I’ve now watched the chapel video from the day when Rick Patrick spoke at SWBTS. The topic for his speech dealt broadly with Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. Rick is (famously) not a Calvinist, and his remarks raised the ire of some of my Calvinistic friends in the convention who took umbrage at what Rick had to say.
Rick was certainly provocative. Intentionally so, I think. He laid a number of Southern Baptist ills at the feet of neo-Calvinism, or at least seemed to do so. But I didn’t think that his critique of Calvinism was the most scandalous thing that Rick had to say that day (perhaps because I’m not a Calvinist). Rather, I thought that Rick’s most scandalous quote was this one:
[Connect 316 is] the first—and I believe the only—ministry fellowship in Southern Baptist life committed to [non-Calvinism].
The scandal is not that Rick was wrong, but rather that I suspect that he is right. The Southern Baptist Convention is awash with Calvinistic or nearly-Calvinistic organizations. Rick is 100% correct about that. Why only one organization representing other soteriological perspectives? I think we need others, if you want my opinion.
- We need others because it is healthy for the convention that non-Calvinistic soteriologies should be presented as enthusiastically and as well as Calvinism has been presented. A book like The Extent of the Atonement is good for the convention. Even if you are a Calvinist and are not interested in any data to the contrary, you cannot be the strongest Calvinist that you can be until you have faced and considered the strongest critique of Calvinism that you can find. David Allen’s work in this book is a valiant effort in that direction, but nothing can flourish in Southern Baptist life unless it be preached, and more popular, less academic presentations of non-Calvinism are necessary. Multiple non-Calvinist organizations and groups ought to arise in Southern Baptist life in order to provide these popular presentations of non-Calvinist soteriology.
- We need others because nuance exists within Southern Baptist non-Calvinism that Connect 316 cannot fully comprehend. I am not a member of Connect 316. Perhaps the day will come when I am, but my absence from the rolls at Connect 316 is not at this point an oversight on my part. I do not belong in Together for the Gospel. I do not belong in The Gospel Coalition. I do not belong in IX Marks. I certainly do not belong in the Founders. But neither am I certain that I belong in Connect 316. I see nuance at a number of places that would differentiate me from Connect 316.
- Relationship with Southern Baptist Calvinists: I think it is entirely accurate and not uncharitably spoken to say that I have a different relationship with Southern Baptist Calvinists than Rick has. While disagreeing with points of their soteriological views, I value greatly the contributions that many Southern Baptist Calvinists are making to our cooperative work and count many of them as friends—not in the sense of “Why, some of my best friends are Calvinists,” but really…my dear, treasured, close friends. I would name names if I didn’t think it would embarrass them.
- Assessment of the Effect of Southern Baptist Calvinism: I’ve never quite comprehended the argument that says that the vast preponderance of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists (true, that), but somehow Calvinism is responsible for flagging evangelistic zeal in the Southern Baptist Convention. If the non-Calvinists weren’t part of the problem, we wouldn’t have a problem (at least, the numbers seem to add up that way to me). I’m not a Calvinist; God help me, I need to get out of my office more, share the gospel more, and lead more people to Christ (the irony of my saying that in a blog post composed in my office is not lost on me). I’d rather people were not Calvinists because I think Calvinism is in error at least in part. And yet, most of the Christians who aren’t winning people to Christ don’t know what Calvinism is. Respectfully, I think Rick leads us away from the real problems to chase a red herring. But he is entitled to his view as much as I am entitled to mine. That our views diverge strengthens my point that there ought to be different organizations embodying our differing perspectives.
- Strategic Approach to Dialogue with Southern Baptist Calvinists: Strategically, I think a presentation like Rick’s speech in SWBTS’s chapel is unlikely to persuade very many Calvinists to consider non-Calvinistic alternatives to the soteriology that they have embraced. I’d rather that he had presented a text-driven sermon (not that sharing a testimony is inappropriate in chapel), and plenty of texts offer the opportunity to preach non-Calvinism convincingly and exegetically. Last week I had a brief conversation online with a young scholar at another SBC seminary. He has been a Calvinist, but something happened to him: He read Arminius. He did not journey all the way to Arminianism, but he discovered that Arminius was not the caricature that his instruction in Calvinism had portrayed him to be. This young man discovered that Arminius had some critiques to lodge against Calvinism that weren’t humanism, weren’t liberalism, weren’t Pelagianism, but were just plain Bible. So now he’s something that remarkably resembles a “Traditionalist.”
I’m not interested in waving around raw meat before my non-Calvinistic friends. To tell you the truth, I’m really not even all that interested in “converting” my Christian Calvinist Southern Baptist friends away from their Calvinism. What I do yearn for is deep, penetrating conversation about the scriptures, conducted with an awareness of those like Calvin and Arminius and Hobbs and Rogers and Mohler and Patterson who have given us thoughts to consider. Those willing to go there will, I think, find it difficult to make strawmen of those holding a soteriology similar to mine, and I dare to hope that some will make the same journey that the young scholar made while reading Arminius, but I’m proud to call friend, brother, Southern Baptist, and colleague anyone willing to engage in that process.
It’s admittedly an observation from the outside, but Connect 316 doesn’t seem to be about that. I’d love to be a part of a non-Calvinistic organization that was. I think such an organization would advance non-Calvinist thought far more successfully in the Southern Baptist Convention. Again, Connect 316 is free to go about this in the way that seems right to them. I’m merely making the point that there are nuances within Southern Baptist non-Calvinism that will be difficult for any one organization to comprehend.
- Attention Span Available to Devote to Calvinism: I’m bored, bored, BORED with carping over soteriology. Every once in a while, I’d like to talk about missiology, or Christology, or ecclesiology, or the longer ending of Mark, or the authorship of Hebrews, or the evils of the NIV, or the greatness of the St. Louis Cardinals. I just can’t play the same tune on my fiddle ad infinitum. I’d prefer to be a part of an organization that is prepared, while being non-Calvinistic, to look at a lot of things OTHER than soteriology and explore (charitably) how non-Calvinists approach such things. I’d love to be a part of a non-Calvinistic organization that would devote some energy to exploring the common ground shared between Southern Baptist Calvinists and non-Calvinists in various areas beyond soteriology without shying away from articulating differences where they exist.
- We need others because non-Calvinism comprises quite a bit of theological diversity, and we do not all fit well in the same organization together. Coming out of the Conservative Resurgence, almost the full complement of the people who opposed inerrancy also oppose Calvinism. Although I am not a Calvinist, I have a lot more in common with Al Mohler than with Dan Vestal. Inerrancy matters more to me than soteriology. Show me someone who affirms the BF&M 1963, deliberately rejecting the BF&M 2000, and I’ll show you a committed non-Calvinist 9 times out of 10. Connect 316 affirms the BF&M 2000, but there are still churches, associations, and conventions within the Southern Baptist Convention who reject the 2000 version, and some of them exist within and play a part in Connect 316.
I never got over the Conservative Resurgence. I don’t let it break up friendships for me or keep me from loving anyone, but my theological and ministry partnerships are with people who affirm biblical inerrancy and who are in line with what the BF&M 2000 articulates. If I were to get yoked up in serious theological work with people who could not agree with me about those basic things, we’d eventually be at an impasse with one another. Having more than one non-Calvinistic fellowship in the Southern Baptist Convention would permit those who are more in line with or open to 1980s SBC theological “moderatism” to have their group, while non-Calvinists who are fully on-board with the Conservative Resurgence could likewise have a fellowship.
Conclusion
Most of the time someone writes a post like this and concludes by saying, “That’s why I’m starting the XYZ organization…” If you were expecting that from me, prepare for disappointment. I see the need, but I don’t have the calling. Neither do I have the time. But I do believe that the Southern Baptist Convention is ripe for more organizations and more opportunities offering the diverse field of Southern Baptist non-Calvinists opportunities for fellowship, mutual support, and theological development. Maybe God is calling you to do it.
Theological sub-groups in the SBC don’t trouble me in the least unless they have their own theological statement and evaluate every hire, every election, and trustees on that basis. Seems to me that this approach cannot end well. Rick’s group do the first two regularly, although he wisely discarded the call for quotas, and has made occasional noise about the third. SBCToday has an educational thrust but it is lost in the other stuff. Only a small fraction of SBC pastors and laypeople have signed on to the Trad Statement, that kitchen table document that is the foundation for C316’s… Read more »
Thank you.
Coming from the more Calvinistic side I agree with this post in so many ways. I respect Rick’s perspective and affirm his right to promote his group. I was more concerned about Dr. Patterson’s comments, which to my (rather limited) perspective seemed historically off-base and deeply uncharitable (though said in a charitable manner). Calvinistic Baptists have as much claim to being “traditional” depending on the time frame one uses in the SBC. Certainly there have always been different streams of soteriological views in the convention and Calvinism was always a part. To say that those with Calvinistic views should just… Read more »
I would love to see a non-Cal organization that exists to support their own theological views rather than simply opposing and refuting Calvinism. It can be done.
Such an organization already exists, Brother Mac. It’s called the Southern Baptist Convention.
Well, not quite. The BFM can easily support both Cal and non-Cal perspectives. The Trad statement is not a positive affirmation of theological beliefs so much as it is an attempted refutation of Calvinism. That’s my point.
Lots to chew on here Bart. Thanks for your time and effort.
You’re always charitable and articulate. Thanks, again.
Bart, as always, your post made me think (surely a good thing). I agree that most Southern Baptists are not Calvinists, but the research shows that the number of Calvinist pastors is growing. I, too, wish that we could talk more about missiology. Posts on SBC Voices pertaining to Calvinism draw 100 comments, while a post on missions draws maybe ten. It seems ironic (and sad) to me that we are consumed with continuing the Calvinism-Arminianism debate, while most of the world does not know John 3:16.
Bart – 3. Strategic Approach to Dialogue with Southern Baptist Calvinists In this section you appeal for a Civil, Substantive, Exegetical open and beneficial exchange on the issues inherent in the perceived divide (my words in an attempt to capture what you desire.) BINGO!! I have repeatedly (for 5-6 years) attempted to facilitate such a Forum. I proposed Roger Nicole’s wonderful document titled Polemic Theology as the guiding principles for this Forum. Diagrammatic Analysis, Systematic Theology, and the principle of Non-Contradiction govern our deliberations. The Problem – leading figures that are signers of the TRAD Statement (which is far to… Read more »
Well said Bart.
Bart:
It appears that you are a card carrying member of the Fred Luter/Frank Page school of philosophy of “go along to get along,” not inclined to take a stand on anything.
As for me, friendships are infinitely less important than a willingness to stand tall for the truthfulness of God’s Word and solidly refute as strongly as possible a soteriology that defies His Word and substitutes such false ideologies as contained in the Calvinist TULIP.
Personally, I would prefer to see the Calvinist message totally obliterated from the SBC.
Ken, my first disagreement with Bart came in 1986. He was umpiring a Babe Ruth League baseball game that I was playing in. He called a runner safe that was clearly out from my perspective. We have disagreed many more times since then on much more important matters. However, for you to say that Bart never takes a stand is as foolish as it is laughable. You should be ashamed.
Ken: First, you are going to be a very lonely man with that type of thinking. 2nd: A lesson in SBC history might be in order. Calvinists helped to found the SBC. I have no problem with all being at the table and some things are not worth taking a stand on, and both you and Calvinists can show what you believe in the Bible, so that’s all I care about. Inerrancy is something that is non-negotiable and both Calvinists and non-Calvinists believe in inerrancy. They both believe the Bible to be God breathed and the final authority. I do… Read more »
And yet friendships between believers with strong differences have a way of clarifying misunderstandings, correcting weak areas in one’s own perspective, and developing an appreciation of why those differences exist. George Whitfield and John Wesley were friends and both were better for it. I have learned much from people I strongly disagreed with and in some cases I learned they were listening more carefully to the text of Scripture than I was. The anti-Calvinistic attitude in the above comment is unfair to most of the Calvinists I know and is harmful to the unity the convention sincerely needs to foster.
Ken M, Bart Barber “not inclined to take a stand on anything”? I almost fell out of my chair, laughing so hard, upon reading these words. Over the last 10 years or so of Baptist blogging, Bart & I have had more than our share of disagreement, at times sharp disagreement. Because of his strong convictions he even openly opposed and actively campaigned against my nomination as SBC VP on one occasion. And yet, after ten years of going round and round on various issues Baptists sometimes disagree on, I have gained as deep a respect for Bart Barber as… Read more »
Ken, David is right (as I tend to think he is about something approaching 99% of things).
Whatever problems Bart has, most of which involve his terrible taste in sports teams, lack of conviction is not an issue for him.
You have a lot of good points here. I would also point out, though, that if — as it did — the Conservative Resurgence gave us years of seminary teaching that pushed men back to the Scriptures as the standard rather than whatever their professors told them, and the result of this return to the Scriptures is that those coming out of said seminaries are, in overwhelming numbers, Calvinist and producing Calvinist churches and Calvinist organizations…it’s probably foolish to write off or overlook that. When the original BF&M strongly concurred with Calvinist doctrine, and this was watered down over the… Read more »
A Calvinist complaining about an attitude of superiority? Doing so after claiming the CR led to biblical education which led to greater numbers of Calvinists? Almost makes me want to join Rick Patrick’s group.
That is the correlation; there’s no way around that — even the point of the original post here implies that a dominance of Calvinism has followed the CR. I only suggested that the potential that this is due to causation is worth considering carefully. But even had I claimed flat-out that the CR produced more Calvinists because Calvinism is biblical, that wouldn’t be a double standard. Of course I believe my view is biblical; that’s why I hold it. And of course the non-Calvinists believe their view is biblical; that’s why they hold it. That’s not the problem. Stating with… Read more »
You read pattersons explanation? If so, wouldn’t your Calvinist ethics at least demand a mention of the same?
I’ve followed Calvinism in the SBC for, well, too long. Attitudes of superiority have for the most part been cornered by immature Calvinists, although since the Calvinst study group, more comity has been the rule. Except for occasional eruptions as can be seen from some here.
Attitudes of superiority, remarkably, shine brightest in the eye of the beholder.
I read Patterson’s backtrack – but since what he actually said (That Calvinist ought leave) from the lectern of the seminary for which he is president, during chapel, mediately following a diatribe against reformed doctrine was in the SBC, is very much in line with numerous other incendiary statements he’s made and conversations that he’s been involved in – so his backtracking is viewed with a large amount of skepticism.
*immediately following a diatribe against those holding reformed doctrine within the SBC,
Love believes all things. We won’t get anywhere if we continue from a posture of skepticism. I don’t like what Patterson said initially, but he clarified and apologized. Let’s accept that and move on.
I thought the most shocking part was when he claimed Anabaptist identity but then defended patriotic services 😉 (steps back slowly)
Lol. Seems a little oxymoronic, eh?
Bart, A lot of REALLY great stuff here. I give a hearty “amen” to your contribution. My biggest point of agreement is your comments on not having the span to always be talking about calvinism. I have stayed away from SBC blogs and conversations for the most part for the last 5-6 years now. The primary reason for this is the discussion has grown bland, nauseatingly predictable, and supremely unhelpful. I greatly desire to see Southern Baptists spend a lot more time discussing how they can better reach America, become significantly more effective in how Cooperative Program money is spent,… Read more »
One issue I do have with the post is the implication that The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel are somehow Southern Baptist. There are more non-SBC people that identify with these conferences/movements than there are SBC people. IX Marks, Founders are strongly SBC. With IX Marks, Calvinism isn’t their main purpose. With Founders and Connect 316 this theological issues does seem to be their main purpose. Where I disagree with you, Bart, is that I do not think the SBC needs more groups like Founders and Connect 316. I do not think they accomplish anything or help churches… Read more »
So basically, guilt by association?
Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but my point here wasn’t to beat up Dr. Patterson over this particular incident. (Although, to be honest, nearly everything I’ve heard him say publicly in recent years has been pretty inflammatory, which really disappoints me, because that should not be allowed to keep happening.) My point was merely that I’d like to stop seeing/hearing that kind of commentary from those in positions of influence. It isn’t helpful. So sure, move on — but let’s move on having learned a lesson, not just having brushed something under the rug. (And yes, that goes… Read more »
As long as this kind of finger pointing continues – they are the ones who cause the problem, not us – we will continue to fail.
We need to walk in grace, examine ourselves and hold our own camp accountable, then move forward.
This kind of blame-game thing just isn’t helpful.
I enjoyed the article. I think you are right in wanting a full fledged sub group for your doctrinal leaning. Think about IX Marks and the gospel coalition or other more calviniatic groups. They don’t solely push put soteriological statements and articles. They speak to a wide range of doctrine and circumstances. I think the shortfall of Connect 316 isn’t that it’s anti calvinist, but that it’s too narrow in its goals. It would serve its followers greater if it approached theology and daily life from a traditionalist standpoint instead of just being a bastion of traditionalist soteriology.
Agreed. I’m saying I pointed to that example because it’s the one I SAW, but it applies equally to everyone. We all need to stand for what we believe is true, but we need to do it with grace, not snark.
And I definitely agree that we need to get back to a place where we can talk about something BESIDES Calvinism and Arminianism.
SBCToday, today: “Alabama pastor calls for ‘frank’ conversations about Calvinism”
Well, sure….let’s converse.
Ummm, comments don’t seem to be allowed on the call for frank conversations. Cogent explanation to follow, I suppose.
How about, “Alabama pastor calls for ‘frank’ conversations about Calvinism
on SBCVoices?
I had not looked over there. But you’re right. No “conversation” permitted. True irony.
Frank conversation is fine. Complete misrepresentation is not.
A question for each, but please don’t post a reply:
Why did you [addressed to each one] put your trust in-/-surrender to Jesus as LORD?
Certainly it was a free will choice.
What conversations are necessary? About the biblical case for Trad vs Cal? Of course not. It’s been done to death. C316 wants Calvinist leaders to acknowledge the alleged disparity in leadership positions vs rank and file SBCers and voluntarily step down. Then they want mechanisms in place to prevent such a mismatch from occurring again. They want the multiple millions of SBCers who don’t care about Calvinism to care about Calvinism. A “frank conversation” is simply code for “acknowledge that we are right”. It seems to me that they want to fix the perceived problem from the top down without… Read more »
Who is Frank and what does he have to with this discussion?
Is he a Calvinist?
Let’s hope both sides are Frank.
Yeah, OK….but lets call one Francis so we can differentiate them.
Frank is the angry combine in the movie “Cars” that chases Lightning McQueen and Mater. I personally don’t want to have a conversation with Frank. ?
But if we call them both Frank we could say that Frank, both of them, preach the Gospel and seek to do God’s work. Then each Frank and each of us can all work together in peace.
Frankly, that’d be nice.
🙂
As to open dialogue, can anyone provide me a reference i.e. A book or paper, that explains the Traditional (or even the Arminian) view of WHY people choose to follow Jesus?
Thanks.
I saw a Connect 3:16 survey going around that asked about peoples soteriological views. I think Rick mentioned it in the…(not sure what to call it. Presentation?) as SWBTS. If anyone has that survey I would love to see it. Thanks!
It’s quite simplisticly and biasly prepared and as Rick admitted during his speech – it’s not at all scientific.