a portent of future troubles. I believe, as I suggested yesterday, that the SBC is like a giant oak tree that has begun to splinter. We have a lot of divisions that can weaken us to the point that we will come crashing down into a million (well, perhaps a dozen) pieces.
But I do believe that there are things that we can do as a convention to forestall the splintering. We can put a splint around the splintering oak and the healing process can begin. We cannot continue to do what we have been doing get where we need to go. Some things have got to change. Our leaders need to change what they are doing. Of course, since the SBC is not a hierarchical denomination, there are things that the churches need to do – perhaps these are the ones that matter the most. But there are also some changes that big-mouth bloggers like us can do that will make a difference.
I make no claim to this being an exhaustive list. Frankly, I hope that some in the comment stream will add to the discussion and come up with suggestions I didn’t think of (if they are particularly brilliant, I will probably claim to have thought of it, but forgotten to include it here!).
But here are my suggestions for putting a splint on a splintered denomination.
1) We need to demonstrate humility
Arrogance and self-centeredness is the root of sin – instead of obeying God we wander our own paths and live for our own glory instead of his. That is a constant struggle even for those who have been redeemed – even for such honorable holy men (and women) as we are!
More specifically (and seriously), it is incumbent on each of us to realize that people can disagree with me and still love Jesus. Certainly, there are some fundamental doctrines on which we should stand without compromise. But most of the things that we argue about here are not quite so cut and dried.
I blog to try to convince people of the truths of which I have become convinced and to influence the denomination in the direction I think it should go. At the “Band of Bloggers” meeting in Chicago recently, one of the speakers mentioned the inherent arrogance of blogging – the idea that I have something to say that people need to hear.
But each of us who comes to this blog or others does so because we believe that we have convictions, passions and ideas that others need to hear. That is fine. But we also must come with the humility that understands that someone can still love Jesus and disagree with me.
I don’t have all the answers and neither do you. We can learn from each other. Ultimately, I think the root of the SBC problem is arrogance – the demand that everyone should be like me, believe like me, prefer what I prefer and serve the way that I serve.
Perhaps the key verse that we need to remember is “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord and he will lift you up.”
2) We need to understand and apply doctrinal triage
1 Corinthians 15:3 describes the facts of the gospel as “of first importance.” That implies a ranking in doctrine. Paul, in Romans 14 and 15, and in 1 Corinthians 8-10 makes it clear that there are areas of personal conscience and preference in which Christians do not have to disagree. When someone monkeyed around with the gospel, Paul got pretty harsh. But on issues of food and drink, observance of the Sabbath and eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul said that each of us should walk in the Lordship of Jesus Christ and not judge one another. Paul recognized that all issues and all doctrines are not created equal.
The reason that Calvinism is such a big issue is the perception (true or not) that the Calvinists want every church in the SBC to be Calvinist and view those with non-Calvinist theology as defective, even (in some cases) gospel-denying. Some anti-Calvinists act as if they will not be content until every evangelism-hating Calvinist is driven from the convention. If we realize that both Calvinists and non-Calvinists believe the
My church doesn’t have to be like your church. We can have contemporary worship while you sing hymns. We do not have to force everyone to conform to our way. Why can’t we just follow our own convictions on the issues I’ve defined and let other churches do the same? I’m not talking about compromising fundamental doctrine or even Baptist distinctives. But one of the root causes of our disunity is the insistence of some that every church has to be like theirs.
In a series of posts here I have identified four levels of doctrine. In Dr. Mohler’s triage system, there are three. I have defined “Brick Wall” doctrine – truths around which we must build a wall of separation and declare those who disagree to be outside the faith. Other doctrines only require a friendly “Picket Fence”. For us, this would be “Baptist doctrine” – those truths which define us and separate from us from other church groups. There is other doctrine I call “Dinner Table” truth. We sit around the table and discuss it, but we do not separate over it at all. The best example off this would be eschatology. The fourth level of doctrine is “Personal Space” truth, which I mentioned above – the meat sacrificed to idols issues. We should neither condemn nor disdain others for disagreements on these lifestyle choices.
Some have rejected doctrinal triage as if it relegates certain doctrines to unimportance. It does not. Doctrinal triage defines our response to doctrinal disagreements. On some issues we refuse fellowship to those who disagree. On others, we agree to disagree. On still others we follow our conscience and give others the right to do the same thing.
When we compromise on Brick Wall doctrines, we sin against the truth. When we divide on tertiary doctrines or issues of personal conscience, we sin against the One Body of Christ. We must do neither!
3) We must speak the truth in love
I get disgusted at the direction of blog discussions at times. The simple truth is that most of us agree about the vast majority of things. But when we disagree, we can get flat nasty.
I feel sad when I see bloggers justify their vitriol because they are standing for truth. People justify their vitriol by referencing Jesus’ words to the Pharisees in Matthew 23. But first of all, I am not Jesus and do not have his perfect insight into the hearts of men. Second, we must remember that Pharisees were not disagreeing brothers but teachers of a false gospel that made people fit for hell not for heaven. People who disagree about Calvinism do not deserve the Pharisee treatment.
We must guard our words and our attitudes in blogging. Yes, I have violated this rule and if you have been blogging long so have you. Bloggers have one thing in common – a fleshly propensity to sinful attitudes, words and actions.
As we speak the truth, we need to constantly guard our words to see that the truth we speak is couched in kind and loving words.
Vitriol is not a fruit of the Spirit.
4) We must to define our core doctrines and practices.
What is a Southern Baptist? The fact is, you do not really know and neither do I. I asked that question in a post a while back and found that none of us really knows how to define our identity. When we have no idea of our identity the natural tendency is for people to try to impose their preferences as requirements.
The IMB BoT stepped into this void and defined baptism in a way that most of us disagree with. Every time the convention has had a chance to vote, it has rejected the more extreme and narrow view of fellowship. Yet, those policies remain in place at the IMB and good Baptist people are excluded from service because some trustees imposed their judgment of what a Baptist on the entire convention.
We need to define what a Baptist is. In my next post on this topic, I am going to attempt to do just that.
5) We must focus on the big picture
Why do we join together as a convention? Because there are things that we can do together that cannot be done as effectively if we work independently.
My church runs around 250 or so on a Sunday Morning, with a budget of around 450,000. We give 12% to Cooperative program causes. That means that we give in the neighborhood of 50,000 dollars a year to missions through the CP. If we operate on our own, we can do a little bit. By pooling our missions offerings with tens of thousands of other churches around the US and Canada, we can participate in an amazing program of worldwide missions.
It may be easier and more exciting to do it ourselves, and those churches that have the wherewithal to do so will always be tempted toward that route. But our program of Cooperative missions is worth supporting.
6) Our leaders must give us a reason to give.
One of the casualties of modern culture is brand loyalty. People are not going to give to the CP just because they like to give to the CP. Our leaders need to give us a reason to give. They must convince us that what I said in point 5 is true.
Frankly, I do not believe that a lot of us believe that. A lot of people think that the IMB, seminaries and especially NAMB are wasting our missions dollars in ineffective missions.
We need effective leaders leading effective ministries. That needs to be more than hype. There are a lot of ways to do ministry. We need to give people a reason to do missions through the Cooperative Program.
7) We need to leave behind our regional and cultural trappings.
We are the “Southern” Baptist Convention. When someone suggests changing that a lot of Southern Baptists get their accents in a twist. Frankly, a lot of people are proud of their Southern culture and Southern ways and don’t want to change that.
If the SBC is going to be more than a regional denomination, we need to take some intentional steps to become a national convention. A name change would be a symbolic start to that, but I am aware that is probably not going to happen. We need more than symbolism.
- We need to embrace racial integration. The SBC was born in racism and has been a haven for racists throughout its life. We need to take definitive steps to include people of color not only in the life of the SBC but the Leadership of the SBC.
- We need to embrace the nation. I think that Ezell’s hiring of regional VPs was a good first step in this. But we need to focus our money and efforts outside of simply the Deep South. Statistics provided by the GCRTF demonstrated that not only are we largely a Southern convention, but that we continue to spend the bulk of our NAMB money in the South.
- We need to embrace change. Some things about the Traditional SBC were good. But a lot of things were more cultural than biblical. The more we hold on to unbiblical or extrabiblical tradition, the more likely we are to remain a reflection of Southern Culture.
8.) We need to focus on Jesus.
Alan Cross mentioned this in the comment stream of yesterday’s post. In what is currently comment 19, he said,
Colossians 1:17 – Christ is before all things and in him all things hold together.
Our common-unity is Christ. If we are not focused on Christ, we will divide. If our focus is the way we do church, how big our church is, money, the Great Commission, the awesome work we do, the Bible, or anything else – we will divide. I see very little of Jesus in the SBC. I see a lot of “stuff.” I see a lot of jockeying for prominence and power and influence so that we can get stuff done. I don’t see much of Jesus. Jesus seems to be a given, but is He really? We argue about everything, but what about Jesus? Can’t we come together in Him? Our focus seems to be ourselves on almost every level.
