There have been numerous posts recently from different SBC personalities about the visions competing for the future of the Southern Baptist Convention. In my opinion, the debate has gotten nasty and defaming to Christ. People have differing opinions on what these visions are and how many different visions exist. There is the Baptist Identity vision, the Founders vision(GCR), the cooperationists vision, and in my opinion there is the common man vision.(there are more visions, but I will leave it at those)
I am a common man. I want what is best for the Southern Baptist Convention. I am willing to put my own personal preferences to the side if that means a healthier convention. Convictions I cannot put to the side, but preferences I can.
I am Reformed, but am not sure if Tom Ascol took into account everything when he gave his vision for the future of the SBC. I think it comes down to a lot more than BI vs. Great Commission Resurgence. His post made it seem as if it comes down to being baptist centered or gospel centered. I just think there is more at play. I love Tom Ascol. I greatly respect his ministry, his heart, and his love for reformed theology. Yet, in my opinion any vision promoted by ‘hard’ calvinists will not come to pass in the SBC in the near future. Especially, when that vision is introduced in the way that it was. A way that seems to say, ‘Are you Baptist first, or Gospel first?’ Would anyone not say Gospel?
Ascol, Brister, and others have been accused of being divisive, but I disagree. I applaud there efforts and passion I just disagree, a little. It is not that I disagree with the goal of Ascol’s vision, but that I believe that there are more than two visions. I think within his ‘GCR’ vision there are split camps that must be dealt with. There are GCR ‘hard calvinists’ that want control. There are GCR non-calvinists that want calvinists to go away. There are GCR people who want to throw out the Warren’s and Stanley’s. If you simplify the debate to only BI and GCR, I will say GCR wins, but now lets deal with all of the differing visions within the GCR. Admittedly, I might be misunderstanding Ascol’s point or arguments. if so, please let me know.
I am personally acquainted with a few of the Baptist Identity crew, but I also don’t feel that their vision for the SBC would be the healthiest direction. I am not avid in ecumenism, but I disagree with a couple theological and practical points of the Baptist Identity Movement. The SBC would shrink in size, do less in missions, and have a shrinking influence in the Evangelical world.
The cooperationist vision for the SBC is one that would eventually destroy the Southern Baptist Convention. They pride themselves on ‘cooperation’ being distinctively Baptist, but I strongly disagree. That form of cooperation is not Baptist, it is liberal. I believe the hearts and motives are pure. I truly believe that those Spurgeon argued with in the Downgrade Controversy had good motives. They truly wanted to do what was best, but it wasn’t too long before they ceased to exist. Lines must be drawn. The SBC must draw lines on ‘second tier issues.’ Issues that do distinctively make us Baptist, particularly, Southern Baptist. The ‘cooperationist’ vision is the newest form of liberalism raising its ugly head in the SBC. If we follow the cooperationist vision to its logical end then only salvific issues stand. Before you know it we will throw out the Baptist view of Lord’s Supper, Baptism by immersion, etc…
So Where Is The Southern Baptist Convention Headed?
What Direction Is It Going?
It starts with leadership. First, let me say that I greatly respect Johnny Hunt. He is a good pastor and leader. The problem I see with his ‘type’ of presidency is that he is not or is even willing to take the Southern Baptist Convention in any particular direction, but merely holds it where it is. The pot is brewing my friends… Unless something is done, some type of direction is taken, it will spill over. That is not what we want. I think the Johnny Hunt presidency is perfect, for now. Why? Because we need time to think, pray, and debate about the future of the SBC before we make any strong moves. Do not get me wrong, a strong move is needed and coming.
I wrote a post recently asking who you all, readers of SBC Voices, would pick as your president if you got to choose. There was some interesting and predictable responses. Let me lay out some things I think we MUST have in the next president of the Southern Baptist Convention.
1. We must have a leader who is courageous. We need a leader who has a big, but humble personality. A person that is highly respected throughout all camps of the Southern Baptist Convention. One who can make a tough decision and although some will disagree they will still respect him for the decision made.
2. We need a man that puts Christ first. I say this, thinking it should be obvious. But implications to this point go to a high view of Scripture and a knowledge that first accountability is to God. Regenerate church membership, church discipline, etc are all issues that must be addressed. Only a man putting Christ first will be courageous enough to implement serious change in these areas. This partly goes with point 1. A person living and leading to please Christ will upset and anger some, but that doesn’t mean the decision does not need to be made.
