There are more important subjects to discuss. Seems to me that the discussion would flow to mission support methodologies for the 21st century. We are all in favor of spiritual renewal.
All the candidates were asked about Calvinism by B21. Here is what they said. Crosby gave a short answer so his is complete below. Gaines and Greear gave longer answers, so I have excerpted theirs. Click to see the whole interview.
J. D. Greear: I am pretty confident that if you asked the average person at the Summit whether we were “Calvinist” or “non-Calvinist,” they wouldn’t know what to tell you. I prefer the balance of the BFM 2000 here. We are committed to preaching the Bible, doing the work of evangelism, and giving God all the credit.
David Crosby: No one in the SBC is about to reveal a theological fix to this centuries-old theological conundrum. Anyone who thinks they have tied up all the loose ends is either self-deluded or a heretic. Therefore our solution must be found in the common ground we share in Christ and the work we do together, as it has always been. I don’t want to throw out anyone on either side of this theological discussion. We must focus on Christ and the gospel. We must fight the “party spirit” that always seeks to divide and weaken our work. We can do this work together. If we do it together, we will get more done for our Savior. He prayed that we would be one. Let’s cooperate with the Spirit in the unity he is bringing to the bride of Christ.
Steve Gaines: The SBC has always had Calvinists and non-Calvinists. I’m fine with that, as long as one side does not seek to dominate the other. Calvinism does not need to be taught as the exclusive, optimal theological viewpoint in our seminaries. Non-Calvinist students should not be subjected to Calvinistic professors who proactively seek to convert them to Calvinism. None of our seminaries should have a faculty of professors who are exclusively Calvinistic. Non-Calvinistic professors should be an integral part of each one of our seminary faculties because most Southern Baptists are not Calvinists, and they are the ones that fund our seminaries and pay the salaries of our professors.
While all of them call for working together and unity, only Steve Gaines goes to the specifics of “optimal theolog[y]” in the seminaries, students being subjected to proselytizing profs, and the warning against exclusively Calvinistic faculties. Notably, Gaines poses his views of how Calvinists and non-Calvinists should co-exist in the SBC with the phrasing of Calvinists dominating, proselytizing, exclusivist rather than the reverse.
Huh? Why go after the Calvinists and include all the detail warnings about seminaries and their faculty and practices?
Well, whatever it is, he repeats the same things in an interview with The Baptist Message:
Gaines said the Baptist Faith and Message is broad enough for both groups, but because the majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists, Calvinism should not be taught as the principal theological position of any SBC entity.
“I do believe that our students need to know about Calvinism. I don’t mind our seminaries teaching about Calvinism, but it should not be the exclusive theological position taught in any of our schools,” he said.
I haven’t heard a candidate for major office, or prominent SBC leader bring the matter up since the report was presented three years ago until Steve Gaines, twice now, tossed out the comments about SBC seminaries, faculties.
Good replies by Greear and especially Crosby. Disappointed in Gaine’s reply.
Interesting that Gaines does not apply the same logic and say that seminaries not having exclusively non-Calvinists either. By his reasoning, the balance at each seminary should reflect the percentage in the SBC.
“Non-Calvinist students should not be subjected to Calvinistic professors who proactively seek to convert them to Calvinism.”
Yes, and what Gaines should have added is,
“Likewise, Calvinist students should not be subjected to Non-Calvinist professor who proactively seek to convert them to a Non-Calvinistic position”
Not surprised by Gaines reply.
I was surprised. I was hoping he would be one who would bring unity to both camps like Ronnie Floyd has. But making assumptions and comments like this are not helpful. He will not be getting my vote.
Or it’s his campaign strategy to get elected…
Regarding the comments by Gaines – – any student in any of our seminaries that adopts an ‘ism’, any ‘ism’, simply because some Professor embraces same is small minded and not mature. We must all embrace with unflinching conviction what we have discovered through accurate, precise and systematic exegesis applied with humility and as a result of focused prayer. That is the purpose of a Theological education – to become competent and faithful exegets. God help us if we produce puppets who march to another’s drum beat in our Seminaries. The Law of Non-Contradiciton is alive and well. The Scripture is not scidzophrenic – – does no express conflicting realities. The text says what it says and we are called to surrender to that message with courageous and humble submission.
Does this mean we shouldn’t adopt baptism? 😉
Well said Tom!
Tom, that is almost exactly what my professors said repeatedly. They get a lot of flak, because I went to SEBTS back in the mid-80s, and they are usually accused of being liberal and indoctrinating students with their beliefs. But you know: I have found that you generally find exactly what you are looking for. Look for liberalism, and you will find liberalism. Look for heresy and you will find heresy. Look for indoctrination and you will find indoctrination. BUT: if you look for education, you will find education, and if you look for the tools to determine your own set of beliefs, you will find those tools.
Tom,
I will have to say that many young people are influenced by the views and beliefs of their Professors. After all, they’re the Professors. They’re looked upon as being very smart. The young person is going to the seminary to learn. So, yes, there are many young people, who are greatly influenced by the Profs beliefs.