The real wonder is how we’ve stayed together this long. It is only in Christ that all things hold together. If we are falling apart, it is because we are not in Him the way we need to be.
Amen Alan. Our unity is in Christ. The more we stay in Christ, the more unified we will be. The more we focus on ourselves or our preferences, the more we will splinter. It almost seems like a cliché, but it is not. It is truth!
Conclusion.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers, as this attempt to articulate a vision evidences. But the most obvious solution is for us to realize that we can love Jesus, love the Word and still NOT agree on everything. We can walk together even while we disagree on certain issues. If we can accept our differences and come together in unity around the gospel and cooperate to obey the Great Commission, our future can be bright.
As I wrote this, I found that it is much easier to define the problem than to recommend the solution.
What’s your idea?
I think you have made a pretty good start list Dave. But, these things have been said for a few years now. When is the action on these going to begin? Until action on even these points happen, it’s just words we write every year, which is why the splintering happens. People who believe the same way are tired of reading the same things year after year and nothing happens. I do believe we are getting closer though, at least I hope it is….but this is 2011 and while we are closer, we aren’t there yet.
Debbie,
On Easter Sunday, we had a sunrise service in our community with Baptist, Presbyterian, and Anglican churches – 5 churches in all and we just added a sixth to our little group. As pastors, we are all friends. We joke with each other, recognize our differences, debate, and discuss. We misunderstand each other and we probably aren’t going to be planting a church together. But, we have fellowship in Christ. They think I’m wrong about some things and I think that they are wrong about some things. We tell each other so. But, we are friends and brothers because we all call on the name of Jesus together. We decided to have the sunrise service because we figured that if we could not agree on the Resurrection of Jesus, we could not agree on anything. But, we could so we did.
On May 20th, we’ll be hosting a gathering of Christians from all races and denominations for prayer at the 50th Anniversary of the Freedom Riders coming into Montgomery where they were met and assaulted by a mob. We are going to join together and pray and tell a different story of what Christ can do.
Churches all over Alabama are coming together to assist the thousands of tornado victims from the storms that ravaged our state last week. All kinds of churches and lots of Baptists. We aren’t arguing. We are just working together. Our brother, CB Scott is pouring his life out in Pleasant Grove, one of the areas most hard hit. He is shepherding that community and is going full speed every day. Pray for him. His church, full of a lot of senior adults, is laying its life down for the community. We have partnered with them a bit. No one is arguing. CB said that if they didn’t serve that community till they dropped, they would be in sin. The devastation is so incredible, but the light of Christ is shining bright.
I’m just pointing to these things because I think what you are looking for is happening. It just doesn’t get the publicity that controversy does. But, it should. We should tell a better story.
I got goosebumps reading this comment Alan. Yes, this is what I would like to see get written about, because we don’t see what is going on. Thanks.
of course I think the fact that we have, on any given Sunday morning, 1/3 of SBC membership in the pews says volumes – not about a commitment to a “regenerate” and`accountable church membership but “impressive” numbers as the largest Protestant denomination in the USA
Douglas R Belardi , ” 1/3 in SBC membership in the pews says volumes “. Do you mean 1/3 are Calvinists ? Or 1/3 of the entire SBC membership is in ” someones ” church ? Is this a power drive ?
2/3 of ANY SBC membership do not even attend services on a regular basis
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/august/3.13.html
With its 16.2 million members, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. But on any given Sunday, most Southern Baptists are missing in action. According to statistics released by the SBC in April, the average worship attendance in the convention is 6.15 million—10 million shy of the membership total. That is a problem, says Tom Ascol, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida. Ascol believes that Southern Baptist churches have sinned by maintaining inaccurate membership rolls, and by tolerating inactive members.
No question that a lot of our churches have “ghost” members. We were reviewing our roll recently. I’ve been pastor here for nearly 6 years and many of the names I had never heard of or met. We have a few names like that. Some churches have that in the thousands.
it is a genuine problem, Douglas.
especially if they can’t even be located
if they can be located lministry of mercy or loving church discipline needs to be practiced
Dave, there is more to the ‘ghost’ figure than just a desire to look bigger.
Most younger (50 or under) pastors do not know why the rolls were not regularly cleaned. At least part (maybe not the entire reason) of the reason was because of our passion for evangelism.
Anyone involved in business (I owned two large businesses at one time) knows, you never throw away a prospect card. It is 25 times harder to get a new name than to work an older name.
In fact in early Sunday School conferences roll cleaning was specifically addressed. It was usually referred to as something like “Just Go to Hell” activities meaning we had given up on people God had not given up on.
I’m so glad my church in my little town didn’t throw my family’s card in the trash because we didn’t give or go regularly.
I’m not saying we still have that passion for wayward members — clearly the posts above show we do not — but I don’t think tossing 10 million names in the “just go to hell file” will produce better churches.
What would happen instead if we could love just 20% of those back into the full fellowship of the church? I believe there would be a revival.
Before everyone starts dropping rocks on my head, I realize that some people just use the inflated figure for public relations. This is true of every denomination. I also realize that because of poor record keeping some of the numbers are duplicates. I also realize some are deceased for the same reason.
I’m just saying there was at one time something really good about keeping people’s names. I also realize there are other ways to keep their names than an active roll.
I just think we find it much easier to use the “just go to hell” file.
again, either remove them if they can’t be FOUND at all or seek to minister in love and through Scriptural church discipline
if we care no more about them than to merely have them on a roll, it is indeed a blight on the church of this age and not at at all a reflection of the Good Shepherd’s pastoral ministry
We need to act like we believe the Baptist Faith & Message .. including the Preamble.
Bob, word.
What Mark said.
AMEN!!!
I would like to add just one more thought… “We need to agree that the Baptist Faith and Message is a sufficient standard for fellowship and service withing the SBC Family.”
I’ve got my June 14, 2000 BF&M and have been reading the intro. You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution and I’m tired of playing dumb and being ” the nice guy “. There is either a plan or no plan at all. You know how many hinges are on OBL door and which side they’re on or you aren’t up to speed. Don’t listen to the wrong ” encouragers ” who stand to gain a lot they may be wrong and the prise is too big.
Not really sure I understand what you are saying here Jack.
THE ONLY CURE FOR APOSTASY–DECISIONAL REGENERATION–IS JUDGMENT
Paul, a comment such as this saddens me and points out my reason for pessimism. You are calling those who are not Calvinists apostate.
This is exactly the kind of arrogant sectarianism that is causing problems. Those Calvinists who assert that non-Calvinists don’t really hold to the gospel. Those anti-Calvinists who assert that those who do not agree with them are damnable heretics.
I hope your spirit does not proliferate in the SBC. It is that kind of spirit that will bring us crashing down. We can do better than this Paul. We can love one another and show grace and kindness in spite of theological differences.
“We can love one another and show grace and kindness in spite of theological differences.”
Yes, I agree with this, David.
We CAN because it is commanded by Our Lord.
And, as Corrie ten Boom has written:
“And so I discovered that it is not on our forgiveness any more than on our goodness that the world’s healing hinges,
but on His.
When He tells us to love our enemies,
He gives, along with the command, the love itself.”
Of course, Dave’s comment assumes that the theological differences are differences that Christians can agree to disagree on. For instance, the question of Calvinism or Arminianism would be one where there are Christians on both sides of the debate. An example of a theological difference that would NO fall into the catagory Dave mentioned would be people who believe that a muslim could get to heaven without ever having personally, consciously trusted Christ to save him. No Christian believes that.
Fortunately, I think most Calvinists have a more gracious spirit than this comment evidences.
Dave,
Do not be too filled with pessimism…. Paul is not a Southern Baptist.
Really?
Brother Foltz needs to study the Baptist ministers in the period of 1740-1820 to find out how far they could go in dealing with other denominations and with theological differences. Also as to being a denomination, I suspect the churches of the Baptists (and this is without being a Landmarker at all) were little groups/churches that survived during the Dark Ages, maintaining some form of worship that was more biblical than what the state Church of Rome imposed. It is interesting that, according to the history of English Baptists, one of the first church fights among Baptists was over whether to have singing or not. Before the Reformation, singing would have led to your getting caught and burned at the stake. So a quiet message in the woods with a change in location for each meeting could escape the notice of authority. We really need an indepth and detailed knowledge of Baptist Church History…and general church history as well. It sheds a lot of light on doctrines and how they influence human behavior. I was impressed by what I found concerning our doctrine of ministerial qualifications and how it affected Baptist behavior over a 100 year period. Interestingly enough, that led to the discovery of how biblical doctrines can make one balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic or, in short, spiritually mature. The doctrines of our Book are exciting, thrilling, motivating, enthralling, enlightening, moving, marvelous, wonderful, appealing, attractive, winsome, etc., truths that really turn believers on to living the Christian Life, when they are grasped by such truths in the right way. Would to God tht we had a real measure of undertanding of the scriptural truths and how the apply to and in the life of believers.