3. We need a person that understand what holds together and drives the Southern Baptist Convention. Theology and Missions. Southern Baptists have not long been known for great theology, like many consider the Presbyterians, but we, no doubt, have our theological distinctions and they must be kept. Missions is something the SBC has always been known for, but in my opinion this has slid as of late. We are quite busy bickering over all of these different visions for the SBC.
4. Either a calm Calvinist or a friendly non-calvinist. Calvinism is a never ending battle within the Southern Baptist Convention. We either need a non-calvinist who is still theologically respected by 5 point Calvinists or a Calvinist that does have it on his forehead in an arrogant manner. We can’t even has a calvinist that puts his Reformed theology has a priority for change within the SBC. If the SBC becomes more Calvinistic it is going to have to continue the same way that it is now: through the younger, future generation of the SBC.
5. It is not a necessity to have a ‘shepherd.’ When people heard Mohler was going to be put up for election all the non-Calvinists of the convention decided to go the ‘we need a shepherd’ route. I think this is hogwash. In my opinion, it is a cop out. The non-calvinists just simply did not want a calvinist president and they were to cowardly to come out and say it! I am not sure that the SBC is ready for a Calvinist president, but if not let’s not be cowardice about it. There are a lot of pros to having a seminary president as the president of the SBC. I am not necessarily saying we MUST have an SBC president, but I am saying that it is hogwash to use the ‘we need a shepherd’ copout in order throw Calvinists and seminary presidents out of the running.
6. We need a president that has a strong relationship with older and younger generations of the SBC. The gap is widening and this is of utmost importance. The older generation must open its eyes and see that unless the torch is passed and young leaders rise their beloved convention will fade. They younger generation needs to shut its mouth every once in awhile, be humble, learn, and then put the same amount of work into the convention as the older generation. If you are a young leader and you really want to be active in the SBC I encourage to try going to some SBC conferences, make connections, and participate in SBC life rather than fleeing to Desiring God and Resurgence conferences. Yes, they are great. If you can go to both, DO! But do not whine about not having a voice when you aren’t putting in the time, money, effort, and support. With this widening gap it is a necessity to have a man that is respected by both generations.
7. We need a man that has a heart for planting new churches. Church planting, in my opinion, is in one sense the future of the SBC. If the SBC does not pick up the church planting it will fade. Older churches are dying, all the time. I believe we will see more and more of this as the Bible Belt continues to decline. These churches must be replaced with young, thriving, missions and theologically driven churches in order for the SBC to thrive.
8. Finally, we need a man that is willing to lead. A man that is a servant. A man that will make tough decisions and lead this hurting, limping convention into the future. Our next president can not be weak or the pot will boil over and things will go from bad to worse. He must lead with full conviction, even when some are walking away.
With all of that said, we need Dr. Daniel Akin as the conventions next president. He fits the criteria above better than anyone. He is highly influential, respected, and is a very strong leader. I am from Southern, some might assume I thought Mohler would be the best man for the job. I think he would be very good, but I think Akin is what this convention needs.
I used to think a big grass roots movement would be best for the convention. A grass roots movement that would lead to a big presidential nomination for this coming convention in Louisville. That would not be best for the convention. It might have its pros but it would definitely widen the gap between generations as Dr. Hunt would be disrespected. It would also start an Akin presidency off on the wrong foot.
There you have it, my opinion. I could be swayed. I decided to write this post way before the next president would be elected so we can get some serious, non-bashing, humble dialogue.
Matt: I don’t necessarily disagree with you in your vision for the SBC. But I am curious as to what you believe the Baptist view is on the Lord’s supper. It seems that there is not just one view among Southern Baptist churches. So, how would that change exactly?
Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..True Doctrine Leads Us To A Deeper Love For God, Which Leads To A Deeper Love For People
When it comes to the Lord’s Supper I am speaking of the doctrinal differences between the traditional baptist view and views such as the Catholic, Lutheran, etc views of the Lord’s Supper.
If there is a ‘Baptist’ church that holds the same view as the Catholic view when it comes to the Lord’s Supper than they aren’t really ‘Baptists.’ They might be in the sense of ecclesiology, but not when it comes to the ordinances.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..Foolish Pastoring?
“That form of cooperation is not Baptist, it is liberal.”
What do you mean by “liberal”? Are you assuming that if something is “liberal” that it is therefore wrong? It seems that’s what your statements imply, and that’s why I ask what you mean by “liberal.”