I’ve seen more than a few young people come out of seminary with very “different” views than when they went into seminary. I’ve seen more than a few change from the Church they came out of. I even know of several, who came back to their home Church, and told their Pastor that he was wrong, and had been preaching it all wrong, and should change his beliefs. I’ve seen and heard of this happening more than a couple of times. I mean, telling the Pastors, who had discipled them that they needed to change…..
David
Mr. Thornton, I agree. We need someone to write an Acts 17 unity resolution.
It’s a conspiracy…all this “Mr.” stuff.
I had Dr. Gaines as a guest instructor for a D. Min. Seminar at SBTS in about 2000. He never mentioned Calvinism. In our discussions of Expository Preaching (my D.Min. Emphasis) I don’t remember any discussions of Calvinism in any seminar. Dr. Gaines felt the freedom to serve as a guest lecturer at Southern and didn’t even mention Calvinism. I wonder what has changed? I left that seminar very impressed with Dr. Gaines and thought he was a great guy who was being greatly used by God at FBC Gardendale, AL where he served at the time. I appreciate his concern and emphasis for revival and spiritual awakening. I don’t appreciate his responses on Calvinism in the seminaries.
I’ve said it before. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. People become fixated on one topic, and every discussion is hijacked in that direction. For some it’s the CR, for others it’s Calvinism. I think Gaines is campaigning here, for all it is considered distasteful by some for SBC Prez candidates to campaign.
Steve Gaines said,
“No entity should be promoting Calvinism or non-Calvinism to the exclusion of the other. Our entities should be places where any Southern Baptist who stands within the boundaries of The Baptist Faith and Message should be welcomed and affirmed as they have opportunities to benefit from, participate in, and provide leadership for those entities.”
Seems he is not as one-sided as some here are claiming.
David R. Brumbelow
David B,
There you go, again, stating facts. Some people don’t want to hear facts. They just want to hear what they want to hear. I find it interesting that so many people are willing to jump all over what Steve Gaines said, here.
Why? Why did yall read “against Calvinism,” or “anti Calvinist'” from Gaines statements above? Why didn’t yall read what David B. quoted?
Also, Steve Gaines said, “The SBC has always had Calvinists and non-Calvinists. I’m fine with that, as long as one side does not seek to dominate the other.”
Also, let’s not forget that Gaines was ASKED this question. He was responding to the question asked of him in the interview. Some of yall act like he just brought this up, out of the blue; as if he was fixated on it. He was ASKED the question. C’mon now.
It seems that some are making mountains out of the molehills, and some people may be Anti-Gaines. Why are you Anti-Gaines? Is there some reason that this pushed the buttons on some people’s Calvinism machine?
Thank you, David B. for pointing out the truth.
David B. gave a partial quote. I put the whole thing in the OP. Here it is again:
“The SBC has always had Calvinists and non-Calvinists. I’m fine with that, as long as one side does not seek to dominate the other. Calvinism does not need to be taught as the exclusive, optimal theological viewpoint in our seminaries. Non-Calvinist students should not be subjected to Calvinistic professors who proactively seek to convert them to Calvinism. None of our seminaries should have a faculty of professors who are exclusively Calvinistic. Non-Calvinistic professors should be an integral part of each one of our seminary faculties because most Southern Baptists are not Calvinists, and they are the ones that fund our seminaries and pay the salaries of our professors.”
There I go stating facts. He was asked but no one put these words in his mouth.
I agree with Gaines but am thinking that I see a thrust for the non-Calvinist vote. The red flags are being waved. I haven’t seen this level of campaigning since the Conservative Resurgence days. I don’t know exactly why.
This will get more interesting. I’ll repeat: any of the three would be fine but in my mind, Gaines is fading as my third choice. I just don’t get some of this stuff.
William,
It seems to me that Dr. Gaines is in keeping with the spirit of the Truth, Trust, and Testimony in a Time of Tension that the Calvinism Advisory Committee developed in 2013.
At one point the document said:
“We should expect all leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention and all entities serving our denomination to affirm, to respect, and to represent all Southern Baptists of good faith and to serve the great unity of our Convention. No entity should be promoting Calvinism or non-Calvinism to the exclusion of the other. Our entities should be places where any Southern Baptist who stands within the boundaries of The Baptist Faith and Message should be welcomed and affirmed as they have opportunities to benefit from, participate in, and provide leadership for those entities.”
Blessings!
Yes, I have already compared the two statements. But when it came to offering a concrete warning/example it was focused in one direction. This would be a simple thing for SG to state whether or not he thinks there is a problem in our seminaries.
And thanks, Ron, for calling me “William” and breaking the string of “Mr. Thorntons”. I was about to go out and get a wheelchair.
Make sure your Obamacare coverage includes durable medical equipment, Mr. Thornton.
I am confident if Willliam Hall wrote this piece rather than Willaim Thornton it would be called a hit piece.
How plain does this read,
“We should expect all leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention and all entities serving our denomination to affirm, to respect, and to represent all Southern Baptists of good faith and to serve the great unity of our Convention. No entity should be promoting Calvinism or non-Calvinism to the exclusion of the other. Our entities should be places where any Southern Baptist who stands within the boundaries of The Baptist Faith and Message should be welcomed and affirmed as they have opportunities to benefit from, participate in, and provide leadership for those entities.”