There seems to be two issues.
1. Many – not all but certainly more than a few – Calvinists are more committed to promoting Calvinism (or should I say their own brand of Calvinism) within the SBC than they are to promoting the SBC, or for that matter Jesus Christ. The best evidence of this is their tendencies to rally around and defend Calvinists who exhibit serious error in their doctrines and practices no matter what effect it has on the non-Calvinist Southern Baptists. If these folks truly believed in the SBC, they’d countenance and take seriously legitimate, Biblical criticisms from their non-Calvinist peers, and if they were putting Jesus Christ ahead of their Calvinism, they would have noticed – and spoken out against – these errors themselves.
2. Many of the anti-Calvinists (and I use the term not to refer to those who do not agree with Particular Baptist theology, but those who oppose it and wish to drive it out of the SBC) are not open and honest with their thoughts and intentions. Instead of coming out openly and acknowledging that their problem is their disagreements with Calvinism itself and their being unwilling to be in fellowship with those who adhere to beliefs that they view as heresy, they erect straw men, such as the “relevance” movement, giving to the Cooperative Program, failure to identify primarily as Baptists and associating heavily with non-Baptists, anti-missionary attitudes, etc. This is nonsense as many non-Calvinist Baptists are “relevant” (see Warren, Rick) while many Calvinist Baptist are very traditional, high church Charleston types. Many non-Calvinist Southern Baptists neglect the CP and other SBC funds in favor of their own programs. Many non-Calvinists in the SBC identify as broadly evangelical, and have been cooperating with Methodists and Pentecostals for decades. And many non-Calvinist SBC churches have members that do not evangelize (save one or two) and are not involved in church planting. Basically, for the anti-Calvinist SBC who is looking for excuses without outwardly appearing to be, well, anti-Calvinist, it results in an “it is fine when we do it but oh so wrong when you do it!” stance. Take the controversy over the ESV … excuse me, but how popular was The Living Bible (with its blatant alteration of “Calvinistic” texts) in the SBC?
Solution:
1. The Southern Baptists who are primarily interested in Calvinism need to go elsewhere. I am not being schismatic, but rather it is for their own benefit. The reason is that when they do, they will find that being Calvinist isn’t so “fun” anymore because A) they will have the responsibility of building and maintaining their own convention instead of rebelling against the SBC – something akin to when a know it all teenager becomes a breadwinner, homeowner and parent and makes the SHOCKING discovery that his father and mother were right after all – and B) they will be the leaders representing the majority opinion, and not intrepid folks bucking the status quo. Once they are no longer “counterculture”, they will lose interest. It reminds me of how a lot of rock music fans in the late 80s and early 90s started listening to rap music and – gasp! – folk and country. They never really liked rock music to begin with, but rather being counterculture, and once rock music became mainstream, the establishment, they moved on looking for something else. And oh yes, if these “restless” types think that other established Calvinistic denominations – including Particular Baptist ones, yes they do exist – will accept their nonsense, they’re as deluded about that as they are concerning their own alleged hipness and coolness, or their “relevance” to anyone other than their sycophants.
2. The second group needs to be challenged to quit hiding behind straw men and conspiracy theories (yes, the Founders’ Ministries does exist, but they are a TINY MINORITY among Particular SBC pastors and adherents), ahistorical arguments and utterly false claims about being marginalized in a convention where most of the seminaries and most of the leadership is non-Calvinist (Brad Whitt and fellow travelers, I am talking about you, just as I am speaking of Mark Driscoll defenders as an example of group 1). That sounds just like “the blacks are taking over!” that you would have heard in certain segregationist quarters in the 1950s, or what you can tune into talk radio and hear (in more sophisticated, code word fashion) today, and it is almost as if they are reading from the same script. Especially when they ALL BUT say “We don’t mind having Calvinists in our convention so long as they are small in number, aren’t in leadership positions and KNOW THEIR PLACE!” Say what you want about the segregationists, they were explicit in what and why they wanted it, and where I most certainly disagree with them, I respect their honesty. It is the neo-segregationists with their “I support integration BUT …” code words and politics that are not worthy of respect. Let the anti-Calvinists come out and explicitly state “I believe that Calvinism is heresy and I do not wish to be in fellowship with and especially don’t want to be led (even in part) by those heretics” so that we can deal with these people’s views openly and honestly. Why? Because it is THOSE who are actually behaving in an honest, Christ-like manner. We may not want to acknowledge this, because in today’s era, we are used to avoiding direct conflict. That is not the way that it was in the Reformation or the times thereafter, when there was direct, even polemical discussions amongst Calvinists, Remonstrants, Quakers, Anabaptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Puritans … you name it. Back then, if someone felt that your view of the atonement was heretical, they wouldn’t hide behind “his church only gave 3% to the CP last year!” The people who are unwilling to honestly admit their anti-Calvinism and continue to hide behind other issues should be treated as precisely that: dishonest people.
Bottom line: the SBC does not need (allegedly) Calvinist subversives and rebels who are more interested in being “cool, hip and counterculture” than they are in being SBC (or for that matter Christian). And the SBC does not need folk given to a lack of honesty and scruples. The idea that we need to work to hold onto either group is false. Instead, members of both groups need to examine and reform themselves in order to become suitable for membership in the SBC or any other authentically Christian fellowship.
Insightful and balanced comment. Thank you, Job.
Thank you. If this “SBC Jerusalem Council” that Steve Lemke is promoting ever comes to pass it has to start with group 1 being challenged with “Do you want to be a Christian or a hipster”? and group 2 being challenged with “Admit that your issues are unconditional election and limited atonement and stick to that!”
The reason is that the “young, restless and (not really!) Reformed” are driving off non-Calvinists that are not anti-Calvinists with their behavior, and the straw-man anti-Calvinists are making rapprochement much more difficult than it has to be by using the regrettable “young, restless and (not really!) Reformed” antics as an excuse to avoid responsibility for their attempts to drive a wedge between Calvinist SBC and non-Calvinist SBC (as opposed to joining with the Calvinist SBC against all doctrinally suspect SBC types Calvinist AND non-Calvinist).
http://sbctoday.com/2011/04/05/the-shot-heard-%E2%80%98round-the-sbc-part-a/
http://sbctoday.com/2011/04/07/the-shot-heard-%E2%80%98round-the-sbc-part-b/
http://sbctoday.com/2011/04/08/the-shot-heard-%E2%80%98round-the-sbc-part-c/
http://sbctoday.com/2011/04/09/the-shot-heard-%E2%80%98round-the-sbc-part-d/
Job: Of course I disagree with both you and Jack. It seems this is the case of be a Calvinist but don’t teach or tell your doctrine. That just is not going to be the case and Calvinists are not the majority by a long shot. They also won’t be leaving anytime soon, so both doctrines need to be accepted as teachable. Let the people search scripture for themselves and come to a conclusion. In my view that is the only way this schism is going to be solved. I am Calvinist and go to a large church for our community(over 2,000 and growing) with both Calvinist and non-calvinists. Both teachings are taught. NO fights. No splits.
I might add I have been a member of this church for almost 20 years.
I agree with Debbie (shock). I think a healthy discussion of doctrines of grace, etc. can be done in a very civil way and be helpful.
It’s when you put an “ism” on the end and fight to the death that the problems arise.
To be quite honest, I’ve only had one discussion in 32 years in which the word, Calvinism, came up (not counting SBC Voices). But, I’ve had many discussions involving the same issues Calvin and others over the ages have dealt with.
For me it’s the “ISMism” that causes dissension.
Job #23, There is a whole lot of truth in this statement .
But the absence or presence of Calvinists with whatever attitude won’t cure the SBCs problems.
Job,
Huge problem with your “strawman” strawman. I do not know of any other “small minority” group that a conference was put together featuring the “small minority” group. The conference was titled “Building Bridges” and its sole purpose was to present Founders as a “we shall overcome” group because we are not this crazy uncle locked in the attic. Then the John 3:16 came along to right those incredible mis-representations of non-Calvinist it was the promoters were charged with not understanding Calvinism.
Thus, I will have to disagree with Dave, (gasp, gasp) I do not see the balance in your statement. Only the same position of the person made famous in his 1991 arrest that was filmed for all the world to see. He was driving drunk as speeds in excess of 117 mph, just released from his prison conviction of armed robbery. Then when the officers get acquitted of their roles in the video case brought against them, the people of LA have to endure a riot where people try to burn the city down. Then a civil trial is brought against the City of LA and King is awarded $3.8 million. After that trial he is quoted “can’t we all just get along?” Oh, one more tidbit of insight. In 2010 he married juror #5 in that civil trial.