I’m open to Baptist identity being “reformed” if and when we, as Baptists, come to the conclusion that something (doctrine of practice) which has been traditionally considered as part of bundle of Baptist identity is either inconstant with Biblical principles or less consistent with Biblical principles than an alternative doctrine or practice. Therefore, although it’s important to be conscious of Baptist distinctives, simply establishing that something is distinctively Baptist does not go far enough.
Bradleys last blog post..Karl Barth’s Denial of Justification as the chief Article of Soteriology
i meant “inconsistent”
Bradleys last blog post..Karl Barth’s Denial of Justification as the chief Article of Soteriology
Liberal in the sense of pre- Conservative Resurgence. Following that lone of thinking we would gain have men in our seminaries teaching anti-biblical things. i.e. one can lose their salvation.
Make Sense?
Matt Svobodas last blog post..Foolish Pastoring?
I prefer Dr. Mohler because he is better known in and outside of the convention.
I would put them on the same level as who is known within the convention. Also, at this point, I dont think it matters how known they are outside the convention.
The problem with Mohler is that he is a Calvinist. Whether we like it or not, I don’t, the convention as a whole will be less receptive to a Calvinist in charge. Which is why the ‘we need a shepherd’ came out last time his name was mentioned.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..Foolish Pastoring?
Matt: I’m sorry but I have so many questions, narrowing it down to two however.
No one to my knowledge is advocating the Lord’s supper in any way but as Southern Baptists believe. The only issue I have heard is open or closed communion. Is this what you believe open communion leads to? Have you heard of any Southern Baptists going the way of Luthern or Roman Catholic?
Secondly: How or why do you believe people would be less receptive to someone like Al Mohler, who for all intensive purposes would probably agree with the points you have listed in the body of your post?
Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..True Doctrine Leads Us To A Deeper Love For God, Which Leads To A Deeper Love For People
I am finally learning that not all calvinists are arrogant and mean-spirited. It’s taken me a while to understand that and I wholeheartedly believe God led us to our current home church (and here to sbcvoices) because of me needing to meet a few more calvinists who could share there doctrinal beliefs nicely. I’ve also met plenty of reformed folks who are not calvinists and believe the two are totally seperate issues. I’m still not sure what to think but I do know that I would not be happy with either one in control of the convention if all I ever got was a “you are going to hell” attitude from either because I did not have the same view of doctrine as they did. I know I’m not a hermeneutics professor but I do study the Word deeply. At the same time, I definitely don’t want someone who just wants to “tickle my ear” either!!
Can we get an honest and in your face guy who will tell it like it is but still be nice, too?!
Have a blessed day!
Sallie
I like Mike Huckabee…
oh, wait that was President of the United States NOT the SBC…. LOL…
just thought I’d throw in some humor 🙂
Sallies last blog post..It's Spring…
Matt,
Thanks for the clarification. Liberal = Something that was believed or practiced before the conservative resurgence within the SBC.
You Said :: “The cooperationist vision for the SBC is one that would eventually destroy the Southern Baptist Convention. … If we follow the cooperationist vision to its logical end then only salvific issues stand.”
Help me understand how the “cooperationist vision” as you understand it would necessarily lead to the destruction of the Southern Baptist Convention, and how this vision leads to “only salvific issues stand[ing]” by necessitation of logic, what you mean by “stand” in that phrase, and what you would consider as “salvific issues.”
Bradley
Bradleys last blog post..:: Daniel Dennett vs. Alvin Plantinga :: Debate
Debbie,
I do not know of any SBCer’s going the way of Roman Catholic teachings on the Lord’s Supper. My point is that if one follows the logic consistently of the ‘cooperationist vision’ there would be no reason to disfellowship with a church that did go that route.
I believe that some, not all, would be less receptive to a Calvinist just because he is a Calvinist. It is sad, but I think it is true. I am a Calvinist, but I think we saw the beginnings of my point last time Mohler’s name came up. We saw a bunch of different ‘excuses’ as why Mohler wasn’t the man for the job and it was interesting the 99% of those came from non-calvinists. Why is it that only non-calvinists had a problem with a Mohler presidency? I believe it was simply because he was a Calvinist.
Sallie,
“Can we get an honest and in your face guy who will tell it like it is but still be nice, too?!”
I believe Akin is that man!
