This post was originally published on From Law to Grace on May11, 2011.
Advocates of a big tent believe that people with a broad variety of political approaches and viewpoints can unite within a single party to advance shared core issues, even if they disagree in other areas. This way the party can attract a large base of support at the polls. (full article here)
The “Big Tent” political philosophy remains alive and well in our nation today. We are beginning to see some Republicans — particularly supporters of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels — advocate for the Big Tent. What these people seem to forget is that the philosophy espoused by Daniels and his supporters — as Rush Limbaugh rightly points out — always leads to the collapse — not the expansion — of the tent. And it leads to electoral defeat.
But, why should that be the case? Because the Big Tent philosophy, while sounding magnanimous, is never enough to unify disparate Republican factions whose political/governing philosophies are fundamentally different. Folks who are pro-life and pro-abortion cannot long coexist in a Big Tent, at least if both groups are vying for power and control. Only one main group can be in the driver’s seat at any given time. The Democrats realized that principle early on and either purged (Bob Casey) or re-indoctrinated (Clinton, Gore, Gephardt — Baptists all) their pro-life politicians to a pro-abortion choice position.
Even with decisive defeats (Dole, McCain) at the polls for Big Tent Republicans, there are still those who insist on beating their heads against a wall. Perhaps, as Rush opined, it’s the elites’ arrogance and conceit that “blinds them to reality.” These days, that arrogance is in no short supply with Mitch Daniels, who openly states that he can beat President Obama in 2012. Not gonna happen!
Unfortunately, the Big Tent philosophy is not confined to politicians in Washington, D.C. Even religious organizations can fall prey to the Big Tent philosophy. Take the Southern Baptist Convention, for example. There are many competing philosophies that have arisen within the nation’s largest Protestant body. Dave Miller at SBCVoices has clearly identified at least 12 groups within the SBC whose philosophies may lead to the splintering of the 45,000+ churches that comprise the Southern Baptist Convention.
Regardless of the issues confronting Southern Baptists today — Calvinists vs. non-Calvinists, Megachurch vs. non-Megachurch, Contemporary vs. Traditionalist, or Great Commission Giving vs. Cooperative Program Giving — we are witnessing what I believe is a struggle between “Big Tent” Baptists and “Smaller Tent” Baptists.
This new Big Tent philosophy is not like the old one that sought to include so-called theological moderates in the tent (although there are some who still advocate for that). This Big Tent philosophy — which is theologically conservative — can be summed up by this statement from Dave Miller:
“We must, as a denomination, define the lowest common denominator of our fellowship.”
Big Tent Baptists would use a church’s general agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as the lowest common denominator for whether or not one is welcome in the SBC tent. Some will have very low denominators while others will just have low ones. However, a church’s general agreement with the BF&M2000 (and at least nominal CP contributions and non-endorsement of homosexuality) becomes the only price of admission into the SBC’s Big Tent. With this type of Big Tent philosophy, just about everyone who calls themselves a theological conservative (whatever that means) will be welcome in the SBC.
Let me state for the record that I do not believe that the Big Tent philosophy is evil or morally reprehensible. It is a respectable position to take and many, including Dave Miller and others, are to be commended for their willingness to find a solution — in this case, the Big Tent — to that which is causing division within our ranks. For Dave, the Big Tent philosophy is rooted in God’s command to walk in love. I would commend to you his latest post, “The More Excellent Way: Paul’s Solution for a Splintered SBC,” so that you can better understand the basis for his approach.
In contrast to the Big Tent Baptists, Smaller Tent Baptists would raise the price of admission to include not only general agreement with the BF&M2000, but also some type of agreement with an overarching Southern Baptist culture or identity. There are multiple issues which affect our culture or identity, but Smaller Tent Baptists seek to conserve (where we get the word “conservative”) those core values that they believe are integral to what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist. Perhaps at the heart (some would say the glue which holds us together) of that culture or identity is the grassroots cooperative spirit embodied in and through the Cooperative Program.
As much as I admire Dave Miller’s passion to see the SBC avoid splintering, I believe that a splintering — in some form or fashion — is inevitable. We are already witnessing this on the State Convention and local association level. And, contra Dave, I do not think that “walking in love” will prevent further splintering. That’s because love cannot erase the fundamental differences in philosophy that Big Tent and Smaller Tent Baptists have.
At the end of the day, theology and methodology — while different — are wedded together in such a fashion so as to form a cohesive ministry philosophy. When philosophies of groups become so divergent that we no longer are walking in the same direction, cooperation and partnership become difficult if not impossible. As Amos clearly states:
“Can two people walk together without agreeing on the direction?” (Amos 3:3 NLT)
While there are some within the SBC who appear not to want to walk in love, I believe that the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists exhibit love (albeit imperfectly at times). However, I also believe that love — which can cover a multitude of sins — cannot paper over fundamental differences in our philosophy of ministry. We can still love one another, but at the end of the day, our philosophy of ministry may be so divergent that we find ourselves walking in different directions.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan began what came to be known as the Reagan Revolution. Thoroughly conservative, the Republican Party was transformed from the party of Rockefeller and the moderate Republicans to the party of Reagan and conservative Republicans (which it still is today). Are there still moderates in the Republican Party? Yes, but they are not the base. The Republican Party is a tent, but it is not a Big Tent where all beliefs are equally embraced. Big Tent politics, while it sounds promising, always leads to defeat.