SG gives an answer on Calvinism but the question is not seen in Plodder’s blog, nor do I see it in the Message’s interview. If the question was along the lines of, “What is your opinion on how Calvinism should be presented in our seminaries?” The answer that begins, “I do believe our students need to know about Calvinism….” is not a one-sided warning. It would be answering a question.
You see a thrust for a non-Cal vote. What are you trying to accomplish by highlighting some of SG’s words but completely ignoring the portion that doesn’t fit your narrative?
That’s the ad hoc Calvinism study report of a few years ago. Are you offering it as a SG quote? You didn’t give any link or say so.
The language about Calvinist profs and the seminaries prompted my query. If SG has offered anything in his current YouTube and interview activity please point me to it.
I had no narrative until I read the current interviews given by SG. I quoted him (and the other two) and linked the interviews. I’m not ignoring anything. You are welcome to show me something I haven’t seen.
William, that quote is taken from your post where you say, “He says,” then you seem to give three quotes from SG. If that third quote is from the Ad Hoc committe it is not cited as such and seems to be Gaines’ comment. If it is not Gaines then your query makes more sense. I have no idea if a portion of your post was omitted or if you just didn’t cite the comment as the Ad Hoc’s work. In any case, I sincerely apologize Mr William.
Dean, I made a mistake in the quotes that confused the matter. I’m the one who should apologize. I corrected it above but it’s too late to fix all the conversation.
I’m not understanding why SG tossed out the specific language about Calvinists and non-Calvinists and the seminaries but I think he would do fine as SBC president, as would either of the others.
Greear would be my pick were I to attend. I like the idea of a generational change.
Sorry for the goof. I am grateful for the broad group of folks here and elsewhere who identify as southern baptists, almost to a person they are people with whom I would be delighted to serve Jesus.
William, no apology necessary. I was confused as how SG’s comments were one-sided. The redaction makes your position and post understandable now. Thank you for clearing up my confusion.
As one who believes in Steve Gaines I read his comments in the best light possible and do not see them as a sounding of the trumpet for an attack on Calvinism.
Ok. Dean, might you see though that his comments of caution/concern as being a bit one sided?
Tarheel, in my above comment to Plodder I stated that after his redaction I believe his position and post understandable. I do not share your concern but understand how you have it.
Expecting a candidate who signed the most divisive doctrinal statement in recent SBC history to bring unity as president of the SBC hardly seems rational.
The most divisive? Lol Randel, it’s just a statement to let everyone know what a whole lot of us believe in the SBC. It was done in response to the resurgence of Calbinism in the SBC. I think you’re overeggerating a little.
Randel, would you say the same about Acts 29 network, T4G, the Abstract at Southern, and the Founders?
David
I rather think the BFM2k is the most divisive. Folks left over that.
As long as the TS is used just to express that there are non-Calvinists among us (at least a thousand or so of the 16 million SBs 😉 ), fine. But we are already seeing some talking about evaluating not just the elected positions but CEO hires, trustees and mssy appointments on the basis of the TS, directly or indirectly. That is problematic, since our doctrinal statement is the BFM not the TS.
I think this will get messier as we go along.
Vol – those groups, granted except maybe Fiunders, aren’t representing themselves as the proper and only acceptable and representative southern baptist theology. In fact acts29 & T4G are not SBC – Yes – many, many southern baptists willingly participate in an interdenominational biannual conference – and some autonomous churches participate with a church planting network but neither are SBC.
And if your little signatory group is merely a response to the “rise of Calvinism” – aren’t you a little late in referencing the abstract principles – hasn’t that been around for quite some time prior to Rick’s little document? Further haven’t multiple SBC leaders in history, from the very beginning, been Calvinists?
David, my anti-liberalism co-laborer and brother, I’m fairly certain I am not “overeggerating” about “Calbinism”… :-)…but the language of the TS clearly sought to establish an “us vs. them” paradigm.
The kerfuffle that has ensued seems sufficient evidence that division was the intention.
Grace to you.
Randal, greetings Brother, I hope things are well in the Hub City. I have been paying attention to the religion department at my alma mater. They’re making news.
Is it impossible for a signer of the TS to be a peacemaker? I hope all who signed it are not considered divisive. You
Dean, didn’t realize we shared the same alma mater. They are indeed making news in the religion department. Much needed news. I’m no longer in the Hub City, but at SBTS. I’ve watched the proceedings with great interest.
Is it possible for a signer of the TS to be a peacemaker? I think that remains to be seen, brother. I would say, however, that given the intentional divisiveness of the statement and the tensions it raised, he would have an uphill battle.
Grace to you.
Randal, I agree with your assessment, the news should have been made 20 years ago.
I am persuaded that once in a chance meeting you and I had lunch together with AMD, George Berger. He spoke of your wife working at William Carey. I hope my memory is not playing tricks on me.
Dean, I do know Dr. Berger and have been known to have lunch with him on occasion (let’s keep this between the two of us). Do you happen to recall the occasion of the meeting?
My wife did serve as the Alumni Director at WCU for several years, so our memory is definitely not playing tricks on you.
Grace to you.
Randal, if my memory serves me correct it was at the Poboy Express on 4th street behind USM. It was just a chance meeting. I had pastored at 38th Avenue for over 8 years and was back in Hattiesburg and ran into you two. Doc and I used to eat together a lot so he invited me to join you guys.
Ah! I do remember that meeting now. Small world, is it not?
It is Randal. I enjoyed the visit that day. Maybe one day again.
William,
I have followed your blog for a number of years and have read many of your articles here at Voices. I have enjoyed many of the “fair and balanced” things you have written through the years.
However, in my humble opinion you have become more polemic since you retired a couple of years ago.
In your last thread post you write:
“As long as the TS is used just to express that there are non-Calvinists among us (at least a thousand or so of the 16 million SBs), fine. But we are already seeing some talking about evaluating not just the elected positions but CEO hires, trustees and mssy appointments on the basis of the TS, directly or indirectly. That is problematic, since our doctrinal statement is the BFM not the TS.”
Along with your title of this article and statements like this—it seems to me you are intentionally stirring the pot (and making it about “C”).
Johnny Hunt will be nominating Steve. I see Steve following in the same spirit as Hunt, if elected.
Steve was asked a question and he answered it I don’t see him or anyone else running around the convention seeking to establish the “hiring & appointment” qualifications that you have mentioned.
Retirement made me meaner, huh? I better ask my wife for a reading. Old friends, even if strictly online, always have my ear, Ron.
The handling of the TS has changed some things and I think the cal/trad business has moved a good bit since I retired in 2011. I am as concerned about Calvinists blowing up churches as I was 20 years ago when I first ran into it. With the rise of militant Trads, the landscape has changed.
Part of the problem here is that the topic has morphed beyond my OP. I haven’t connected SG to the push for use of the the TS in evaluations etc.
Like I said, I think SG would do fine. Another old school megapastor. We’ve seen many of them as SBC prez.
Randall,
So, all of those groups promoting Calvinism in the SBC(Founders, T4G, Acts 29, B21, etc) were all around LONG before the Traditional Statement; a long time before. And yet, you are saying that the TS is the divisive group? I’m sorry, my friend, but I strongly disagree.
David
Vol,
Again – T4G, A29 (neither is even SBC) And B21 did not and have not contended that they, and they alone, hold the keys and are the gatekeepers to ‘true’ SBC theology.
Your TS group was formed and designed to do exactly that.
That strategy by definition is divisive – especially since there’s no observable or demonstrable evidence to back up those assertions – save for the work of a few militant anti Cals and a document that can’t muster agreement beyond a small gaggle Of signatories (a least relative to the pool of southern baptists it claims to represent.)
Tarheel,
Simply wrong. Show me the quote, anywhere, where Trads have said ours is the “one true theology of the SBC.” You guys are projecting that onto us. We never said it and do not believe it.
Read and learn: “Some have objected to the term Traditionalism, misunderstanding it as an attempt to claim the Hobbs-Rogers tradition as the only tradition in Southern Baptist life. Of course, it is not the only tradition. Finding no record of a single Traditionalist who has ever made such an erroneous claim, we see this as a non-issue.” http://connect316.net/about-us/why-traditionalism/
We simply don’t believe that, and it is high time that you stop saying that we do.
David, brother, Tarheel has twice pointed out the distinction between the TS and the groups you mention.
I would only add that those you have mentioned never warranted a “Traditionalism Advisory Counsel”–precisely because they seek cooperation rather than division.
If they seek cooperation, then how come we cannot sit down and work on the issues that will result in a better cooperation? I’m ready to cooperate. Let’s go. But all we hear is “Go away. Be silent. Don’t bring the subject up.” That’s not unity or cooperation. It’s the silent treatment.
There are issues to work out if we are going to cooperate. Muzzling those with concerns and “unity shaming” them are not pathways to real cooperation. Taking our concerns seriously and treating us with respect is the way forward.
“We” who Rick Patrick? Are you holding yourself out as the rep for all SBC non-Calvinists? Do you wield the Traditional Statement as if some SBC body actually voted to adopt it? Do you presume that your displeasure at recent CEO hirings represents that of any majority group of Southern Baptists?
Your opinions are public. Your demands are public. Why don’t you take any one of these to any assembled group of Southern Baptist messengers in an official context – your association, your state convention, the SBC Annual Meeting – make a motion and have a vote?
Here’s a question I wish you would answer honestly and in a straightforward manner:
Do you think entity heads, trustees, and employees (missionaries; state convention, associational, and national staff) should be evaluated on any theological basis other than the Baptist Faith and Message?
We, meaning Traditionalists in the convention, *together with* Calvinists in the convention, sitting down and working out the details of the T5 Cooperation we all desire. (After the T5 Report, many on our side of the soteriological aisle were left saying, “Now what? Are we not going to address any of the issues we have raised?”)
The T5 Report, which I support as far as it goes, basically said, theologically, “que sera, sera.” We already knew that. What we have right now is not cooperation and unity. What we have is “Shut up and pay the bills whether you feel disenfranchised or not, and if you don’t, we are going to accuse you of being a divisive troublemaker!”
That doesn’t sound like unity to me. I want unity, but in the context of greater transparency and dialogue.
Yes, the BFM is sufficient for our cooperation. But I think it does us no harm to admit that, within the broad parameters of the BFM, Southern Baptists come from different places geographically and theologically, and our leadership should represent the full range of BFM approved doctrinal positions, and should represent Southern Baptists from all walks of life.
No, I do not want to use the TS as a litmus test for office. I know of many Southern Baptists whose beliefs are in the Traditionalist camp who have never signed the statement. Our leaders do not need to be signers of the TS, but we do need them to come from a broad, cross section of Southern Baptists—from the full range of BFM believers, if you will.
I would be happy for our leaders to represent ALL of our SBC constituency theologically, ethnically, geographically, and in terms of gender and church size, WITHOUT using the TS (or the Abstract, for that matter) as a litmus test for any office. I want the SBC to be as inclusive of Trads among our leadership as we are among our membership.
Rick,
“We…”
Your definition of “we” is fine….
So long as your understand that the “we” you speak of consists only of the small cadre of persons who have identified with your document and *you* are not “representative” of others beyond that – *you* can only “represent” those who have asked you to represent them by publicly identifying with your document and agenda (by signing it).
Tarheel,
Are you even reading my words? Granted, “we” was an indefinite pronoun, which is why I clarified it for William.
By “we” I am referring to “we Trads and Cals in the SBC.”
To rephrase, then: “How come we Trads and Cals cannot sit down and work on the issues that will result in better cooperation?”
For some reason, you and William both felt the need to make the point that I do not speak for all Trads—just as you do not speak for all Cals—to which I respond, “Well, of course that’s true. No one is claiming otherwise.”
Since the T5 Report, the SBC has made no substantive progress on working through the issues in our convention pertaining to Calvinists-Amyraldists on the one hand and Traditionalists-Arminians on the other. We have avoided the subject and things are not getting better at all.
I believe we need to continue the conversation and address not the theological matters but rather the practical matters of denominational life that stem from our various viewpoints.
Ignoring this conflict will not make it go away.
Dr. Patrick,
You asked: “If they seek cooperation, then how come we cannot sit down and work on the issues that will result in a better cooperation?”
Perhaps I was unclear. The groups mentioned have cooperated with the Convention and have worked within its structure. They have *not* declared theirs the majority soteriological paradigm (see TS preamble), nor have they demanded Affirmative Action-like hiring quotas, nor do they accuse their brethren of subversive take-over conspiracies, nor are they constantly and coercively calling for “transparency” from their brothers in Christ.
Moreover, they really have no advantage that you do not have.
Rather than demanding that your position be privileged within the Convention, why not work in cooperation with your fellow Southern Baptists to advance your concerns? Why not exposit the Word convincingly, teach, train, prepare, and humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God and trust him to place you in positions of influence in due time?
I really do not think your current, often bellicose tactics will ever gain much traction. Indeed, you seem to be alienating some who agree with you soteriologically.
Grace to you.
“…Calvinists-Amyraldists on the one hand and Traditionalists-Arminians on the other.”
Wait…I thought Traditionalists had nothing to do with Arminianism? I find this especially interesting because while any 5 point Calvinist can agree to the BFM2000, no true “5 point” Arminian can. The point of Perseverance (BFM2000 Article V: “All true believers endure to the end”) is not something a “true” Arminian can agree to. They would say that it IS possible for a “true believer” to reach a point of apostasy and be removed from God’s Saving Grace. So why would you Rick, connect your Traditionalists to such a group, especially after all I have heard these past few years is that Traditionalists ARE NOT Arminians? Freudian slip of the tongue?
But wait there’s more!
“Ignoring this conflict will not make it go away.”
One could argue, that for the majority of Calvinists in the SBC (there are a minority of rabid Calvinists), and the majority of ALL SBCers, there are just A LOT more important issues than Calvinism v Traditionalism.
Off the top of my head: International Missions, National Missions, Local Missions/Evangelism, entity fiduciary responsibility/transparency, stamping out racism from our Convention (different beliefs on how), stamping out sex abuse from our Convention (different beliefs on how), ect.
By my math that makes Cals vs Trads AT LEAST 7th down the line of importance to this Convention at this moment in time. Perhaps, the majority of this Convention simply has MORE IMPORTANT issues it wants to work on.
And grace to you, Randall.
Ignoring
this conflictRandall’s Post will not make it go away.Thank you for your cooperation, Randall, Tarheel and svmuschany. It is so clear to me from your comments that you truly understand the concerns of Traditionalists in the SBC and that you deeply desire to work with us in a spirit of cooperation and brotherly love.
Rick, passive aggressive sarcasm does not suit you. Let me tell you something about “cooperation”. I became apart of SBC life in the middle of the MBC/Acts29 fight. A fight, where people who would likely be labeled as Traditionalists, used lies, misinformation, half-truths and innuendos to break formal contracts with church plants, and remove all funding with little notice, simply because of their affiliation with Acts29. To this day, people like YOU Rick, continue to get facts about SBC/Acts29 churches wrong. And yet you want to talk about cooperation? Really?