Thus, it seems that you are banking your desire to remain balanced on some faulty ground. I, as a “Brad Whitt traveler” see the SBC direction as that of the Rodney King analogy. Of course all analogies break down and this one breaks down at the point that Rodney King was a criminal and the Founders are not. However, the point of comparison is the same. But for Rodney King, not drinking and driving he would not have been placed under arrest and the entire ordeal that followed would not have happened. It is the same with the Founders. But for their complaining about their not having a place at the table (which they had btw, not only did they have a place but they owned the table) we would not have the splintering to the level we enjoy today.
Now, before anyone charges me with saying anyone has to get out of the SBC, I am not saying any such thing. I am saying the rhetoric, and alliances never before thought to be done, has been ratcheted up to levels I have not seen since 1989. Those two areas is what “Brad Whitt and travelers” are speaking out against. We are not dishonest and I call you to recant your charge of us as “folk given to a lack of honesty and scruples”. That is if Dave allows this comment as he has always shut down my comments that disagreed with his. He as already commended you for your “insight and balance” so I can see what he thinks of Brad Whitt.
Blessings,
Tim
Blessings,
Tim
Tim: If you will remember correctly, the Building Bridges Conference was just that. An attempt to build bridges between Calvinist and non-Calvinist. It wasn’t anything near to a “we shall overcome” conference. In fact both Calvinist and non-Calvinist were invited to that Conference. Both spoke.
Then we have the John 3:16 Conference supposedly in response to the Building Bridges Conference.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29318
Here is a link for the Building Bridges Conference, in which you were in attendance weren’t you Tim? In fact an interview done by you still exists. 🙂 It was also the first time Danny Aiken presented his vision of the Great Commission Resurgence.
http://blog.founders.org/2007/11/building-bridges-conference-hot-links.html
Debbie,
To begin with you need to understand that I am, against my better judgment, entering into a discussion with you that I know will do no good but waste my time writing and your time reading. I will not change your mind and I do not pretend to think I can. However, regardless of the useless waste of both of our times I think I will try to give you the facts.
You begin with a huge misunderstanding:
Name the non-Calvinist group that was invited to participate. You then proceed to advance further misnomers when you say;”
when the very link you provided never mentions Building Bridges. It begins by saying;
Huge difference in what it actually says and what you, not being in attendance, are trying rewrite history for it to say.
Then you follow up your baseless claims by charging me with attending the Building Bridges conference. Certainly I attended, but it does not mean I was in agreement with the conference. I thought it was good and yes, Dr. Akin presented the GCR paper at that conference. But, Building Bridges was a conference put together to bring national attention to Founders ministry. That is was its intent and it succeeded.
Blessings,
Tim
You will notice the John 3:16 Conference wasn’t exactly about building bridges. 🙂
Tim: There is a list of speakers on the link I gave. Malcolm Yarnell, Ed Stetzer were just two of them. It is why I provided the links to both.
BTW I realize(and boy do I realize) you were not in agreement with the conference. I believe I wrote at the time why I thought you were there.
Then you follow up your baseless claims by charging me with attending the Building Bridges conference.
You were there were you not Tim? How is this a baseless charge? I read my comment and all I said is that you were there. You say you were there. I remember both conferences well, although we couldn’t hear the talks from the John 3:16 conference because one had to pay in order to hear them.
And in reality it was a response to the Building Bridges Conference. That was a no brainer Tim.
Admittedly before the John 3:16 conference, Tom Ascol of the Founder’s blog was hopeful that it would be a positive response, I do not believe such was the case.
http://blog.founders.org/2008/03/john-316-conference.html
BTW Tim, Steve Lemke himself said
This conference is intended as a majoritarian Southern Baptist response to the “Building Bridges” and “Together for the Gospel” conferences. The announcement of this conference has already provoked considerable buzz and speculation in the blogosphere.
How dare you disagree with me, Tim!
Heretic! Liberal! Democrat!
(Sorry, I went too far with that last one.)
Debbie,
Once again I restate my basis for response–I am entering into a discussion with you that I know will do no good but waste my time writing and your time reading.
What Group of Non-Calvinist has Dr. Malcolm Yarnell been a part of organizing and leading? The last I checked Ed Stetzer considered himself at least a 4-point Calvinist.
This one is so outlandish I really do not want to address it. However, I will address it because Dave has sarcastically mimicked you for disagreeing with me. But to prove my point here goes: Your quote first, in its entirety:
Now my quote that you “quote-mined from”.
Now, for someone who prides herself for her prowess in research, you certainly do not do a good job. I mean the very next sentence was an admittance by me that I attended the conference. As a matter of fact, I spent most of my time hanging out with our friend CB Scott.
Therefore, Debbie, until you can present a reasonable presentation without coming to the topic with your mind already made up, this conversation is over.
Dave,
Are you going to address the charges of a racist attitude and the character attack of “folk given to a lack of honest and scrupples” concerning Brad Whitt and those who “travel” with him, that you agreed was a “fair and balanced” statement? Where is the honesty and openness you call for in the article? Or is that just another way of saying, you are right and you do not care what the facts show?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim: One last word(because I just have ta) 🙂 To my knowledge Ed Stetzer is not Calvinist. I believe he has said this a few times. If you have evidence that suggests he is I would like to see it.
Second: Groups? I read your comments Tim and the things you address I have no idea what you are talking about…or who you are talking to because I said nothing of non-Calvinist groups, although they do exist I believe, they exist not in the form of a particular group but group of individuals. All I said was non-Calvinists(and I wanted to say anti-Calvinist, but decided to be gracious there too) and Calvinists were invited to attend the Building Bridges Conference, such was not the case with the John 3:16 conference, which was a anti-Calvinist meeting in response to the Building Bridges Conference. I suggest you look at the links I so graciously provided.
I’m still looking to Building Bridges. I think both can co-exist nicely. Some still do not feel this way, and while understandable it is based on a decidely misunderstanding of what we believe. I say decidely because the Building Bridges conference was to hear both views in context. The views from that conference are free to hear online. There should no longer be the misunderstanding so some decided to still present a distorted view of Calvinism.
And Tim, I do agree with you that Job’s comments were anything but “fair and balanced.” I would disagree on the reasons for that, but hey, I do agree with your assessment. Just for the record. 🙂
Tim, you read some things into Job’s comments I didn’t see.
I saw him saying that both sides of the Calvinist/Non-C thing need to stop caricaturing the other side, demonstrating bad attitudes, etc.
That is what I saw as balanced – calling both sides, not just one, to adjust attitudes.
I agree with Tim that it was completely unnecessary in this instance to invoke racists from the 1950s to draw some sort of comparison to “Brad Whitt and fellow travelers” who feel marginalized. Surely Job could have made his point without reaching into the 1950s for a line about segregationists and fears that “the blacks are taking over”
A little surprised that no one before Tim took offense to that claim. Maybe they just skipped Job’s lengthy comment as it had virtually no paragraph breaks! I admit to doing that with the resident “Dr.” here who also has trouble finding the Enter/Return key.
Also, I’m surprised no one responded to the last line of Job’s comment which was quite radical. Here it is:
“Instead, members of both groups need to examine and reform themselves in order to become suitable for membership in the SBC or any other authentically Christian fellowship.”
The implication here is that the different constituencies in the SBC are lacking in the “authentically Christian” category. Therefore, they need to “reform themselves.” The idea that a particular group should change its identity, specifically its theological identity, in order to conform to the norms or what’s suitable in the SBC or any other denomination is really a radical and ridiculous idea. Instead of celebrating diversity, Southern Baptists should conform to become “suitable” for membership. I don’t see how that approach contributes to making any Christian fellowship more “authentic.” Any person/church/group that would shed or reform their sincere convictions and commitments in order to be viewed as “suitable” definitely is lacking in the authenticity category.
I’m not going to agree with Southern Baptists on too many specifics. But I do admire the emphasis that some such as Bart Barber have put on the need to be convictional Baptists. A convictional Baptist is not one who would make changes/reforms for the sake of becoming more suitable.
Dave,
Balanced? Job wrote, “It is the neo-segregationists with their “I support integration BUT …” And, that, to you, is balanced? Rhetoric like this is acceptable and “balanced,” the type of language which assists in fixing the splintering in the SBC? Allowing Job to get away with connecting Brad Whitt and “fellow travellers” with racism, “neo-segregationists”? Because it was, well, “balanced”?
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter, I explained my comment. If you wish to play the prosecutor, you have other places to play that game.
On this site, you do not get to pretend that people have said what they did not say.
Tim,
Are you stating that ‘Building Bridges’ did not have a point/counter-point presentations of Calvinist/non-Calvinist positions?
As I recall, SEBTS was one of the sponsors which is why Dr. Akin acted as sort of a moderator. Did he share this duty with Ascol? I don’t recall right off. I do remember briefly meeting you, C.B. and Bob at some point.
As to the John 3:16 Conference (which I live blogged next to a Challies blogger friend Andrew), I was always confused that this conference was a response to Building Bridges. I say that because the John 3:16 Conference did not have a point/counter-point, but only represented one side, the non-Calvinist side.
It would seem, then, that an olive branch was more clearly extended at the Building Bridges Conference, regardless of whether or not Founders was one of the hosts.
Mark,
First, the Building Bridges was a co-adventure between Founders and SEBTS. Others jumped into the event as sponsors but if you will remember Ascoll and Akin both had an opening and a closing statement.
Second, I was not at the John 3:16 conference as it was never billed as a reply to the Building Bridges conference. According to the BP news release that spoke with those who were the organizers
I know that Dr. Lemke spoke that it was a response to the Building Bridges conference. However, Dr. Lemke was not one who organized it. He may have presented his position as being against the Building Bridges but that was not the purpose of the conference. Your confusion, to which you admit, proves the very point that I am making. There was no point/counter point provided because it was never intended to be a response.
As to your “olive branch” with the Building Bridges conference there was only one person that made a presentation that came out not in agreement with Calvinism–Dr. Yarnell. Dr. Keathley, who spoke at both conferences, even placated Calvinism by presenting his position as a Molinist.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I suppose my confusion over Lemke’s letter about the John 3:16 Conferences is due to NOBTS being one of the sponsors. Of course, Lemke has a sort of high level position at NOBTS. 😉
As to the assertion that only Yarnell defended a position contrary to Calvinism, I’m with Travis on this one. Even this BP article For whom did Christ die?
explained that David Nelson argued for a, “biblical apologetic for a non-Calvinistic view of atonement.”
Another example is Lawless, who addressed some of the charges Calvinists make of non-Calvinists in evangelism.
Keathley holds a “middle” position (pun intended). Since he did speak at both conferences contra the Calvinist position he can hardly be said to be placating Calvinists. I’m not saying he is hostile to Calvinism, but he did attempt to provide alternatives to it.
I’m unsure whether or not you agree with my olive branch comment. It seems clear to me that if you check out the book that came out of Building Bridges it was much more of an attempt to help both camps get along better.
“The conference was titled “Building Bridges” and its sole purpose was to present Founders as a “we shall overcome” group because we are not this crazy uncle locked in the attic.”
Tim? Did you attend the same meeting I attended? Is Malcolm Yarnell a calvinist? BTW, it is incorrect to identify someone who holds to two or three or four points of the TULIP as calvinists. That wouldn’t hold up in court or on a theology test for that matter.
Travis,
Good to hear from you again. How are things in Virginia? If you are going to be in the Charlotte, NC area anytime let me know so we can get together.
Now, yes we attended the same conference. Yes, Dr. Yarnell was there and he was the only one that did not agree with Calvinism as a Doctrine. However, I do recall him stating that if we were identifying Calvinism based on John Calvin’s writings alone he would be considered a Calvinist. However, Travis, your point about the points of Calvinism is not well taken even among Calvinist. Many neo-Calvinist will accept a person as a Calvinist regardless of the points of agreement. As long as they will acknowledge the points of Calvinism they will consider them a Calvinist. Your point that only those who agree on all 5-Points are considered Calvinist is Dortian Calvinism which is exactly what the John 3:16 conference exposed.
Now, I want you to know that I agree with you as that anything less that 5-points is not Calvinist.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
You are grasping at straws. You can’t be serious that Dr. Yarnell was the only one who “didn’t agree” with calvinism. I will grant that he was the only one who appeared contentious in his presentation. But what about James Merritt? Danny Akin? Chuck Lawless? Ken Keathley? David Nelson? David Dockery? and J.D. Greear?
Keep repeating the term “Dortian” enough and maybe people will catch on and join your witch hunt.
The counter-conference to “Building Bridges” was nothing more than a propaganda rally made into book.
How am I? Better than I deserve. I’m sure our paths will cross.
Jack, I agree with you, but your post made me think of something:
suppose the SBC is not cured and splinters or even dies, how would that affect the ministry of my church in my local community (or many others like mine?”
And, I think we just assume it would greatly affect global missions (at least we CP supporters would like to think so). But, would a splintering of the SBC necessarily translate to less mission work, or just lead to another, better approach? Is that even a possibility one can discuss.
Frank L, I’ve not played ” what if ” with this very much. But if you’re paid by the SBC then they have complete control of all the assets to do with whatever they wish – and there’s a lot there. They could take care of everybodys fat retirement who can retire but healthcare could be ticklish after a while as that entity would go and when things get hot the courts would take over and Medicare would be there waiting even for Richard Land. The best spot to be , in my humble opinion is in a well run church where you get to go to church every day and Grow bigger and better, pay for what you can afford and live happily ever after – paying yourself first and then giving to causes or cases as there would be many put on the bread line that have never really wondered what was next for themselves. I just don’t know where in this country they could hide out after a move like that. pakistan use to be quiet and maybe now is again. The fact that they are not seemingly very worried about any of this is strange – unless there was a ” hole in the wall ” waiting. Just thinking out loud Frank. Probably shouldn’t hit “submit” but why not it’s a free country- here goes.
My, it seems that we who are the successors as well as the descendants of the founders (note small f…not the party) are no longer welcome in the organization which our theological predecessors and ancestors actually founded. That kind of talk is pure egotism as bad as the evils being addressed.
As to the Sovereign Grace truths, they were regarded by the founders of the first Associations and of the SBC as the very heart of the Gospel, with some allowance for folks who took the statement that Christ “tasted death for every man”(Hebs.2:9) to mean He died for everyone without exception, when most then clearly grasped the fact that He had tasted deqth for every child (son). Obviously, too, the idea is not well-known that paradoxes can be and are therapeutic. Some one is always harping on the reprobates, when the truth is that is all that God saves. Just think: How many souls would you expect to save with the message of judgment, an unconditional message that in one month and 10 days God shall destroy you. Along with that message was not one offer of hope or mercy, not a single inviting phrase like, “if you repent, God might spare you.” Sounds worse than election or particular redemption. Yet the man who delivered such gloom and doom word expected that the people who he wanted to see destroyed would be spared.
It is also real easy to ignore the fact that the Gospel of Sovereign Grace was the message that motivated and produced the First and Second Great Awakenings and launched the Great Century of Missions. Today, we give invitations, but we do not expect God to have any other purpose in mind than the absolute fulfillment of his prophecy that Jesus shall return in flaming fire with His holy angels, taking vengeance. We forget, overlook, never even think about the fact that one day Christ will be King over all the earth, that the earth shall be full of His knowledge and glory as the waters cover the sea, that when the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Lord shall raise up a standard, a counter flood, a greater flood, that where sin does abound, Grace does superabound and overwhelm it. And God’s greatest glory is for His message and its representatives to win the day as Jesus did by suffering and winsomeness.
Anyone can win by force of arms, but, considering that Satan destroyed the whole world by cunning and deceitful and cruel treachery, surely, it is God’s greatest glory to win more back than was lost in the Fall by His glory, the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by those who devote their lives to winning by that old fashioned and yet wonderfully irresistible way. I for one do not intend to go elsewhere, and, if voted out by one group of Southern Baptists, I will go to another and another. Sooner or later I will happen on – by God’s providence – those who hold to the views of the founders. And by continued prayers Heaven shall come down and the Third Great Awakening will occur, the one in which the Heavenly Presence comes down to earth in such great abundance as to melt the hardest of hearts and the greatest multitude of hearts and that fr a 1000 generations in order to fulfill the promises to the Patriarchs and to our Lord and Savior, a number as innumerable as the stars of Heaven, the sand of the sea, the dust of the earth, that which no man can number. And all of it by prayer and preaching, prayer that pleads those promises as did Carey and Fuller and Rice and Furman and Mercer and Stearns and Marshall and Gano and Holland and the Craigs and Leland and a host of others. And we can do it without hatefulness and without the need to set on a person’s case until they conform to our own theological expectations.
My ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell, knew I did not buy calvinism or sovereign grace, when he ordained me, and he did not st out to set me straight. And yet within a year I began to change, while serving in my first pastorate. In fact, when I was still a member of my home church in St. Louis and brought up the issues of the doctrines of grace, Dr. Campbell would not even discuss them with me, saying, “You don’t know enough to talk about them!” Hard blow for my ego, but good for my soul as I later realized. Imagine, a fellow barely 21 with 2-3 years of college thinking he could straigthen out a fellow with a Ph.D. who had been preaching for nearly 20 years, a man who had seven years of Greek, four years of Hebrew, two years of Armaic, two years of French, and two years of German. I should add that Dr. R.G. Lee thought so much of Dr. Campbell and his theological accomplishments that he put it in his will for Dr. Campbell to preach his funeral. True, Dr. Lee had five preachers for his funeral, but he made sure of one, Dr. Campbell. I will also add that Dr. Campbell preached some the most moving evangelistic sermons I ever heard in my life…like, “Why Sit Ye Here Till Ye Die”and “The Great Supper.” But he would also preach election and tell you from the pulpit that he was a hyper-calvinist, a supralapsarian and go on to plead with men to come to Christ for salvation until the tears ran down their faces. He was somewhat like Ev. George Whitefield whose last message was preached on the steps leading up to the room where he would die that night, and he preached for over an hour until the candle in his hand burnt out in its holder.
Dr. Campbell went to school with and was friends with T.W. Wilson, Billy Graham’s childhood friend and treasurer of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. In one revival in Georgia in a country church, Dr. Campbell had 100 converts. A great number of ministers were called during his ministry in South Carolina, Missouri, Florida, and Kentucky and in other places. But think of Dr. Lee who was also a five point Calvinist who never mentioned it much like Dr. Campell did. Each man has his own way, the way God appointed him. When God calls, He equips and He controls.
I expect in answer to prayers and faithfulness to the original teaching of Southern Baptists that we shall win the day without mistreating or abusing anyone. It is true even Paul could get all bent out of shape and then come to change his mind. Look at his contention over John Mark, and his comment on love not behaving itself unseemly or being easily provoked in I Cors. 13. The victory belongs to the truth and those who follow it in all humbleness of mind and heart. The Gospel of Sovereign Grace is like sugar in your tea; it is meant to make us sweet. I know I have no interest in running anybody out of the SBC and that we ought to seek to make allowances for and be winsome toward those with whom we differ. We can stand for the truth without being repulsive. Yes, even in our most serious disagreements we can present our disagreement in a winsome manner.
Looking forward to your upcoming post on Southern Baptist parameters (if that’s the term you would use)!
Debbie Kaufman and similar:
I was most certainly not saying that Particular Southern Baptists should refrain from teaching their interpretations of the Bible, or from concerted attempts to plant exclusively Particular Southern Baptist churches, or from attempting to increase their numbers and influence in or even seek a majority of the Southern Baptist Convention. Instead, I was speaking against the “anything goes so long as you are a Calvinist, and if anyone criticizes one of ‘our’ contemporary Calvinist leaders and heroes, that person is OBVIOUSLY motivated by anti-Calvinism” stance. I mean come on, they refer to THEMSELVES as “young”, “restless” and “Reformed.” That is 1960s, counterculture radical stuff that is precisely the opposite of what the Old and New Testament says about the spiritual and character attributes needed for Christian leadership. The Timothy, Titus, Peter, John etc. epistles speak over and over again about the need to be sober, wise and mature and these folks are throwing it all away in order to try to be what was considered cool back in 1986. A lot of these folks are just adding Calvinism to the list of things that they can rebel against their elders, “the establishment” over.
Debbie, many of these people don’t even know about, care about or respect their Reformed elders in the SBC, and could care less about its history! If the SBC’s leadership and majority membership were Calvinist, they’d be rebelling against them too, and they’d be using the exact same arguments that the anti-Calvinists are! How many of these “young, restless and Reformed” sorts would spend FIVE MINUTES in a traditional, Charleston Association type Baptist church? Yet they are perfectly willing to endure questionable doctrines, strange practices, and VILE LEWD LANGUAGE IN THE PULPIT from anyone who calls himself a Calvinist evangelical?
I am sorry, but that is a problem, and it is an even bigger problem that the non (or anti-) Calvinists are much more willing to take it on (even out of dishonest motivations) than the Calvinists are.
Job: And this is what I see. Young people questioning doctrine, calling us back to looking at the Bible and not tradition. Young people who see(and I agree) a denomination that has gotten away from Christ and into just plain arguing over everything big and small. They are tired of it. I don’t see them as anti-establishment. I’ve been called that too and I’m 55 years old for crying out loud! I think they just want Christ, the excitement that is being a Christian and for us to quit acting like our doctrine requires us to eat lemons. And you know what? They are 100% right in my opinion.
I say leave them alone. They are doing just fine. I see them as completely opposite of the way you paint them Job. They are getting us to think, and it’s about time.
Debbie, when I hear you say “they are getting us to think,” I wonder what you were doing before these “young and restless came on to the scene.”
Personally, I don’t need a bunch of young and restless half-baked theologians to make me think. I’ve tried to think all along the 35 year path of ministry.
Personally, I don’t think you adore these “young and restless types” because they are “deep thinkers,” but because they think like you do.
If that is true, you aren’t thinking at all, just following a different tradition. I don’t see that as any great improvement.
Tradition is tradition whether it’s old or new. I don’t see swapping a “new tradition and scrapping an old one” as a step forward.
I believe that our identity as Baptists is tired to our traditions we feel are handed down from the apostles. So, to be anti-traditional, for me is to be anti-apostolic. I don’t make the same leap that you do — tradition is bad and everyone who challenges tradition is a “thinker.”
That’s just not how I see it. I do respect your right to see it differently and I understand that you do.
Bitter much against these young ministers Frank?
Calling them half-baked theologians has gotten my blood pressure up in such a way Frank, that I’ll not answer the rest of your comment. I will end up saying things I shouldn’t. I can tell you that your comment is not words any minister of God should be using.
Let’s take a deep breath and count to 10 folks.
“”Bitter much against these young ministers Frank?””
Not at all — I was one once. I just read a quote from John Wesley that said (and I’ll have to quote from memory): “When I was young I thought I understood everything, but as I’ve aged, I’m not sure I understand much of anything.”
I will freely admit that the older I have gotten, the more I appreciate the traditions of men of faith who have gone before (as imperfect as they certainly were).
I’ll let you decide whether that means I’m getting wiser, or just getting senile.
PS–Debbie, I really didn’t mean the “half-baked theologian” statement as pejoratively as you took it. Being a theologian takes a lot more time than becoming a blogger of theology.
Consider the term an “joyful joust” if you will; or a reminder that sometimes all you get from rocking the boat is . . . wet!
I don’t have a problem with honoring a past civil rights event. But I much prefer that we work to have our congregations look more like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8UiNxJk_ec
Chief Katie, The Choir looks great – all sizes , shapes & colors – and has a super sound carried by a free spirit.
Jack,
Thank you for your kind words. I’ve been praying, and yes, even wishing that we could actually work together to stop Sunday morning from being the most segregated hour in our country. There was a time, when I thought I’d never see a truly integrated church. The Brooklyn Tabernacle has worked hard to achieve this success. It wasn’t always this way. It’s so heart lifting to see people really worship King Jesus. It makes some of the other things that the Battlin’ Baptists do, seem petty in comparison.
I’m convinced the only way to move forward is to literally “keep our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith”.
God Bless.
Tim Rogers and similar:
With all due respect, you missed one of my key points. I did not accuse the anti-Calvinists of acting like segregationists from the 1960s and prior, but of the neo-segregationists from the 1970s and later. There is a real distinction between holding an opinion openly and honestly, and being motivated by an opinion that you are hiding (or falsely making it into a background issue). In the former case, the worst that you can be accused of is holding the wrong opinion, and hey, all humans are wrong about one thing or another. In the latter case, even if your opinion is right, you are still in error because of your duplicity, and your unwillingness to face the issue head on.
But if being compared to a neo-segregationist is offensive, the solution is not to object to the person who makes the comparison in the hopes of silencing him. Instead, the solution is to stop acting like a neo-segregationist. The way to do that is to plainly, explicitly state that your issue is with Calvinist theology. You believe that Calvinism is doctrinal error, and that this error poses a grave danger to the Southern Baptist Convention.
Since that is your true belief and motivation, then why is it not the main thrust of your discourse? The folks who believe “limited atonement is heresy and a denomination that has a large number of heretics within its leadership and membership will not be a vibrant and healthy one” need to boldly speak their convictions with courage instead of using the relevance movement, the Cooperative Program and other issues as bedsheets to hide under.
Peter Lumpkins:
So my comments are divisive but yours bring people together? Do you wish to put that notion to the test using your own posts and comments from your own blog?
Job,
Amen! Scripture tells us to have nothing to do with people who are divisive after having been warned twice.
Sadly, Peter has proven himself to be the definition of one who sows discord on a regular basis. If it is a genuine issue that normally Christians aren’t in complete agreement on, then I could tolerate it more graciously. But Peter goes to great lengths to be as inflammatory as possible. He is a master at misrepresenting the work (to say nothing of their words) of other Christians. I find it dishonest and generated from a spirit that is mean and delights in hurting others.
I do pray for him though. I know there is some good in him. Perhaps a reading from Galatians 5 is in order.