Perhaps the Southern Baptist Convention could be that organization that believes in and practices a Big Tent philosophy successfully. While I am generally an optimist, my realism tells me that the SBC — like political parties — will not be able to build a Big Tent. One need only read posts and comments at SBCVoices, SBCToday and other blogs to realize that the SBC Tent can only be so big. How big? That is an open question. The Big Tent of the SBC is beginning to sag. At some point, the Big Tent will collapse. The new tent that replaces it may or may not be better than the old one. But, it will never be the same.
This could be an interesting and lively discussion. To a certain extent, we are dealing with apples and oranges. Ideally, Christians (more specifically Baptist Christians) should be able to major on what is major and exhibit charity and grace on other matters.
In reality, we are people of conviction, people who believe what we believe with a passion. Calvinists are convinced that Calvinism (whatever that means) is biblical doctrine and are passionate about sharing that truth. Non-Calvinists are also convinced that Calvinism is a false interpretation of scripture and are passionate about refuting it.
I think it would be easier to advocate “the big tent” in stylistic matters (hip vs. traditional, etc) than it is in doctrinal matters.
Here’s my point (and I am going to write a post on this soon): we need to define ourselves. Who are we?
What exactly are the parameters of fellowship in the SBC. We used to be united by culture, by tradition, by programs and style. In the 60’s, there was a definitive personality that was infused into most SBC churches. That is gone. So who are we?
We really need to define that and we need to do it soon.
We have already fractured once in my lifetime. I thought that one was necessary and justified. But if we split again along the Calvinist line, or along any of the other fault lines that exist today, I am afraid that we will not be able to stop the momentum of division.
“We have already fractured once in my lifetime. I thought that one was necessary and justified.”
Dave,
Why do you think that one was necessary and justified? (I think I know the answer already, but since you are older than me, I want your seasoned perspective 🙂 ) We have already excluded theological moderates from the Big Tent. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists believe — in principle and practice — that not everyone should be inside the Big Tent of the SBC. I would hope that our exclusion of our more moderate brothers and sisters was not because we hate them personally, but because we could not, in good conscience, walk together in the same direction anymore.
We can try to dismiss the comparison by arguing that the exclusion of moderates was solely about theology and doctrine and our current squabbles are not about that, but are centered on methodology. I think our methodology and ecclesialogy flow from our theology so as to form a comprehensive ministry philosophy. What we are witnessing is an argument between various sincerely held philosophies, which in many cases are mutually exclusive. Can all of those philosophies peacefully co-exist AND cooperate together in the Big Tent of the SBC? Perhaps, but I do not see that happening, not because we may not love each other (which could be the case), but because we simply cannot agree on the same direction to walk in. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Now, you are just getting MEAN! But, yes, I am one of the Old Codgers who was there in Houston in 1979.
I do not believe in an Unlimited Tent. I used to call my SBC blog “This Tent’s Just Right” based on Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Some want an SBC that is too big – that includes those who do not hold to our fundamental doctrines. Some want a tent that is too small – defining the parameters of our fellowship way to narrowly.
Jerry Nash’s article was an excellent example of that. If you disagree with me, leave. That tent is too narrow.
That is my whole point about defining our parameters. It wasn’t necessary when we all shared a culture, style and strategy. But now, with our diversity, we need to spell out: “Here’s what a Southern Baptist is.”
The fact is that none of us really knows what “SBC Identity” is. We each have our own ideas and we think that those do not match up are not really on our side.
But unless a document exists that I am not aware of, there is no official definition of an SBC church and cooperation with the denomination (or convention – don’t want to argue that one right now) except that which is required for the seating of messengers. My association and state convention have a credentials committee which vets churches or examines them.
If a church gives a minimal amount to the CP, it can have messengers seated. then it is SBC and every member in it is SBC. We have no established parameters of fellowship.
I think we need them now.
Dave,
“We have no established parameters of fellowship.
I think we need them now.”
Not trying to be picky here… But I am in “Fellowship” with my local congregation and not with the SBC… My church chooses to “Cooperate” with the Southern Baptist Convention for Missions work.
The big tent will only collapse if people continue to purposely pull down its support. Do you want a particular, distinctive culture or identity with which you will bind everyone else’s conscience? Then start drawing lines. Draw hard, defined lines. Do not accept anyone outside of those lines whether at the base or in the field from those who give to the CP. Expose them and cut them off.
That type of uniformity will bring unity, right?
And no pussyfooting around either. State your position. Don’t speak in generalities using descriptives such as “pro-Primitive Baptist”. Say exactly what you mean and name exactly who you have in mind so there is no guessing. Forget the beauty pageant answers like, “I just want to make the world a better place.” Addressing ghosts and trying to read between the lines is getting old.
And provide reasons that are biblical/theological. “That’s the way we’ve always done it” or “That’s what works” doesn’t cut it when trying to bind others’ consciences.
If Southern Baptists continue to seek reasons not to cooperate then we will collapse. All of this in-fighting will continue as long as we seek it.
Load both barrels.
Mark is absolutely right…
Those who desire to forge a “Rigid” Southern Baptist Identity, through the “Narrowing of the Parameters of Cooperation” beyond what is expressed in the Baptist Faith and Message, are attempting to “Bind the Consciences” of others with the Word/Rules/Laws of Man and not the Word of God.
Honestly Guys…. Any attempt to do such a thing among Autonomous Baptist Churches who have come together around agreed upon parameters of cooperation (The BFM) is like trying to rebuild an Airplane while in flight… Usually (actually it is always) not a good idea. This is why there was such a Big “Blow-UP” at the IMB about their new rules… (Which are still in affect, and are still an issue with many Southern Baptist Today!)