Bradley,
I will use my example in my post for my support. Look at Spurgeon in the downgrade controversy. The two camps are using the exact same logic and the one that succeeded soon died. I pray we don’t see the same thing happen in our convention.
The SBC must draw lines on ALL salvific AND baptist issues or we stop being doctrinal Southern Baptists. The cooperationists seem to only want to draw lines on issues of salvation. If that were to happen what would set us apart from any other Christian group?
Matt Svobodas last blog post..Finding Permanence in the Light and Momentary
Debbie,
To be clear in my last sentence I say, ‘Before you know it’ meaning we are not there yet, but I think following the cooperationist logic that is where it would take us.
When you go the ‘cooperationist’ route then you get what Spurgeon knew. You get a road that leads to death because before you know it, anything goes… Spurgeon recognized it in his day, called it out, lost, but before you knew it he was vindicated because he was right all along. The group he battled against went the cooperationist route and before you knew it they were accepting heretical teaching in order to not exclude anyone and soon after that they died.
To be a Baptist, or Southern Baptist, we must hold our doctrine on slavific AND baptist issues or we are not longer Christian Baptists.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..Finding Permanence in the Light and Momentary
Matt,
Interesting post. I’m curious about what you mean by a “hard” Calvinist. I’ve not heard that term in Reformed circles.
Also, I love Danny Akin. Unfortunately, he has drawn the ire of the BI folks because of his willingness to work with Mark (“potty mouth”) Driscoll. Also, I believe Dr. Akin adheres to four of the five points of Calvinism so he may be too Calvinist for you.
Thanks.
Les
Les Puryears last blog post..My Report To Guy Muse On Our Vision Trip to Ecuador
If you can get a copy of it, I would recommend you listen to Matt Chandlers message at the Pastors conference in Jacksonville last month. He use the prodigal son’s brother as an example. Everyone should listen to it.
Kern
The cooperationist vision for the SBC is one that would eventually destroy the Southern Baptist Convention. They pride themselves on ‘cooperation’ being distinctively Baptist, but I strongly disagree. That form of cooperation is not Baptist, it is liberal.
Without question this is the most frightening potential for the future of the SBC. The saddest part is I am really worried that Burleson and his ilk are giong to be able to see their vision come to fruition. It is paramount that we continue to contend ernestly for the faith.
Joe Blackmons last blog post..Introducing the KJV Yellowpages
Les,
Some might consider him a Calvinist, but most I talk to say he’s ‘somewhat calvinist.’ Point being, when his name is brought up to non-calvinist warning ‘CALVINIST’ signals don’t start going off.
Joe,
I am truly not that worried about Wade and his Burlesonites. Remember he was removed from the board of trustees because his ilk are not in charge. I do want to say that it is not only Burleson and his ilk that promote this ‘cooperationist vision.’ I think there are a few others in the SBC that simply think with their hearts and not their minds that lean in that direction. I probably should be more cautious about this cooperationist vision than I am, knowing that liberalism always seems to come back with a force.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..Finding Permanence in the Light and Momentary
Les,
I have not heard the term ‘hard calvinists’ come from calvinists, but have heard the term from non-calvinists. By hard calvinist they typically mean a calvinist that ‘wears there calvinism on there sleeve.’ They are typically a 5 point, double predestination Calvinist, though not always.
For instance I would not be called a hard Calvinist because I am a 4 point Calvinist that is an infralapsarian.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..Finding Permanence in the Light and Momentary
I would love to see a side by side report about who all is even in the running. For one, I know Mohler is out — cancer treatment, right? But I’m just not familiar with enough of the other guys to really know. I read blogs and look up “top names” I hear back and forth (Les, weren’t you in the running last year or year before??) from time to time but you can’t just put “southern baptist convention” “nominations for president” in a seach engine and come up with anything that leads you anywhere for anything current. It’s a tough decision to make when the first real bit of info you start getting is only weeks before the convention.
Sallie
Sallies last blog post..It's Spring…
I’m coming into this discussion late, maybe too late to understand what’s going on. I see you’re using WordPress; it might help if you had a page describing all these vision labels and such for people who haven’t been following this topic before now.
I thought reformed = calvinist, but I see not. Well, I’m neither, so that’s probably why I’m ignorant.
Your post took a lot of time to write, but I recommend your reading posts over to catch obvious glitches. This passage has a number of examples:
We either need a non-calvinist who is still theologically respected by 5 point Calvinists or a Calvinist that does have it on his forehead in an arrogant manner. We can’t even has a calvinist that puts his Reformed theology has a priority for change within the SBC.