“I know there is some good in him. ”
Of course there. Glad you said that, Katie.
‘Of course there is’. (correction)
‘Chief Katie’ (second correction)
Travis,
Let’s see who is grasping at straws:
James Merritt?–self avowed Calvinist. Danny Akin?–self avowed 4-point Calvinist. Chuck Lawless?–don’t know because I missed his presentation. David Nelson?–Same as Church Lawless, but what I remember of his presentation he affirmed Calvinism doctrine. Ken Keathley?–I already spoke about him. He was able to affirm Calvinist Doctrine through his Molinist presentation. David Dockery?–Certainly he is a Calvinist, he made a joke against Arminiians by using the daisy.
Dr. Yarnell was not contentious he merely pointed out the theological flaws. Now, what other kind of straws do you think I am grasping.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
There you go again, grasping at straws. I heard Merritt’s sermon and nowhere did I get the impression that he was identifying himself as a Calvinist. Produce for me the quote where he has identified himself as such.
But see, you have to go stretching your argument that these men are Calvinists, while undermining your own argument two posts back. You yourself said that 4 points does not a Calvinist make.
All the men you just mentioned (Dockery included) have made public statements that they are indeed not Calvinists.
The tone and presentation of Dr. Yarnell left a negative impression on many. I don’t think I imagined that.
Travis,
Merritt is a Calvinist plain and simple. Many times at SEBTS Dr. Patterson would joke about the invitation Merritt gave as given by a Calvinist but was not in keeping to his soteriology.
Dockery, in his opening statements, conceded to Tom Nettles for the historical errors he (Dockery) would make. While Dockery may have stated he is not a Calvinist he certainly does not follow his words with his hiring practices.
While Dr. Yarnell left, as you say it, “a negative impression” you must remember Chuck Noblitt did not believe such. As a matter of fact he commended Dr. Yarnell for his address. If you remember, Dr. Yarnell took the position that today’s Calvinist were not Calvinist according to The Institutes.
Thus, we may both be grasping straws if we think we are going to change either one’s minds. 🙂
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Passing jokes that you may have incorrectly understood does not make one a Calvinist. You cannot give me one example of Merritt’s position in a sermon. In fact, at Building Bridges I remember distinctly that there was a point in Merritt’s message where the “amens” ceased among Calvinists because it was obvious that his position was inconsistent with his previous points (which most Calvinists would hold to). He did not present himself as a Calvinist.
So according to you, Dockery acknowledging the historical record of the SBC and Baptist history in general makes him a Calvinist. That’s the kind of stretching that you do often.
There was no Chuck Noblitt at the conference. You may have ment Jeff Noblitt, who may have been cordial toward Yarnell, but I promise you that he didn’t agree with the entirety of his address.
You have a bad habit of misrepresenting and reinterpreting people’s position, along with your mullet-wearing friend. In the real world we call that slander.
Travis,
So much for the cordiality of friends. Man, you have not spoken to me for a couple of years and the first time you do you accuse me, along with my mullet-wearing friend, (whoever that may be) of slander. So long.
Tim
Tim and Travis, this is not the kind of conversation we really want to have here. This kind of insinuation, insult and derogation is just not productive and I believe is damaging to the cause of Christ.
You can discuss whatever you wish to discuss, but talk to each other. If you cannot raise the spiritual level of this conversation, then please just drop it.
Dave,
I appreciate your attempt at moderation. I also appreciate your call for humility in this article. It is not often that I respond this way, but when someone misrepresents others consistently here and elsewhere with regard to their theological position, encouraging others to do the same, I find it difficult not describe what I’m reading. You know full well that there is particular agenda in mind with these statements. I find that damaging to the cause of Christ.
Tim cannot defend the claims he has made. I noted that this seems to be pattern. I did not intend to be derogatory.
I take back the mullet comment, which I intended merely in playful jest, being a product of the 80’s myself.
James Merritt started well. He claimed to believe in election, but not predestination in the Calvinist sense. He finished story of how the Lord allowed him to lead a man to Christ on the flight up here. We rejoiced! But then the hammer came down. He basically said that is what we are to be doing is sharing the Gospel, but if we want to argue about these doctrines then he’ll not be part of it. I heard what seemed to be a bit of anger or frustration in his voice. I appreciated most of his presentation, but when he finished in that way which seemed to be to draw us in and then implicitly accuse Calvinists of
just wanting to argue. Though I understand what he was getting at and heed his warning, I just want to say that we aren’t arguing with ourselves. This certainly turned a few of us off as we really couldn’t figure out where this came from. I appreciated his willingness to work together with Calvinists. His presence alone tells us that he loves us, accepts us and will stand with us for the sake of Christ. And since he is practically down the street from me I’d have no problem discussing things over coffee or evangelizing with him.
http://hereiblog.com/southern-baptists-building-bridges-reflections/
Job,
Don’t think I missed your key point as I was not the only one that noticed the racist charge. One thing you need to know about me and BDW. While we are friends we are totally on the opposite ends of the SBC spectrum. For him to call you out on a racist statement he has the experience to see it.
Blessings,
Tim
Dave, Just a question… as you read the responses to your post… do you still think the SBC’s future can be bright?
If the SBC was made up only of certain bloggers, there would be little cause for optimism, Tom!
The optimism is found in all the folks that have a little time to read, not a lot to comment, because they’re striving to fulfill their responsibilities. Or the pastors in the disaster areas that have no internet but no time to think about that because they’re feeding tornado survivors, stacking sandbags against the river, or fixing the bathroom plumbing because the church just wasn’t quite constructed to shelter that many folks for that long.
There are many places to find the optimism. Even that Dave lets me come on here and vent my frustrations is one of them. But there’s hope—
If we will ever decide on what the problem really is, we’ll be even closer to a solution.
For the record, here are some things in the post that have been largely ignored in the discussions:
And
It is somewhat discouraging.
Dave, it’s easy to be a Internet tough guy; or an Internet victim. It takes more effort to receive comments with grace; and to give comments with grace, in written form, since there’s no body language, smiles, etc.
There are however several of you that are good examples we can look to. I appreciate these examples; and hope to continue learning how to the comment and how to receive comments unto God’s glory alone.
Dear Peter,
With that I am,
Not Playing Your Games
Dave,
Would you like me to post the question again? It must have not communicated well. Or perhaps you didn’t receive it. Let me know.
With that, I am…
Peter
I will answer any straightforward question I am asked. I assume by that statement that the question will deal with what I actually said and not the kind of twisting of my words that Tim Rogers has engaged in .
But ask me an honest question I will give an honest answer.
Dear Dave,
Did you get the straight-forward question or need I post it again?
With that, I am…
Peter
I replied by email Peter.
Dave, here is a huge example of what is wrong with the sbc: http://sbctoday.com/2011/05/09/hold-the-hearse-i-have-an-idea/. Some want the sbc to be their sbc, when we should be seeking for it to be “our sbc” representing all of our churches. Men like this prove they want the sbc to be their’s alone through their unwillingness to cooperate with other southern baptists that affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
Jared, I read the article a couple times. Perhaps I did not get to the right link, but I did not see where the writer said he wanted it to be “his” SBC and not “Our” SBC.
In fact, unless I was reading the wrong article, he was arguing that we should value and protect “our” SBC to keep it “our” SBC.
It was an “opinion” piece, but I don’t see what was so objectionable about suggesting we should value and protect “our” SBC from those with doctrinal and methodological differences that would erode cooperation. I agree wholeheartedly, except I think he may have been a little strident when he said, “take NAMB with you.”
In order for something to be an “our” there has to be an “not ours.” That’s basic logic.
Frank, Nash is calling for the ousting of anyone that doesn’t agree with him… and yet, there are southern baptist churches that affirm the BF&M 2000 and have given to the CP for years upon years. They have a right to be a voice in the sbc as anyone else.
Frank, it’s ironic that you even speak of “cooperation” for Nash is telling those that don’t agree with his narrow view of the sbc to take a hike. Don’t speak to me about cooperation or about harping on the CP until you are ready to cooperate with Calvinist Southern Baptists. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is the agreed upon confession of the sbc; therefore, to speak beyond it as grounds for being a Southern Baptist is to speak only your opinion. This is what Nash did; he’s narrowing the sbc based on his own desires and opinions, and telling everyone that doesn’t agree to take a hike. I don’t understand how he’s protecting “our sbc.” He’s merely seeking to protect his sbc. “Our sbc” includes Calvinist southern baptists. I think Nash needs to take a lesson from Les.
So, the answer to potential “eroding cooperation” is to tell those that agree with the BF&M 2000 and the vote of the messengers, but don’t agree with our narrow opinions of the what the sbs is, to leave the sbc? I don’t understand your logic Frank. Doesn’t cooperation = cooperating with other Southern Baptists instead of telling them to take a hike?
Jerry Nash’s attitude is just what is wrong with the SBC. It saddens me that SBC Today would print something like that.
Dave, I agree. What amazes me about several anti-Calvinists is that they’ll virtually support anyone that sides with their cause. If a Calvinist was writing what Nash wrote, and he was on “my side” theologically, I would write against him.
Jared, I don’t possibly see how you got all of that out of that one post. In fact, I did not see one reference to “Calvin” (the theologian or the comic strip).
You throw around pronouns like kids throwing snowballs in the winter, or a mom cooking spaghetti. I just don’t see all the “yours, his, ours, or theirs” in his post.
I suspect you know more about Nash than I do and you are reading your bias against him into the post. All I had was the post to read.
My logic is based upon the post you linked, not a life-long battle with Nash.
I agree with the premise: if you don’t like us and don’t want to be a part of us, then leave us. What you are suggesting is that the majority of SBC’ers disagree with Nash and his views. I cannot argue against that assumption because I don’t have a clue as to who Nash is.
Frank, I know nothing about Nash personally.
He said, “pro-Primitive Baptist doctrines (Calvinists) be blessed to go out and become whatever it is they want to be.”
He said, “If we continue to support non-Baptist networks and fund non-Baptist new churches” – this is at least a partial reference to the Acts 29 church planting network; a Calvinist church planting network that NAMB has been involved with some… or hasn’t been?
Calvinists have been part of the sbc throughout her history. To tell them to leave the sbc and form their own convention is anti-sbc based on our tradition. So, Nash in trying to protect recent tradition, is willing to deny the overall tradition on which the sbc stands!
We should be calling for cooperation instead of narrowing the sbc to include only non-Calvinists.
“”He said, “If we continue to support non-Baptist networks and fund non-Baptist new churches” – this is at least a partial reference to the Acts 29 church planting network; a Calvinist church planting network that NAMB has been involved with some… or hasn’t been?””
Please forgive me for not considering your enemies, my enemies, but I see some reason for concern if we go outside of the SBC to plant churches. I understand it is not real clear just how “involved” NAMB church planters may or may not be with Acts 29.
And, I don’t attribute the malice to his comments that you do. I took him as saying: “if any group wants to fundamentally change the direction of the SBC against the will of the majority they would be better off, as would we, to go do their own thing.”
I understand you attribute more baggage to Nash in regard to his motives and heart than I do. You could be right. But, throwing out words like “Calvinists, primitive Baptists, and such” to create a boogey-man seems to be a guarantee to a break down in communication.
Again, perhaps you know something about Nash’s motives and heart that I do not know, so I won’t defend the same. I’m just going on what was in the post you linked.
I do believe that there comes a point in which dissent becomes counter-productive and it is better to move on than stay simply to dissent for dissent’s sake.
If he is saying we should not allow people to voice their opinions in regard to Calvinism and other secondary doctrines, then I agree that is too narrow.
But, if you are saying that fundamentally changing our approach to the plan of salvation is not a problem, then I think your view is too broad. I took Nash as saying we should not accept a fundamental change in how we as SBC’ers view the plan of salvation (which I took as Nash’s characterization of an extreme view of Calvinism).
Again, I was thinking along the lines of the subject of this post. We have to have some fundamental baseline from which cooperation can begin. I took Nash’s post as saying, at least in part, that the doctrine of salvation is part of the starting line.
Frank, where did you get from Nash’s article: “I took Nash as saying we should not accept a fundamental change in how we as SBC’ers view the plan of salvation”?
Also, I don’t know of a single Calvinist in the sbc that has changed the “plan of salvation.”
Jared,
I’d have to go back and read the article. I thought for sure he said something about the need for a basic agreement on the plan of salvation. But, if you say he never mentioned the plan of salvation, I’ll take your word for it.
Again, I never said he said anything about “Calvinists.” You brought that up. So, I’m not really sure what we are discussing because apparently Nash has not concerns over a fundamental challenge to SBC’s fundamental doctrines. I thought that was the gist of his post, but I apparently read something quite different.
So, I’ll accept your evaluation, though I’m not sure what it is except apparently, Nash is a bad man.
There was very little that was conciliatory in that article, Frank.
Frank, It would take you 2 minutes to read the article again. Nash didn’t mention a thing about the plan of salvation. Don’t take my word for it, re-read the article.
I never said “Nash is a bad man.” I do think that people like him are the problem in the sbc. They whine about the Cooperative Program numbers while refusing to cooperate with fellow Southern Baptists that affirm the BF&M 2000 and are serious about the gospel. They blame Calvinists for everything even though the CP was in steady delcine long before Calvinism had a voice in the sbc. They’ll keep blaming Calvinism even though history and current Calvinists in the sbc prove them wrong. They don’t care about proof; only about an sbc of their own making. They want an sbc that goes beyond the BF&M 2000 in doctrine; and the messengers have not publicly agreed with them. So, they’re trying to stir up dissension. They should instead learn from those who came before us in the sbc on whose shoulders we stand; they worked together, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists, to reach the nations.
I think Nash needs to learn from Les. There’s room for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the sbc. Let’s cooperate in order to reveal God’s glory to the nations!
Dave, I would agree the article was not “conciliatory.” I just don’t see the “anti-Calvinists” venom you see. While he could have been more “conciliatory,” that article was not a flaming diatribe.
Jared suggests he is not making Nash out to be a “bad man,” but it certainly looks that way to me.
Again, I see a couple of lines I might have written differently (but probably not), but I think his major underlying premise is sound: there are factions of “anti-SBC” people that will never be compatible with the direction our Convention has decided to go. Therefore, leaving instead of destroying seems a better option. I think he is right.
I don’t see our Convention being able to gather the two factions insinuated in his article (and the criticism of his article) co-existing in one convention anymore than moderates who left to begin the CBF.
The more I see written in this thread, the less hopeful I am that there will not be a division in our future.
Certainly, if Nash’s article raises such ire as it has, it does not bode well for cozy times ahead. I’m not saying I agree with his conclusions, but that I think the issue he raises is one that must be addressed.
I’m not sure where the salvation idea came from. I read volumes of stuff each day. I must have transposed something in my mind.
Again, so I am clear: I don’t see that one article as being as inflammatory as you and Jared do.
Frank: Do you agree with the Nash article?
Frank, in his post Nash mentioned “pro-Primitive Baptist doctrines.” I can only imagine that is a reference to Calvinism since at the 2009 SBC Nash is reported to have blamed Calvinism for many SBC problems.
I’ll post my comment here about Nash’s article since it didn’t make it out of moderation at SBCToday:
“WOW. I find it ironic that Nash is the DOM for “Harmony” Baptist Association. It sounds like he wants the sbc to be HIS sbc, instead of everyone’s sbc… for, it is Southern Baptists that are seeking change. Why can’t we have honest conversations about the current way or the previous way ministries have been carried out in the sbc? They’re not working, or the CP wouldn’t be in constant decline. The CP has been in steady decline for almost 20 years… so exactly how is it NOT broke? We do need change and unity… and Nash’s response is definitely NOT what we need. Maybe Nash needs to change the name of his Baptist assocation to “My Way or the Highway” Baptist Association? Because, this is truly what he means. It’s ironic that he speaks about the cooperative program, and then reveals his unwillingness to cooperate with men who agree with the BF&M 2000. Nash, if you agree with the BF&M 2000, and you’re serious about the gospel, I’m ready to cooperate with you. Are you willing to seek the nations with me?”
Well, SBCToday is well reputed to be the bastion of open discussion, free debate and is known to be very receptive of those who may offer a differing viewpoint…
To Peter, Tim and others:
RE: Job’s comment above
1) I complimented Job for taking both sides to task for their attitudes.
2) I did not read the comment word for word and actually didn’t see the thing about the segregationist before I made my comment about the balance of his statement.
3) Therefore, when I complimented his balance I was specifically referring to the fact that he was calling both sides to account. I was not endorsing everything he said.
4) I believe that some of you have misinterpreted his argument and unfairly twisted his words.
JOB DID NOT SAY that Brad Whitt and others were segregationists or neo-segregationists. If that is what you read then you did not read his words carefully. He clarified his argument in a subsequent comment so it should be clear to all.
He said that Brad was using a tactic similar to that used by neo-segregationists. Neo-segregationists did not say, “We hate blacks.” They used other tactics and red herring arguments to hide their true motive, segregation.
What Job was accusing Whitt et al of was using that tactic. Because of their disdain for Calvinists, they are raising red herring arguments that mask their true desire – to rid the convention of Calvinism.
5) Had I read that argument, I probably would not have commended Job as I did. While I think that you folks have misread and misinterpreted what Job said, I think it was an incendiary argument that goes beyond what I would encourage in blogging debates.
So, for what its worth, that is my thinking.