If someone wants to build a new “Identity Group” then go ahead and do so… have at it… have fun… enjoy yourselves… Actually we already have several Identity Groups within the SBC (Founders, Baptist 21, etc.,) But don’t think for one moment that I am going to allow you, or anyone else, to define who I am… That’s not going to happen!
Grace for the Journey,
I’m not really disagreeing with you (Mark and Greg) but I’d like to present a slightly different perspective.
The whole point of denominations/conventions is for like-minded people to unite to work and serve and worship. So, to a certain extent, the purpose of denominations is to unite Christians of like mind into workgroups.
So, a denomination will often have an identity that goes beyond simply the dictates of scripture.
I really don’t want to open this can of worms, but lets say that the SBC defines abstentionism as a “parameter of fellowship.” Only abstentionists are Southern Baptists.
If they say, “Only abstentionists are Christians” they are out of bounds, adding rules to the Word, etc – just as you have said.
But, if the SBC says, “We are officially abstentionist and if you are not abstentionist you are not part of the fellowship”, and IF the convention clearly defines that parameter – that’s fine.
We do not have the right to define Christian identity (I know that if a loaded term because it has been used by White supremacist groups – I’m using it non-technically here) beyond what the scripture dictates.
But denominations are almost by definition limited-fellowship bodies.
Does that make any sense?
Dave,
It makes sense though I still don’t see how something like abstentionism can be used as a basis for binding the consciences of others if Scripture does not do so.
However, my main point is for people to quit talking about drawing lines and draw them! Take the recent Nash post, for example. I’m ready for him to name names and point fingers. I want to know exactly who he is accusing in his post.
There must be someone or else why write what he did? The sooner we stop beating around the bush and showing our cards the sooner we can see about repairing the big tent or maybe putting up smaller ones.
This is where a lot of this issue comes from: we are either going to have to accept that the definition of “Southern Baptist” is not exhaustive of the definition of “Bible-believing Christian” to get there.
For too many people, the feeling is not simply that my way is the right way, but that “my Semi-Calvinist English Speaking Hymn-Singing 30 Minute Preaching Two Services on Sunday is the only acceptable expression of Christian worship. You can be different, but to be different is to be deficient.” (Note: yes that is a straw-man construction. I was aiming for one long title that covered a multitude of possibilities.)
Our pride will be our downfall. Not because our pride is dividing us, but because our pride is refusing to let us acknowledge that others could be right, we could be wrong, and their group might do better than ours does. We don’t want to limit out (fill in the blank: Calvin, NotCalvin, Drinkers, NotDrinkers, Elders, Congregationalists, CPers and not CPers) for fear they will go on and be fine without us. And we won’t be able to say that they’re “unbiblical”like we often say of not-Baptist folks, because they’re using the identical confession of faith, mean the words exactly as we do, but their practices are different.
Either that, or we’re all just waiting hoping the other side leaves so that we’re on the winning side and get to keep the seminaries, the entities, and Ridgecrest. How much of our litigation and fighting over material possessions in the last 30 years is driving this now? How much are (I’ll take myself) we Calvinistic Baptisty-types sticking around because we want to own the buildings rather than have to go build new ones?
Excellent!
Mark said, “However, my main point is for people to quit talking about drawing lines and draw them!”
Dave says, “Amen!”
I don’t really care about Jerry Nash’s post, other than the fact that it shows both the problem and the wrong way (IMHO) to solve it.
But I think it is time for us to define ourselves more clearly.
I think the “Big Tent” analogy drawn from the political world actually points out a slightly different conclusion than the point made in the post. The “Big Tent” in politics still exists, afterall that’s why we only have 2 (major) parties that cover a huge spectrum of ideological ground. The difficulty comes at the candidate level, not at the party. In the SBC, would this be comparable to saying that the leadership of our convention such as Presidents, etc. are usually each drawn from a specific group. After all, hope as we might, there are no Calvinist/Non-Calvinist, Mega-house-contemporary-cowboy-traditional-ethnic church pastors. (except maybe on some church job descriptions!) That’s why those elected to office are not “Big Tent” candidates, at least not in their personal beliefs and ministry situations. But that doesn’t mean they can’t recognize that a larger tent exists than their particular tribe, and that they should work to help all tribes within the parameters of the SBC to cooperate together for the kingdom of Christ.
Hello HOWELL,
I was thinking that ‘big tent’ in politics had gone out the door in favor of ‘coalitions’ which form, temporarily banding together, to accomplish a common goal, and then disbanding to allow the formation of new, flexible coalitions as interests drew various entities together.
In the Southern Baptist world, did ‘coalitions’ form to push ‘moderates’ out of the denomination, and then when that had been accomplished, these coalitions began to naturally disband into their own identities?
I think I can see a pattern of the original ‘coalition’ of ‘groups’ of Southern Baptists which formed under the leadership of Pressler and Patterson, beginning to separate from one another, as the ‘original’ mission is no longer an issue, having been accomplished.
But am I wrong about this?
Please, folks, let’s not make this another CR thread. Please.
Fine by me, DAVID.
But what do you think about the idea of ‘coalition’ vs. the ‘big tent/little tent’ paradigm ?
I think it makes sense. And it could work for ‘coalescing’ around cooperating on missions , at least.
I can see the difficulties involved in this discussion, and yes, the different ‘groups’ in the SBC are very passionate about their various beliefs that separate them. But there is so much MORE that they have in common that CANNOT be disregarded.
I have been reading these “Splintering & Big Tent” post with some interest and I just want to see if I have this right…
It appears to me, from reading these post and the comments, that we have some within the SBC who are saying something to the effect of; “If we don’t get to define/identify who gets to be in the Southern Baptist Convention, then we are OUT of the Southern Baptist Convention!”
Is that what I am hearing with all this “Splintering” talk?
As late as just last year I was severely criticized (Gigged actually) for even suggesting that if the SBC makes the Young/Reformed/and Restless within the SBC feel unwelcome they will more than likely leave… Actually a very prominent SBC Blogger told me “Stop threatening to leave every time you don’t get your way… if you are going to LEAVE… LEAVE NOW!!!” So I am finding it more than little incredible that these same “Identity” driven folks who were saying to the Young/Reformed and Restless to stop threatening to leave are now themselves threatening to leave (splinter the SBC).
Grace for the Journey,
I’m not sure I agree with all of your analysis, but yes, I see that splintering process going on.
So these guys are actually to the point of saying (no beating around the bush); “The Southern Baptist Tent is not Big Enough for the Both of Us… … … Either You Leave, or We are Going to Leave!”
That is just “Lovely”
One more thing, going back to Howell’s post.
I am convinced that one of the great needs in SBC life right now is a new Adrian Rogers, a Southern Baptist Ronald Reagan. There were a lot of people involved in the CR, but without a visionary and inspirational leader like Adrian, it would not have been successful. Obviously, those from the “other” side in this might have a different view. I’m not trying to argue the merits right now, but the fact that having a statesman like Adrian was key to the CR.
Ronaldus Maximus did the same thing for the conservative movement politically. He was a statesman, an inspirational leader to those who shared his views.
I really think one of our needs is an inspirational statesman leader who rises above the squabbling, articulates a bigger vision and unites some of the factions.
Dave, I thought Johnny Hunt did a good job of this myself.
Yes, that is true. But then the whole GCR thing got to be so combative. But I think that Johnny has been about as close as we have come in the last few years.
Frank Page has done well, as well. But he is not quite the forceful personality as Adrian or even Johnny.
All I can hear now is “unite the clans” in a fake Scottish accent. I need to go watch Braveheart now.
The Conservative Resurgence was successful because of certain individuals who were at the forefront of the movement (Adrian Rogers) and those who were willing to handle the backroom maneuverings that are necessary when dealing with politics.
They were able to make this a fight over doctrine (and largely, I agree with that premise) rather than politics and power. Now, we all here in the Southern Baptist Convention want to be in line with what we all believe scripture says is the line. Some call it conservative, some even call it the only way to be a Christian rather than a christian. The point is that rallying around something as resolute as doctrine and scripture, a foundational belief structure to the person rather than a movement, was enough to create a large tent approach because something monolithic was under assault.
However, we’re no longer fighting over foundational Christian beliefs so we’re having a much more difficult time on several fronts.
One, we’re having a hard time identifying the battle lines, let alone if battle lines should even exist. All of the sudden, Cooperative Program giving is important to some sides of the convention despite similar giving percentages by their own scions in leadership positions. The CP has been in decline for decades, not just months. This is a battle lines borne out of political maneuvering rather than an honest desire to see the CP giving percentages restored. Had it truly been an important issue, then this would have been a fight from ten, twenty years ago.
Two, previous theological allies are now diametrically opposed. I’m blown away that Calvinism is being touted as the reason so many things are running amok in the Southern Baptist Convention. So Calvinism caused faulty, borderline fraudulent, membership roll upkeep practices? Calvinism caused the stagnation and now reputation for squelching innovation and creativity? Calvinism caused every single problem within the North American Mission Board? Calvinism has caused every single ill that plagues the Convention?
Are you kidding me?
So why were Calvinists also not harangued along with those liberals that we sought out with everything short of torches and pitchforks? Could it be that being Calvinist is not the boogeyman that people are trying to create to masquerade that we simply have allowed the Convention and its entities to operate in a manner which oversight and accountability are the norm rather than the knee jerk reaction after the fact?
The mess that we know as the North American Mission Board is because we simply refuse to apply accountability and transparency methods which need to be in place for every entity within the Convention. The problems within NAMB are a microcosm of the problems plaguing the convention. And like Baghdad Bob, we have those who simply refuse the fact that maybe we’re putting the wrong people in charge and maybe we do have people who crave power over other, more important, things.
We have a convention that never healed after the necessary push from the resurgence because many good, honest people found themselves on the wrong side of the power struggle, not the theological struggle, of the Conservative Resurgence. We never stopped to find ways to mend fences and repair the bridges from the various groups within the tent. We simply forged ahead after declaring victory on the realize how pyrrhic that victory had become. Now, we have factions seeking power over compromise even though compromise and cooperation are the pillars of the Southern Baptist Convention.
So, until we implement methods and programs which promote trust and accountability, we’re going to have people looking for the next enemy to conquer and the next conspiracy to topple this convention. The problems we’re facing as a convention are indicative of the system we have in place. We have a very large and very ineffective system of oversight in place which promotes distrust, fraud, waste, and corruption.
We all made this. Now we want to blame someone else now that the bills are coming due.
I see where your comment is coming from, and it is a valid perspective.
But I beg all of you, let’s look at what we need to do as a Convention and not make this another CR rehash.
Please. Please. Please. Please.
Ugh.
I give up.
Great, thoughtful comment Bill. Dave, no disrespect intended, but I think you are a bit sensitive on the whole CR thing. Bills comment was not CR good, bad or indifferent. It dealt with CR as fact and consequences ( both good and bad). I know you get tiredhead any time discussion that could be considered anti CR comes up, but other than me, you don’t have very many “Voices” that dare to bring up CR issues any more
As I said, you made a valid point and I let the comment stand. I’m just asking that we look to the future not autopsy the past again.
I’m looking at the current situation.
Hence why I’m confused why I’m being called out for rehashing the Conservative Resurgence.
Bill, I didn’t call YOU out. This was the second comment rehashing the CR. That is why the comment was directed to everyone.
BILL,
David is right.
I mentioned two names of prominent people, and David was hoping that the discussion would not get side-tracked by going in a ‘certain direction’.
My bad. Not yours.
I think part of the problem is that these folks that are stirring up trouble believe that they represent the sbc. How many southern baptist churches have these people really observed; or how many have they been intimately involved in? Even those that were southern baptists before you were born, how many churches have you been intitmately involved in through your lifetime? We have over 42,000 churches in the sbc! Even if these people are intimately familiar with 100 Southern Baptist churches, that’s still only intitmate knowledge of .24% of southern baptist churches! We wrongly assume that the sbc we have experienced is THE sbc. When in reality, apart from the vote of the convention, our experience may be the minority instead of the majority.
How does someone prove what “Southern Baptist culture” and “Southern Baptist identity” are, if they’ve only interacted with .24% of the sbc? Also, why does it matter if another church 1000 miles away from my church has a different “culture” or “identity” than my church so long as they believe like my church (BF&M 2000)? How does someone define “sbc methodology” when “sbc methodology” has been in flux since the founding of the sbc?
Howell, I don’t understand the emphasis of those that speak of an intangible “culture” or sbc “identity” that they’re fighting to preserve. Could someone please, please define in detail what they mean by sbc “culture” and sbc “identity”? What exactly do they want to preserve?
Okay, Jared, I don’t mean this comment to be as confrontational as it will be.
But you said, “I think part of the problem is that these folks that are stirring up trouble believe that they represent the sbc.”
I don’t disagree. But I see a greater problem. Everyone sees that the other side is causing the trouble. This is especially true of the Calvinist/Non-Calvinist schism.
Calvinists complain about being excluded and marginalized. The Traditionalist Baptists (non-C) complain about being excluded and marginalized.
My point is that we all have to the tendency to see ourselves wearing the white hats and the other side wearing the black hats. That is the whole point of bearing with one another and loving one another.
Each side is firmly entrenched in the belief that they represent the true SB Identity. And each side is firmly convinced that the other side is mean, exclusionary and combative.
Again, I’m not trying to work you over here. But your first sentence raised that issue in my mind. And it is a fact. Each side views the other side as the troublemaker.
So, who is right? Is that important? Why doesn’t each side try to out-love the other side, out-return good for evil, out-accept our brothers the other side?
Dave, I see myself and others like me as willing to cooperate with the other side as we’re united by the BF&M 2000. I don’t believe Nash is willing to cooperate with me. I don’t want a more narrow sbc; and I don’t want them to leave. I want to reach the nations with them, not without them.
I think they’re trouble-makers because they’re telling people to leave the sbc. If I see Calvinists doing this as well, I’ll write against them.
Dave, what does out-loving the other side look like when they’re telling us to leave the sbc?
Continual kindness in the face of insult. continual love in the face of rejection. Continual giving and service when that giving and service is discounted.
But my point was more theoretical. Not trying to take sides right now. But my point is that in the SBC, both sides think the other side is the enemy.
Here’s what I think, Jared. Most of the Calvinists I know are not divisive or difficult. But some are. The majority of non-Calvinists are not like Jerry Nash. But some are.
The Calvinists look at the Jerry Nash-types and project that attitude to all non-Calvinists. And non-Calvinists look at the aggressive Calvinists and project that attitude on all Calvinists.
Look at Howell. I think he has said that he is a 5-pointer (right, Howell?). But he is hardly a virulent Calvinist. He is actually way more sympathetic to Jerry Nash than I am or you are. Not all Calvinists are cage-phase or aggressive.
And there are an awful lot of non-Calvinists who are not aggressive or hateful to Calvinists.
We tend to define others by the excesses of those in their groups.
Once, in ‘debate’ class, we prepared our arguments, having chosen our own ‘side’, in a case
only to be told by our instructor that we had to switch at the last moment all of our research, and prepare to defend the arguments of the opponents instead.
It was a very powerful exercise. It helped curb ego and passion for ‘our’ point-of-view;
and enable another dynamic to proceed that was, if anything, much more considerate of issues than might have been our focus before.
Dave,
Where are the divisive Calvinists writing blog posts that receive wide SBC readership or having extensive denominational influence?
There’s a big difference between a 20-something “cage stage” seminary student or church planter and a 50-something DOM, mega-church pastor, or state executive director.
I don’t buy the whole “there’s divisive people on both sides” argument.
— Todd
Todd, have you been reading this blog? I don’t know how you can miss the divisiveness from both sides.
In fact, in almost every issue, there’s there’s three sides to a two-sided debate.
Your post would perhaps lead somebody to believe that Jerry Nash is writing in a vacuum. I don’t think that is the case.
Frank,
My point is not that there are not indeed divisive people on both sides, but that the divisive Calvinists are not denominational leaders and mega-church pastors that influence large numbers of people. What major player in the SBC Calvinist movement is calling for a small-tent? or blaming non-Calvinists for all our woes? or orchestrating organized efforts to weed out all the non-Calvinists? I could name several big players on the anti-Calvinist side that do just that. It seems to me that any major SBC Calvinist you could name is more than willing to work with non-Calvinists, but the feeling is not always mutual.
— Todd
Todd, perhaps you are right about “big name” Calvinists not being divisive. I’ve never done the research or followed the debates that close so I really can’t say.
But, to say that Patterson and Mohler came to a place of unity in a very public way is much different than saying that Calvinism and Non-calvinism can be unified.
Just like any resurgence or renewal in our history was basically a grassroots movement, so the division is a grassroots division in my point of view.
The Baptist celebrity is probably not going to chance losing his place in the limelight over a debate that has not be resolved since the Primitive Church.
The division will be seen in times of voting when Calvinist and/or Non-Calvinists have a matter set before them. It really won’t matter how unified the SBC celebrities are, the division is at the grassroots in my humble opinion.
Maybe so, but I have faith that we grassroots pastors and laymen can change and be influenced in the right direction. That happens when people see others, especially our leaders, not only co-existing but working together for our common cause (namely the gospel). It happens in our church and it’s happening all over the Convention. Remember, our God is in the heart changing business 🙂
“Continual kindness in the face of insult. continual love in the face of rejection. Continual giving and service when that giving and service is discounted.”
DAVID, when your denomination comes to display this kind of fruit, I think the SBC will need a MUCH BIGGER tent than it has now.
I think that in my experience, Todd has a pretty good point here. Anti-Calvinism comes from some pretty public and prominent sources. The aggressive Calvinists I have known tended to be younger and less prominent.
Not a scientific sampling.
David,
While I accept you are right about which group is more prominent, but that’s not the issue really.
I think you see prominent names coming out against a strident variety of Calvinism not because it is prominent, but so potentially dangerous. Gangrene starts with a very small bug and does some very big damage.
I think that is a part of the equation that puts the “promient vs. young and less prominent” into perspective. The prominent Non-calvinist are sounding the alarm against what they see as potentially of great harm.
I’m not saying I agree with either position but I do not think the prominent men you speak of consider the other perspective as insignificant.
Landmark-ism (Baptist Identity Movement), not Calvinism, has already split the SBC once in our history (look it up)… And if certain influential individuals within this movement do not turn from their current course of sowing the seeds of division, it looks like history may indeed repeat itself.
I warned everyone about the growing influence/voice of Landmark-ism in the SBC a few years back and was politely ignored… Perhaps now that others have taken up the warning it will be heeded.
Grace for the Journey,
While the BI movement did have a few similarities with the Landmark movement, it is not fair to identify the two groups completely. There are a few similarities but also some significant differences.
I am not aware of this BI movement split you are talking about. Would love to hear more details, if you are willing to be more specific.
I believe he is talking about J Frank Norris
Most theologians and historians agree that there are two foundational doctrines at the core of Landmarkism that separate the Landmark Baptist from most Southern Baptist.
These two doctrines are:
(1) The belief in “The exclusive validity of Baptist churches”.
(2) The refusal to recognize as valid any baptisms or ordinations performed in circumstances other than under the auspices of a scripturally sound (Baptist) church.
Having engaged at length in the debate surrounding the highly controversial decision of the Board Of Trusties of the International Missions Board to exclude from service members of Southern Baptist Churches who were not Baptized in a Southern Baptist Church, I do not think I have overstated the similarities and shared beliefs between the Baptist Identity group within the Southern Baptist Convention and the Landmark movement.
You mention significant differences between these two groups… would you be willing to share what these differences are? I am not saying that there are no differences at all… actually there may be some. However, it should be very clear for all to see by the damage already done at the IMB that Landmarkism is a corrosive and divisive ideology.
As far as the Landmarkers causing “Splits” within the SBC here are two examples for you from Wikipedia:
In early twentieth century, two major separations from the Southern Baptists occurred in the areas of strongest Landmark influence. In 1900, S.A. Hayden led a group out of the Baptist General Convention of Texas to form the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas. Ben Bogard led a group out of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention to form the General Association of Baptist Churches in Arkansas in 1902.
For further confirmation of the divisive influence of Landmarkism one simply needs to read up on the history of the Campbellite movement and the development of the “Church of Christ” churches in the South. (Think of HYPER-LANDMARKISM).
Grace for the Journey,
Is it possible to increase respectful dialogue between parties that have disagreements ?
If so, what would be the ‘guidelines’?
Just a thought.
Christianity in general and Baptists in particular will alway be large tent people. Of course there is a disagreement about how large the tent is.
For there to be a convention, there has to be room in the tent for me and for you and sometimes I am not so sure that your theology is as sound as I would like. Now it’ just me.
Over which matters ought we divide? How about the authority of scripture? Or organs on the left and pianos on the right? Might matters that were once tertiary become over time bigger and bigger in our minds especially when we are not engaged in larger common cause.
We will be a big tent denomination but the question is why? Why are we a convention? What is it that we are trying to do together. this is why Rogers did a good job of envisioning a future and Hunt did a good job beginning the resurgence. Both men articulated a reason for us to be baptists together.
Without common purpose ( not just common doctrine or common identity, whatever that means) will will splinter endlessly.
Sorry that I have not responded before now to some excellent questions and dialogue. Out-of-town hospital visits and my middle son’s 10th Birthday have been my priorities today. I can’t speak for anyone else (nor would I try), but I am passionate about the SBC and her history and future. Others share that passion even though we may disagree on what seems like a lot, but really is probably only 10% of the issues affecting our Convention. Now, 10% does not seem like much, but it really depends on what the 10% is.
From my perspective, this is not a “Landmarkist” issue (which I am not) nor is it exclusively a Calvinist (which I am) or a non-Calvinist issue, although that seems to oftentimes take front and center in our debates, particularly at SBCVoices as of late.