Danny Akin is my guy as well. He is humble, not a Calvinist, and well liked. My other pick would be Ed Stetzer.
John T Meche IIIs last blog post..Content Resurrection: Breathing new life into old content…
It would really be helpful, if all of the participants in this discussions as well as the proposed leaders knew their Baptist History. Just note for the moment that everyone talks of the cooperationist baptists as liberals. I remember when I was a student at the flagship school of so-called liberalism in the SBC at that time. One of the profs. asked me: “Would you like to know who is the most liberal man in the seminary?” I kind of shrugged as I had not really given it much thought: “I guess.” He said, “I am and, if you tell any one that I told you so, I will call you a _____ liar!” Years later as I was thinking the whole thing through, I realized that the professor did not know what he was talking about. He was actually talking to the most liberal man in the seminary (now mind you I am not talking license). Both the moderates and the conservatives were into the name calling business and using tags to id. and destroy one another (read modernist and fundamentalist) according to the tried and proven principles of propaganda. The term liberal means different thing in different periods. A liberal in the 1700s was one who believed in freedom and liberty and that the way to such was by the right principles and behaviors. Bear with me. Who introduced religious liberty? The Baptist! Who was the most Bible believing types of that period? The Baptists! In America the big majority (probably 90-95%) of Baptists were believers in Sovereign Grace then. So powerful was their appeal that 255 Congregational Churches became Baptists according to C.C. Goen in his History of the Great Awakening. A friend of mine told me that he preached in one of those churches (in the 1960s?) that had become Baptist in the 1700s-early1800s. What kind of power wins the day like that? One where the proponents are willing for the truth they hold to prove its own case. Why would Washington request that Gano immerse him? That event according to my Moderate professor of Field Ed. was witnessed by 60 some people during the Revolutionary War. And then there is the issue of uniting Separates and Regulars as well as the issue of persuading General Baptists to become Regular Baptists. Believers in Predestination, etc., are the people who really begin the Great Century of Missions. I remember some of the profs. at seminary thought I was a problem (not all), but they never had to worry about me trying to get one fired or approving of students attacking them. One student did, and I encouraged him to apologize – not for differing with the professor, but for attacking his personality. The student realized his error and apologized. Ethics was the issue. Differing on theological principles is a challenge, but a study of I Cors. 13 does suggest that one must be extra careful about how one conducts one’s self in the disagreement. My view came to be this across many years of thinking through the issues: The other fellow needs to be concerned about the fact that I might infect him with my views. Answering a teaching that one considers to be false is a proper thing, but how one answers is the issue. Some are shrill with fear, because they do not know their own doctrine very well. Usually the opponent might be more knowledgeable than the believer. Note, I said knowledgeable. The truth as our knowledge develops might latter prove that individual’s understanding to be wrong. On the other hand, it might prove our understanding is wrong. Real understanding is generally not a thing of the moment until we have had years to think about what had been revealed. The nature of biblical doctrine is the problem. It is hard for us to realize that what the Bible says in one place is not the whole truth of all it might teach on a subject. And then we must face the reality that some of the doctrines are composed of two truths that on the surface are hard to reconcile or were not even meant to be reconciled but held in the mind as a tension, a desireable tension which enables one to be balanced and flexible. To illustrate consider the doctrine of verbal inspiration. I was fortunate early in my ministry to stumble across L. Gaussen’s Theopneustia. He set forth the doctrine of verbal inspiration as two-sided, composed of the human and the Divine aspects. The so-called Liberal writers of that day lost me, when they accused people like Gaussen aad Warfield of holding to mechanical dictation. While Gaussen actually used the term dictation, he did not mean mechanical dictation. One of my fellow students had a professor mark down his paper, writing in red on it:”this man started mechanical dictation.” We pulled the book, and I showed the student where Gaussen had devoted a whole section to the human writers. The prof. admitted that he was wrong, but would not change the student’s grade.
Emil Brunner in one his works quoted B.B. Warfield as if he believed in mechanical dictation. In a paper I wrote for another prof., I was able to show how Brunner had quoted Warfield out of context. This, in part, is how we win the battle. Another way is to know the other side’s argument better than they do and your own even more. It is hard, tedious work to over learn, but it is the way to victory. I could say more, but this will serve for now.
Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation