Drew Wales blogs at SBC Heritage
Last week, a document was released that generated so much traffic websites crashed. I disagree with many points in the document and I have seen some very well crafted responses to the errors and misrepresentations contained in the document. Eric Hankins’ document does not get to the heart of what it means to be a “traditional” Southern Baptist. The theological position in the document is nothing new so there was little concern on my part with positions brought forward, but I am concerned with the divisive nature of the document. Here is why I disagree with the use of the term “traditional” to define the position of Hankins and the rest of the signers of the document: A traditional Southern Baptist is one who has a passion for world missions, is a member of a Southern Baptist Church, faithfully gives to the Cooperative Program, and affirms the Baptist Faith and Message. I, along with many others, last week found myself outside the realm of “Traditional Southern Baptists” and thrust into a category of “non-traditional.”
For a while now there have been murmurs amongst the bloggers and commentators for the removal of the term “non Calvinist.” It appears the term “traditional” was elected as the solution. This hardly solves the problem, for now the Calvinists find themselves as “non-traditional.” There may be some who disagree, but if a “traditional” Southern Baptist adheres to the document published last week then the logical conclusion is that the “New Calvinists” are “non-traditional.”
There are a few things that stand out as being “Traditional Southern Baptist,” and limiting the term “traditional” to the soteriological position presented last week simply fall short. Ever since the formation of the Convention in 1845, missions have been on the front burner of Southern Baptists hearts and minds. Article II of the original Constitution, which varies only slightly from what is found in today’s Constitution reads:
It shall be the design of this Convention to promote Foreign and Domestic Missions, and other important objects connected with the Redeemers Kingdom…
A desire to advance the Gospel in China, Africa, and around the world is what brought us together and it is this same passion which has acted as the glue that held us for so long.
Membership in an SBC church, participation in the Cooperative Program, and affirmation of the Baptist Faith and Message are all part and parcel of being actively involved in a local SBC church. The Cooperative Program is the one thing that sets the Southern Baptists apart from all other groups.
The Cooperative Program is the engine that drives our missions, and it is the primary vehicle for reaching the world with the saving power of the Gospel. It is this program combined with the traditional understanding of Southern Baptists that we are called to be Great Commission Baptists which fueled the rapid growth of the SBC and allowed us to claim the title of world’s largest protestant denomination.
What makes the SBC great is the diversity in our churches. Some churches are more pragmatic while others are heavily doctrinal and it is the Baptist Faith and Message which is the main player in this phenomenon. It is written in such a way that all traditional Southern Baptists can affirm it regardless of which side of the soteriological fence a person finds himself. When lines are drawn which supersede the BF&M there is a risk in rocking the boat and upsetting the very thing that has played such an integral part in pushing the Convention forward. A Traditional Southern Baptist loves the Gospel, loves missions, and affirms the Baptist Faith and Message.
Drew, When you say that “the Cooperative Program is the engine that drives our missions, and it is the primary vehicle for reaching the world with the saving power of the Gospel.” I think I hear what you are saying… but this sounds like the CP is the engine that drives our missions when I think it is better communicated that God drives our missions from Scripture. The CP is our cooperative effort to obey the command to herald the gospel. I’m not opposed to what you are say… only cautious about how we communicate. You conclude by saying “what… Read more »
A traditional Southern Baptist loves God.
Paul,
I understand what you are saying, and agree, but I believe you are parsing words to the point of missing what is being said.
The CP is the practical engine for SBC missions, not the spiritual.
The post is not attempting to lay a foundation that is something other than the Cornerstone Christ Jesus.
Joshua, the parsing of words is risky but logical progression of thought is important, I think I understand where Drew is coming from. I don’t speak into this to distract from his point but to voice a caution. I am guilty of saying something with passion and yet messing the logical process of what I’m saying. I think I hear the intent of this post and I’m in agreement. Thanks.
Drew,
Great post and a great reminder of what we are trying to accomplish as true traditional Southern Baptists.
You’re witnessing the power of words. Now, there are those who are seeking to combat some imaginative enemy and have been doing so since Morris Chapman’s major swing at a previous convention. So, since we all now Calvinists who exemplify good, Christian ideals and practices, it makes no sense to go after Calvinists as a whole because everyone is going to know and love a Calvinist (except maybe Chapman). So, rather than go after Calvinists and the term liberal has already been taken (and rightly so), it makes sense to find a word that conjures images of liberalism while invoking… Read more »
The document is the biggest joke I’ve seen so far this year.
Imagine calling themselves “Traditional” (indicating others who disagree with their position as non-Traditional) when History tells us that Calvinism is in fact the theological tradition into which the SBC was born. They should have labeled themselves “Modernist” – that would be more accurate.
-Jeph
Jeph, you need to learn how to communicate with fellow Christians in a way that honors and respects even those you disagree with.
If you do not raise the level of your conversation here on SBC Voices, your comments will go into moderation and I will have to approve them before they appear.
There is just no reason you have to insult those with whom you disagree.
As Bob Newhart said, “Stop it.”
Yep.
Dave,
If my comment offended anyone, please bear with me. I’m a Filipino and English isn’t my primary language. Aside from my grammar shortcomings, I also find it hard making sure that my statements are in an appropriate tone. Anyhow, I didn’t intend to insult anyone. I’m just stating what I feel everybody should know; that is, that the “Traditionalist” statement is not at all traditional.
-Jeph
Jeph,
Maybe your understanding of the intent of the word “Traditionalist” by those who constructed the document is lacking due to your difficulty with English, you think?
So, maybe you should take Dave’s advice and learn how to communicate with fellow Christians in a way that honors and respects even with those of whom you disagree.
CB,
I was referring to my communication abilities, not to my comprehension.
But yes, I’ll take Dave’s advice by heart.
-Jeph
If the traditionalist approach is just simply an affirmation, why did they specify calvinism as an object of rejection on their part when that is the theology of the origins of Southern Baptists, clearly identifiable in the documents? And if people are not trying to split this organization, why has Shorter University called for a statement on calvinism as a part of the application process for applicants who would replace those who left due to their disagreement with the requirements concerning lifestyle?
You make a good point here. I am not a so-called 5 point Calvinist. I don’t even know if there is such a thing as a 4 or 3 point. My Reformed friends tell me that there is not. So I really don’t know where I fit in here. But one thing that I am not worried about is a group in the SBC wanting to be called “Traditionalists”. I genuinely admire these brothers, but that has to be the worst name I have seen come down the pike since “moderate.” It is not accurate (as you have pointed out).… Read more »
“And I say all of this as one who thinks the doctrinal issues being discussed are worthy of discussion. Just not in the way they are being discussed.” LOUIS, it does appear that the discussions are more ‘debate’ . . . fueled by an attempt to score points off of an opposing position. If the doctrinal issues could be discussed from the perspective of one side attempting to better understand the way the other side is seeing things . . . from there, they would be able to see further along the road towards discovering how the other side reasoned… Read more »
I just find it hilarious that so many get all bent out of shape about the name Traditionalist. I dont care what you call me, as long as you call me for supper. We’re more concerned with the statement of beliefs, which we think covers a majority of SB’s views…and has been our views for quite a while now. Maybe we should’ve called ourselves “Majority Baptists,” or “Biblical Baptists?” Boy, that would’ve caused a howling! lol Seriously, I dont know why Traditional was picked, but I think its a hoot to hear so many get so fired up about the… Read more »
Hey, maybe the Calvinists can adopt a name like, “True Baptists” (TBs) or “The Historic Baptists” (THBs). Or maybe “True Traditionalists.”
I’m sure any of those would go over well.
Since the founding fathers of the SBC were all Calvinists, any of those would do.
-Jeph
Les,
With all due respect the Calvinists group did call themselves the Founders. The Calvinists don’t like the term Biblicists, they don’t like NonCalvinists, and they don’t like the term Traditionalists. Perhaps the NonCalvinists should call themselves the “Less Thans”, that might suit the Calvinists. And regardless of Jeph’s assertions anyone who is honest about Baptist history knows that neither side can claim exclusively to be called the “True Baptist”.
John, I should have used a smiley face. My comments were sort of tongue in cheek. That said, in the latest post here this morning David Schrock uses the phrase, “Traditional Baptists and Historic Baptists.”
Anyway, my preferred designation is not Calvinists anyway. I prefer Reformed Baptists.
I think there is enough variance in Reformed groups to legitimately adopt that designation with integrity and without necessarily being lumped in with covenantal and paedo groups.
Otherwise, I sort of like “Historic Baptists” too.
Maybe “Original Southern Baptist” is better.
-Jeph
Today is June 7, 2012. Some things are more important that Southern Baptists and their fight over soteriological dogma. Here are a few examples of things far more important: 1). The Braves stomped the Marlins 2-1 and are solidly in second place in the NL East and rapidly gaining on the Nationals for the number 1 spot. 2). The Yankees squeaked by the Rays by a hair at 4-1 and barely hanging on to second place in the AL East and will be again in the cellar after the series with the Braves this coming week. 3). The SABANATION Women’s… Read more »
Hi CB,
Did you see where your boys (Saban and Co.) are going to kick off 2014 against my boys? (WVU) Saban is a hillbilly by birth and I’m going to be a Calvinist for the first time in my life in stating the following:
WVU is predestined to give Saban a friendly-but-firm swift homecoming kick in the britches. The musket will fire early and often as the Mountaineers roll the tide! Let’s GOOOOOOOO, Mountaineers!
:0)
Jim G.
Jim G.,
As John Wayne said to Richard Boone in the movie Big Jake, “Not Hardly.”
But I do appreciate a man who dreams big. Maybe you boys will get to play Auburn someday. If you can beat them, that is about as good as you Mountaineers will ever get from a team in the Heart of Dixie.
We already beat Auburn on prime-time TV a few years back. We’re here to complete the sweep of Alabama. :0)
Jim G.
The only reason the Tide every really started to succeed was that they had to get a coach from Arkansas, the Wonder State. Didn’t you know that, CB? And the Cardinals were the Southern Gentlemen’s baseball team back in the days of Harry Cary before he did that dumb thing and moved to Chicago to take on a losing cause, but I did hear it was a set too with August Busch.
Labels, labels, labels.
Is there diversity in the SBC? Certainly, and it should be cause for celebration.
I thought that a Southern Baptist was one who affirms the BFM 2000. Silly me, since it now seems like we see a movement that says: “Don’t see eye to me on secondary issues? Then sit in the back of the bus!”
So why do Calvinist refuse to tell sinners God loves them? Are we meanies as the Arminians claim.? Well,it is because we may be talking to Esau. We actually believe God hated Esau(Romans 9) and we think there are lots of Esaus in the nasty world. Nor do we believe God loves the reprobates He is burning in hell. Calvinists are careful to not cast their pearls before swine.
Hey, I’m a Calvinist and I don’t have any problem telling those I witness that God loves them and offers His Son to them.
-Jeph
If you were on one of the planes that flew into the twin towers,would you be telling one of the killers that just slit a flight attendants throat that God loved them? If so,then He still loves him in hell. God does love the lost in hell. Agreed? Those in hell might disagree. Psalm 5-5 might disagree. But we live in “Through the Looking Glass” where words mean whatever men want them to mean. So hate means love and bad means good. It all depends on your view. Different strokes for different folks.
JW, Are you any less guilty of being of a depraved nature and by your own volition a despicable, loathsome, and God hating sinner before a holy, just, and righteous God than the godless wretches who cut flight attendants and brought death and sorrow to a multitude of people on 9-11? Does God hate all who have cut another person’s throat? Does God hate all who have ignited explosives an blown other people’s lives away? Does God hate all who have looked others in the face and taken their lives with various weapons? If so, then God has hated and… Read more »
I understand your point. God loved Esau and God loves all the workers of iniquity. Romans nine and psalm 5. I have made the necessary corrections to my outdated bible. Thank you for your kind assistance. God loves you.
JW,
I did not make a “point.” You were the one making a point. I asked you a question about the point you made.
Will you or will you not answer the question?
JW
‘love’ is such that
when a child or an animal encounters loving-kindness,
they know what it is . . .
maybe that is why ‘words’ alone cannot dwell in us meaningfully without the life of the Spirit
. . . especially in the Kingdom of Our Lord
I’m a calvinist, too, and in a sermon on Roms.9:13 many years ago, the third point was, We are invited to receive God who does not act like we do. The basis of it was, “Esau have I hated.” Now there can be no denying what God said, He said, “He hated Esau.” But, now note how he treat the fellow. Esau could have said, “With an enemy like that, who needs any friends.” God make Esau the first born, prospered him, gave him much. In fact, Esau is the one person we know who had enough and who then… Read more »
Note treated and made, lines 4 & 5 above.
If the (I’ll call them Non-Calvinist for now)… If the Non-Calvinist insist on labeling others (Calvinist) according to their theological beliefs, then should not they be labeled according to their theological beliefs as well? The last time I check “Traditionalist” is not a theological belief system… So for me that one is out. So now what is needed is for them to express what they truly believe, as they say they have done in the statement, and take ownership of the piece of theological ground upon which they stand by proudly accepting the “Historically” defined label for those who have… Read more »
Well said.
Not to mention that the title “Traditional” reflects at best their wishful thinking that their position is the historic SB understanding of Salvation, which is NOT.
-Jeph
I think the one problem the SBC has a whole has, most ministers think their members are dumber than a rock. One doesn’t need a degree in Theology to know what the Bible is teaching.
And of course, you can PROVE that statement, right? You’ve used your “research skills” that you honed in JuCo to document that. I mean, surely you didn’t just state something without proof to back it up, right? (eye roll)
Debbie:
I agree with you that One does not need a degree in Theology to know what the Bible is teaching.
How many times do I see people referencing the clear teachings of the Bible.
If it is clear, then it is clear.
Debbie and Tom,
I certainly agree that one doesn’t have to have a theology degree to know what the Bible says. I tell my people all the time that pastors aren’t given anymore revelation than the people are. I look at preaching and teaching as more a gift of articulation or communication rather than revelation.
Debbie I do pray that your statement about pastors isn’t correct. In any case I certainly don’t look at my members that way.
John:
You said “I certainly agree that one doesn’t have to have a theology degree to know what the Bible says. I tell my people all the time that pastors aren’t given anymore revelation than the people are. I look at preaching and teaching as more a gift of articulation or communication rather than revelation. ”
Fantastic statement coming from a SB Pastor. Articulation and communication are very important parts of a pastor’s job but he must remember the majority of his listeners have the Holy Spirit.
Thanks Tom,
I’ve been pastoring the same people for 12 and a half years and my respect and appreciation for them grows every day. I do believe in having respect for the pastor but the pastor ought to respect his people as well.
Please pray for me, I’ve been called to another church. We are having to leave people behind that I love and admire so much including my newly wed daughter.
John:
That is fantastic that God allowed you to minister to these folks for 12 1/2 years.
I’m sure your folks will miss you and your wife very much!
I will pray for you as you go to the next job that God has for you.
The controversy is very clear. Calvinists say God determines who will be saved and Arminians claim man determines who will be saved. Either both of these statements are false or one is true and the other is false.Both cannot be true. Either God is free to act and sinners are bound by His will,or sinners are free to act and God is bound by their will. In Arminianism,God is like the President of a college who has agreed to accept all those who choose to enroll. Who and how many is irrelevant. It’s their choice. So the vast majority of… Read more »