I am not a BI guy, but I do believe that Southern Baptists have a culture and an identity. That is by no means monolithic and, to address Jared’s question, I’m not sure that I could explain it if I tried. The churches that I have been associated with (all SBC) have had more similarities than differences. That includes Highview, which my wife and I were members of for 1 1/2 years (pre-Ezell). Admittedly, I have only been associated with established churches, not newer churches or church plants.
I would venture to offer an educated guess that there is a dominant culture and identity within the SBC. Based on the locations of the 45,000+ churches, if you were to randomly attend a different SB church every Sunday in 2011, you would probably find that the vast majority of those were similar (not identical) in culture. There would always be a few outliers that are SB, but outside the mainstream of the cultural identity of most SB churches. The overwhelming majority of SB churches — whether Calvinist or non-Calvinist, Traditional or Contemporary — would not be mistaken for an Assemblies of God church or a Methodist church.
When it appears that the cultural identity of what it means to be a Southern Baptist is being radically and rapidly changed, I think it is perfectly understandable that many Southern Baptists would balk. Some may balk silently and meekly and some may balk loudly and aggressively, but balk they shall.
This should surprise no one who has been a pastor or on staff at a church. If you tried to implement changes that would affect a church’s culture by 25% in one fell swoop, how well would people respond? What about 50% at once? 75% at once?
Those who are leading the changes are, by and large, pastors and leaders who are used to casting the vision and having everyone immediately say, “yes sir.” That’s not how most grassroots pastors and churches work. In implementing the GCR, that has been a fatal flaw that has caused division. Frank L. is exactly right when he says this is a grassroots division. We can talk about majority votes or .24% all day long, but until there is a realization that the changes — however good they may end up being — were done in such a poor and heavy-handed way that the collapse of the Big Tent is almost assured. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I agree with the comment that with so many SBC churches, there is a very wide disparity in how they believe and operate. I have never thought of the SBC as a denomination, but rather a group of independent churches who cooperated in missions, for evangelism and seminary education. If we really are a denomination, each church would agree to the BFM, use Lifeway curriculum in SS and small groups, have VBS every summer, and commit to giving X percentage to the CP, Lottie Moon, and Annie Armstrong. If you don’t do this, you might be Baptist but not Southern Baptist.
Howell, thanks for answering my question(s). I do have another… How exactly is the “culture of what it means to be a Southern Baptist being radically and rapidly changed”? How is the culture that’s in autonomous Southern Baptist churches being changed by others outside of these churches?
I still don’t understand the argument that the culture or identity of the sbc is being changed.
Jared,
In my opinion (YMMV), there appears to be more of a top-down approach that is taking place within the Convention. That maybe only perception, but I believe that the way that the various autonomous bodies (i.e., SBC entitities like NAMB, the State Conventions, and the local Associations) relate to one another is changing rapidly and radically, at least if you look at what how we have been relating. Now, we can debate whether or not how we relate and do ministry must change (I think it should always be changing) and how much/how fast it should change (that’s where I think we disagree on the radical and rapid nature of the change), but we are witnessing fairly massive change in a short period of time.
That’s why the GCR Final Report had a phase-out of the existing partnership agreements between NAMB and the State Conventions over a period of 7 years (up from 4 in the Interim Report). In terms of understanding, I think some may never see that the SBC culture is changing. But, it has been changing and will continue to change. For example, I grew up in an SB church that had R.A.’s and G.A.’s. Those programs still function, but I have not been in a church in the last 20 years (including the one I currently pastor) that has either of these SBC programs.
Changes can be good or bad. However, even the best changes can engender strong opposition because of the way the changes are implemented and/or communicated. That’s what I see in the whole GCR process.
I do believe you are right in terms of the local church. Our church has a culture. It had a different culture four years ago before I arrived and it had a different culture 60 years ago when it was founded. Ultimately, what happens on the national (or even State) level of the SBC doesn’t have much of an affect on our internal culture. But, the more churches who feel that the overall culture of the Convention is being changed in a negative way, the more pushback that will happen. Hope that helps you with your questions. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Having been an extreme Landmarker at one time, I can tell you that one who follows such a view winds up being all alone. Why? Because you soon discover that a Linked Chain Succession of Baptisms cannot be sustained. There are cunning people in history who infiltrate groups of churches in order to advocate a position and run it into the extreme, while others do the same on the other side in order to destroy the original grouping. Perhaps Christiane would like to comment upon that!
Interestingly enough, J.R. Graves might have been the model for the Bad Preacher in Mark Twain’s Huck Finn. People forget that Twain was a river boat pilot on the Mississippi and made frequent stops at Memphis. A fellow minister’s wife’s father and grandfather were Landmarkers and knew about the matter. How much I do not know.
But I do know that following out the pure church theory will lead to some very disappointing results. I speak from painful experience and disappointment. God in His providence can be a great teacher.
Thankfully, I believe better things are coming in the future. Big tent or small, sooner or later, we are going to have a visitation of God, a Third Great Awakening which will win every soul on earth in one generation and then last for 999 more generations and millions and billions of souls on a 1000 planets pehaps (I got that from the old original limited atonement man himself, Dr. John Owen, the original souce of Andrew Fuller’s efficiency/sufficiency view of the Atonement which really makes me wonder if our anticalvinists ever do any research and carefully reading at all). What if Predestination, Total Depravity/Inability, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints, and Reprobation are really the doctrines that are truly the most passionately evangelistic and inviting, thrilling, electrifying, electric, dynamic, motivating, moving, exciting, attractive, compelling. What if God sent a message that in one month and ten days he was going to utterly destroy the world and that without one word of, “if you repent, I will spare you,” how many do we believe would be saved? Why not the whole earth in one generation? Why not for a 1000 generations? But te prophecy had been given and the prophet is suppsoed to be stoned, whenhis prophecy is not fulfilled exactly as he says. O I am talking about Jonah who didn’t want Nineveh to be spared. He wanted to see them destroyed. Then he wanted to die, when the city was spared.
Our problem is we are dealing with an inspired book, a book inspired by omniscience. It follows that we ought to expect a profundity of depth in the very simplicity and clarity that seem so easy to grasp. Like my friend who thought the mountain stream was only 2-3 feet deep, because he could see the grains of sand rolling along the bottom. But it was 18-20 feet deep, and he almost drowned. The Bible in its clarity is deeper than the human minds can comprehend. And when the US Navy ships stop to let their young sailors go swimming in the deepest swimming hole on earth (the Mariannas Trench off of the Coast of the Philippines – seven miles to the bottom- I am told), the captains crack a joke, “You are welcome to try and reach the bottom, but I doubt that you shall succeed!” (What my cousin told me from his experience in the 50s and my wife’s nephew in the 70s). The depth of God’s grace and wisdom and love and plans for the future are suggested by the fact of a covenant being kept for a 1000 generations (I Chron.16:15), a seed as innumerable as the stars of Heaven, the sand of the sea, and the dust of the earth, and a flood that covers the whole earth like the waters cover the sea. Winsome, the Gospel is winsomeness embodied in the most fascinating person who ever walked on the face of this planet. When I was a full-fledged atheist, He met me, knocking at my door in a vision or hallucination (how can I tell or prove it one way or the other – but it sure knocked my atheism into a cocked hat. And that night after apprearing as it says in Rev.3:20, He did what He did with Lydia: He opened my heart’s door (Acts 16:14)). When God shows up in person, atheism, agnosticism, and all false isms fall apart. Just think like Job who could not think of all the hard questions he wanted to put to God, I could not think of my hard questions like, “Why do chldren have to suffer the loss of father and mother, work like a dog, feel emptiness and futility through childhood, have no experience of God?”
Then one finds out that what lies ahead involves many griefs and much suffering along with many joys and wonders. For 38 years I have been praying for this Awakening, and, being a historian after a fashion (years of research, etc.), I do know the theology that produced the Great Awakenings, the launching of the Great Century of Missions, religious liberty, our seminaries, and more much more. Sovereign Grace, the truths mentioned above, are like therapeutic paradoxes, opposite seeming and sounding truths, that restore to man enablement, empowerment, responsibility, and more. In addition they are so constructed as to make believers balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic, persevering, winsome. I shall never forget the laughter and good humor, the earnestness, the soulful pleadings from the pulpit and person to person of my ordaining pastor,a supralapsarian, hyper-calvinist. He pleaded with my step-father to put his trust in Christ until tears ran down my step-father’s face. Ernest R. Campbell once preached a revival in rural Georgia Baptist church and had 100 converts. Dr. Campbell founded the American Race Track Chaplaincy (cf.Who’s Who in Religion, 2nd edn. Chicago: Marquis, 1977). I remember Dr. R.G. Lee hugging Dr. Campbell’s neck, and Dr. Lee put it in his will for Dr. Campbell to preach his funeral. That day there at least five preachers or more, but only one was specified in the will, Dr. Campbell.
Remember Dr. Truett speaking at the Spurgeon Centenary in 1934 after being introduced by the Prime Minister of Great Britain and saying Spurgeon’s theology was Calvinism and that it was centered in Christ and that it pressed down upon the brow of the individual the crown of responsibility? You can’t beat that for getting to the point we are all concerned about, namely, the souls of sinners being won to Christ for our Lord’s glory and the good of the individuals and society.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Historically, at the center of baptist functioning is a value placed on decentralization (e.g., autonomy, local church governance, priesthood of the/all believer/s).
Decentralization empowers local entities, whether such be organizations, groups, or individuals, to effectively adapt to and influence dynamic environments.
A healthy degree of system decentralization and equifinality is a sign of healthy denominational and organizational functioning when adapting to and influencing changing, dynamic environments.
However, decentralization and equifinality create (potentially creative) tensions, which require some level of coordination and integration across levels and functions, but the coordinating and integrating mechanisms should preserve the dynamic character of the institution (e.g., decentralization), not attenuate it. Coordination and integration should not be confused with control and assimilation, although the former will require a higher level of maturity and faith development to appreciate, develop, and sustain. The latter will ease minds of those with little tolerance for ambiguity, however.
Theological conformity will centralize the authority structures of a system and such will seek to reduce equifinality, thus further impede the system’s ability to sustain itself in dynamic environments. That is, theological conformity, with its associated and inevitable attempts to control and assimilate various system entities for the sake of supposed system integrity, will actually undermine the very foundation on which the system was built.
Baptists, in contrast to many other faith groups in degree, but comparable in kind to most faith groups that subsequently grew out of the Reformation, were pioneers with a postmodern concept of polyphonic being, so to speak, as advocated by people such as Derrida, Deleuze, and Guattari. A more excellent, but more difficult, way of being is less about power and more about being “desiring nomads in a constant process of becoming and transformation (Woods).” To follow after the Spirit of God is no ordinary task. When we actually follow after the Spirit, we often find it to be a bit decentering, which, perhaps, is why we seek, instead, other ways of being, using the certitude and experience of the past to placate the present and justify our limiting desires for the future.