Every reformed-leaning SBC church/individual I know has no problems with cooperating with ANY other SBC church/individual, when it comes to missions and evangelism. But when it comes to trusting a side that has supporters who have directly called for the removal and/or suppression of SBC churches because of their theology, theology that is NOT in opposition to the BFM2000; when it comes one side wanting formal or informal quotas on the entities for not just its leaders but their staffs as well; then no, it is impossible for “cooperation” on THIS issue, to ever happen.
Svmuschany,
What I really feel is a sense of exasperation. I am more hopeful than you that we can find some way to cooperate in SBC life, but that way should not require that Traditionalists wind up paying for the Calvinizing of the convention. Some Trads may be fine with that, but others are not. This is a matter of stewardship, and there should be avenues for Traditional churches to support NAMB without necessarily donating to churches affiliated with an exclusively Calvinistic network like Acts 29.
I’m sorry you had a bad experience with the MBC/Acts 29 fight. I think such conflicts can be resolved if we try, but thus far, we have shown little willingness to come to the table and make much of an effort.
The “cooperation” in the MBC/Acts29 fight boiled down to the proto-traditionalist anti-Acts29 folk using lies and half truths to present their “findings”, and then intimidation to force through their agenda. There was no offer of cooperation, it was enact anti-Acts29 policies or “else”. There WERE threats of withholding funds from CP/MBC donations. Indeed the anti-Acts29 crowd sounded very much like you do now. Not surprising that folks like me thus do not frankly believe your offers of “cooperation”. We have seen what “cooperation” means to those similar to you, and suspect it means the same to you.
Further your behavior betrays your motives. On boards/forums you (and other Traditionalists) control, you silence opposition. When you occasionally do participate in forums you do not control, you make outlandish statements, then run and hide when you are challenged (would you like to take time to talk about your recent statement on the “traditionalist-arminian side”, for Arminian theology is in DIRECT violation of your own Traditionalist statement). You come off like a kid who screams to get their way, then threaten to take their ball and go home when every single one of their demands is not met. That is exactly what you are doing when you talk about redirecting donations and withholding funds from entities whom you don’t agree with. And yet you wonder why WE don’t want to “cooperate?
What Randall said – exactly what he said!
Can we just be transparent here? Will you, Rick Patrick, in a spirit of cooperation, spinlessly clarify how you propose ensuring that entity heads/boards are equally represented by both “traditionalists” and “calvinists”? Will you directly address whether or not you support a direct quota for any specific group?
Just askin’
I have compared the issue several times to our Southern Baptist efforts regarding ethnicity. My view is exactly the same. No, I do not wish for us to set up a “hard quota” system for including ethnic minorities in leadership. However, I believe we should be sensitive to the issue, and genuinely work toward being more inclusive, which is exactly what we are, in fact, doing. Everyone celebrates this approach and no one asks for “quota clarification.”
In the same way, without a hard quota, I believe we should (a) recognize that Traditional Southern Baptists are not being adequately represented in our new entity posts, our speaker panels, our book deals and our strategic initiatives. Our voices are being marginalized, stifled, criticized and ridiculed. Whenever we try to say, “Hey, what about us?” it feels like we are being told, “Shut up and quit being divisive!”
Rick,
“What about us?”
Who are y’all?
A 1000 people or so?
Or as you claim, the majority?
If you are but a 1000 people or so, and some of you are already in places of responsibility, then I think you have done much better than any other group of only about a 1000 people, so I fai to see your beef.
If you are the majority, then you still have no beef.. How come y’all let a minority get the jump on you? And can’t y’all just vote yourselves back into prominence?
So, yeah, quit being so divisive.
“How come y’all let a minority get the jump on you? And can’t y’all just vote yourselves back into prominence?”
One would think. However, (a) this takes a little time, and (b) an organized minority is much more influential than a disorganized majority. But suppose we take your advice, parsonsmike, and get people to the convention to vote. Will such a tactic not be seen as divisive? Or do I understand you to say that such an approach is simply fair game and not divisive in the least?
Your position intrigues me, for you seem to view the approach of sitting down and working out our differences as divisive, while viewing the approach of rallying people to vote for Traditionalist leaders and initiatives as being perfectly acceptable.
Rick:
You complaint that Traditionalists are not being represented in (1) new entity posts, (2) speaker panels, (3) book deals, and (4) strategic initiatives.
If by “entity posts” you mean entity heads and entity executive positions, there is a tried and true means for changing that – elect an SBC president that is sympathetic to your position for enough years that the trustee boards of the entities are changed. You can call it the “Traditionalists Resurgence.” Really the same means would apply to your fourth category – strategic initiatives. If you don’t like the direction that the entities are heading, then change the entity heads through the approved means. In this regard your calls for oversight and investigations outside of the trustee system are wearisome. If you don’t think that Ezell, Platt, Mohler, or Moore (or any other entity head) is doing what you think he should, rally your troops and elect the SBC presidents necessary so that there are trustees appointed that will provide the oversight and investigations that you want.
I’m not sure from which speaker panels Traditionalists have been excluded or in which panels they want to participate. I am assuming you mean that Traditionalists are being excluded from SBC entity panel groups. Perhaps you could be more specific. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the purpose of most speaking panels is to address topics of current concern. Perhaps the Traditionalists have little to say on those topics or perhaps the listeners have heard what the Traditionalists have had to say on the topics and dismissed them. There are many panel events during the SBC every year, but are not actually SBC events. For example, 9Marks, Founders, Baptist21, Connect3:16, and other para-ministry groups have numerous panel sessions. Do you believe that the SBC should require messengers to attend a certain number of Traditionalist panels before they can attend a Calvinist panel? Should the SBC attempt to limit the number of attendees at the Calvinist events to a certain percentage of attendees at the Traditionalist events?
This same logic also goes to the issue of book publishing. Generally publishers only publish books that people want to buy and read. Do you really think that there should be some sort of relationship between number of Traditionalist books published to the number of Calvinist books published? Should Lifeway or B&H have to publish a certain number of Traditionalist books for every Calvinist book they publish? Should these publishers restrict the number of Calvinist books they sell until they have sold a requisite number of Traditionalist books?
I think that the clear trajectory in the SBC is towards greater acceptance and advocacy of the Calvinist position. Calvinists are likely still a minority in the SBC. However, that minority is growing daily and will, if trends continue, in the not-too-distant future become a majority. If the Traditionalists then become a minority, I think that many will leave the SBC. In their leaving they will show their commitment to unity.
Steven
Rick,
There ya go again….
‘However, (a) this takes a little time, and (b) an organized minority is much more influential than a disorganized majority.”
in context of your retort to Mike the “organized minority” would be the Calvinists. Right?
So again, you are suggesting an organized effort to “influence” (read: takeover). Still you somehow wonder why you are called out for being divisive.
Volfan and you have both on this forum intimated and straightforwardly accused those of reformed taint of seeking to take over the SBC….and no I will not go back into threads and search for the exact quotes – but I think most (although I am sure not you) will resonate with the truthfulness of my comment.
Steven – one might also point out that “voting” has taken place on the non SBC official panels/meals at the SB Convention – in that year after year certain ones (like the ones you mentioned) have standing room only in rooms designed to hold several hundred while others tend to gather a smattering of people….with lots of empty seats in smaller rooms.
Rick,
The conferences and books thing – certain speakers and authors create a demand by their presence/writing others do not – and so the the conferences and publishers seek to supply the demand.
Seems like common sense and good ole American Free Market Capitalism to me….
The SBC has always been a boys club (at least over my 42 years (plus about nine months) and 24 years as an SBC minister). Its always been “the next in line” and as far as trustees and speakers and authors and such – the elevation of friends or friends of friends. I just am not sure why anyone is surprised by this. Sometimes we like and mostly agree the “boys in charge” and sometimes we do not – but its an ebb and flow.
There were many SBC pastors who disagreed with and felt shut out of leadership, during the reign of the Vines, Patterson, Land and Chapman Gang (so to speak) year after year …Ya know what though….it wasn’t the end of the world…nor was it the end of the SBC….
Thus by the testimony of history you can probably assume that the same is true for those who who are uncomfortable with the current boys club.
We have a unifying denominational document that we can both ascribe to – the BFM2000.
Just calm down, Rick. Let’s just agree to live and let live regarding those who disagree on secondary issues that are not outside of the BFM2000.
Rick,
Thanks for your reply.
let e address your thoughts.
a] yes it would take time, but so what?
b] No it would not be divisive. It would be the appropriate way to move the SBC to a different leadership. It is the proper way given the rules, bylaws, and regulations of the SBC.
And in case you haven’t noticed, the C’s are not really interested in the Traditionalists as they seem to be looking for godly men to lead the SBC in the path God has set forth for us.
Do you know of a website that spews forth hate and divisive talk about Traditionalists like YOUR website does about Calvinists? I haven’t heard of any.
Finally, Rick, I did not say in any way that we brothers on both sides shouldn’t sit down and work on our differences,didn’t even hint at.
I don’t even know what differences can be worked out since what you seem to want is T’s to be in more powerful positions and to run down the C belief system.
The answer for the first has already been addressed: get out the vote. The people have a right to vote what they believe is best.
The answer for the second is for you to simply STOP running others down. That is simply wrong and divisive. The answer for sinning is to stop sinning.
What else do you want that I didn’t cover?
Apparently the statement I quoted above is not a statement of Steve Gaines but a statement from an SBC committee. In my defense, I quoted it from the original article here by William Thornton in which he attributed the quote to Gaines. William has since corrected his article.
William, I can’t be too critical of you. I did the same type thing a couple of years ago, not intentionally but mistakenly. And, like you, I admitted it and apologized. I hate being fallible.
Based on Steve Gaines true quotes, interviews, and his life and ministry, I believe he would make a great SBC president.
David R. Brumbelow
I believe he would make a great SBC president as well. As would the other two brothers.
This debate between Calvinists and non-Calvinists (or whatever preferred names you have for them) never ends. Seems to me there are some Calvinists who want to have the most influence on the convention and there are some non-Calvinists who want to have the most influence instead. Neither side really wants to completely drive the other out (I don’t think). Then there is a group (largest?) of the SBC that isn’t strongly identified with either extreme that wishes we could get along better and focus on cooperating on missions and evangelism. I grew up in a non-Calvinist environment and have come to be much more Calvinistic. I have a lot of respect for those SBC leaders who are often identified as Calvinists. But I also believe that churches have been torn apart by this issue and Calvinists have at times been to blame. If we can’t model how Calvinists and non-Calvinists can serve Christ together in love and respect in the same churches and associations, don’t we contradict our testimony as Christians? If we, who agree on so much (both affirming the BF&M, for example), still engage in power plays, critical insinuations, snarky comments and suspicious gossip, then haven’t we missed something important that our theology should teach us? I am not criticizing anyone specifically for I have thought the same kinds of things (and worse) at times. But really, can’t we do better?
What if–just, what IF–neither Calvinism nor its opposition were correct, but both were equally in error? What if, at the Last Day, we–embarrassingly–find that the way the sovereign will of God is worked out with the free will of men was never intended by God to be logically dissected and codified by the inadequate minds of men? What if the men of God such as Criswell, whom we chuckle at with intellectual superiority because of their supposed inconsistency on the issue (“He was a Calvinist on Monday and an Arminian on Tuesday”), were actually “right on target” theologically? What if both are true in their main affirmation? What if God really does ultimately determine the destiny of every man without infringing on the free will of any? And what if objections to the supposed self-contradiction of such a proposal are born of an excessive, overconfident rationalism and an insufficient humility in the face of a mystery that is beyond us? Certain sections of the Church seem to never tire in the attempt and never fall short of confidence in their ability to do so. Certainly, the devil never tires of the division and distraction. But if we’re wrong–not only wrong in which of the two we’ve sided with, but very wrong in our method itself? What if, at the end, God tells us that we should have simply accepted all the Scripture revealed, including both that God ultimately decides each man’s destiny AND that each man must freely choose for himself? What if the effort, concern, and struggling for this issue turns out to have all been a waste of time and a blight on our good works? And what if the SBC would have done far better to have insisted on leaders at every level who eschewed the excessive rationalism of this debate, instead of trying to install leaders who embrace it? You may strongly disagree with this comment, but at the Last Day, you cannot say such a critique was never brought to your attention. For the record, I have been excessively rationalistic on this issue, even while arguing for a centrist position; and it is not something easily overcome. My own progress is slow, but after years of study and debate, I think this is the right direction.
That’s a lot of what ifs. Thankfully God has spoken in his word on the issue. Call me arrogant, but I think he’s spoken pretty clearly. I get that there’s grey area in the Bible, but I don’t see this as one of them. Not that we should throw stones at each other, that’s not what I’m saying at all. If I get to heaven and find out I was wrong, then fine. I won’t be embarrassed. I’ll be worshiping.
Yet there is ambiguity even in Calvin concerning the language of limited atonement. As someone very supportive of Calvinism, I am aware that there are numerous debates even within Calvinism on a number of fairly significant issues. A good dose of humility is helpful. Clarity is often in the eye of the beholder. And God has seen fit to use people with very non-Calvinistic theology to accomplish great good for his kingdom.
Steve, I would not disagree with any of that.
Steve in Birmingham – I would not disagree with any of that either.
If “if” was a fifth, we’d all be be drunk off that post…and presby
“But if we’re wrong–not only wrong in which of the two we’ve sided with, but very wrong in our method itself? What if, at the end, God tells us that we should have simply accepted all the Scripture revealed, including both that God ultimately decides each man’s destiny AND that each man must freely choose for himself? What if the effort, concern, and struggling for this issue turns out to have all been a waste of time and a blight on our good works?”
While I can appreciate the sentiment here, I think it’s wrong to say that diving into and discussing, even debating such matters is itself the problem. There are scriptures that are difficult to reconcile. Sometimes mystery remains, but that doesn’t mean the effort shouldn’t be made. Paul says we are not justified by works. James says we are. Should we just accept both without even attempting to explain how they fit together?
The problem comes when one attaches undue significance to a certain issue beyond what is biblically warranted, or when one projects immoral/sinful/deceptive motivations onto those who disagree with them on issues like this.
Andrew,
I agree with most of what you are saying.
Especially paragraphs 2 and 3.
As to the first one, and touching on the second one, I am a 5pt C who believes that men do have the freedom to choose their eternal destiny. We all choose to sin willfully and freely, knowing right from and wrong, and with power and ability to not sin. Thus we all choose against God. And that causes consequences to us beyond what we bargained for [see Romans 1].
And when we each hear the Gospel, we willingly and freely, either accept Jesus as Lord, or reject it, considering it foolishness. [see 1 Cor. 1]
I am not answering any posts on these views. If you want to talk to me about them, email me at bygrace4012@yahoo.com