With reference to our present Southern Baptist denominational controversy, there has been more than enough talk of “wackadoodles” and “bogeymen.” I am not interested in characterizing pejoratively those who disagree with me by calling them names. I now reject the notion that the existence of a full-scale Southern Baptist takeover or “quiet revolution” is in any way a conspiratorial idea, a stretch or a lark. It is not a conspiracy. It is a reality.
My earlier post simply asked the question, “Are we being reformed?” In developing my article, I wasted far too many words disclaiming conspiracy theories, a tactic which only fueled the marginalizing fires of those who claimed there were no such secret plans and agendas. However, to my surprise, those on both sides of the controversy took exception not with the existence of an agenda, which they all clearly admitted, but merely with the idea that the agenda was a secret.
Those favoring the Great Commission Resurgence will never admit that messengers approving the formation of the Task Force had in mind only the improvement of our Great Commission efforts and not the total restructuring of our denomination. We can fairly assume that when Al Mohler proposed the formation of this Task Force he knew the general direction in which he would lead these individuals. If only a historical record existed that would allow us to examine the early briefings of the Task Force so we could understand the influences that led to their decisions. In the same way, one can easily accept that the Presidential Name Change Task Force was formed–apart from convention approval–with the foregone conclusion that a name change would be recommended.
All of this points to the existence of reform–not potential reform, not a conspiracy, not some wackadoodle’s theory, but a true political reform movement designed to remake the Southern Baptist Convention according to the pattern of the plan’s designer. Where there is reform, there must be a reformer. So the real question is not “Are we being reformed?” but “Who is reforming us?”
Before answering that question, let me briefly address two crucial aspects of the whole secrecy concept before leaving it behind forever. First, I contend that this SBC controversy is still largely a “secret” among the majority of the 16 million laypeople who fill our churches, teach our Sunday Schools, support our missionaries and buy our Lifeway Bibles and books. During the Conservative Resurgence, these laypeople “got in on it” and attended conventions which changed the course of the SBC. This time, we apparently have not bothered to invite them, perhaps because the controversy itself is so frustratingly difficult to simplify. Second, I contend that the “secret” plan or agenda must have been discussed prior to the Louisville convention, at least to some degree. In other words, before the reform effort went public, someone planned it. Thus, it was really only a hidden agenda at some point in history before it was launched, although it remains hidden to many if not most Southern Baptists.
By all accounts, the “private plan” for the Conservative Resurgence grew out of a meeting between Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler held in, of all places, the Cafe du Monde in New Orleans. Over coffee and beignets, the idea was launched that led to our convention being preserved in its doctrinal soundness. Do we not deserve to know clearly the roots of our current reform movement?
Two primary theories deserve consideration. Howell Scott argues persuasively that the source of the GCR reform movement may be found in an alliance between traditional megachurch pastors and younger (often Calvinist) Southern Baptists. I wonder what could possibly unite such different factions of convention life? For one thing, neither group particularly appreciates seeing their Cooperative Program gifts scrutinized on a percentage basis. For another, they both appear to desire for our denomination’s infrastructure to shift our focus from a wide variety of ministries to an “Acts 29” style church planting network.
While Scott’s view is convincing, Ron Hale also shared with me a resource he points to as the Calvinist blueprint for this entire reformation. It is entitled “A Quiet Revolution: A Chronicle of Beginnings of Reformation in the Southern Baptist Convention” by Ernest C. Reisinger & D. Matthew Allen. It is a publication of Founders Ministries, the leading Calvinist organization in Southern Baptist life. You may read the book online here: http://founders.org/library/quiet/. (Special thanks to Peter Lumpkins for the link.)
Below is a mind blowing quote from chapter two, identifying non-Calvinist conservatism as “virtually indistinguishable” from theological liberalism, in that both feature “unstable” and “confused” doctrinal content. Quotes like this one make me wonder if the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Sure, we joined forces to defeat liberalism, much as America joined forces with Russia to defeat the Nazis. But how can two theological camps co-exist, united as everyone would like to believe by the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, if one of them considers the other to be “confused,” “unstable” and “indistinguishable from liberalism?”
What is interesting is that both liberal/moderate Baptists and (for lack of a better phrase) conservative, non-Calvinistic Baptists reflect that theological confusion. For all their differences (which we do not minimize), the two perspectives are alike in that their theologies are inherently unstable. Liberalism runs by nature to an intellectual abandonment of the doctrinal content of the faith. A conservative, non-Calvinistic system runs by nature to a practical ignoring of the doctrinal content of the faith. In the end, there is no difference. Perhaps we will see that, another generation or two down the line, conservative, non-Calvinistic Baptist theology will end up being virtually indistinguishable from liberal theology.
Who can argue that the title of this book does not read like a blueprint for reforming the convention? Perhaps both Howell Scott and Ron Hale are correct in tracing the two converging streams leading us to the present reality. As we seek to identify our reformers, we might easily be forgiven for choosing as our prime suspects a group of people referring to themselves as “Reformed.” If they are the reformed ones, and the SBC is largely not reformed, then who else could possibly be reforming us?
There is no doubt that people exist who want to see changes in the convention. In fact, I believe that somewhere in the neighborhood of 100% of Southern Baptists would like to see something change and are, in that sense, reformers.
On a larger scale, there is no doubt that groups of individuals have joined together in an attempt to bring about this or that change. Some of those groups wanting change are likely to be very small, while others are likely larger. None of these groups wanting change are official bodies representing the SBC but rather individuals (influential or otherwise) who are cooperating to do what SBC polity allows them to do: promote what they see as the greatest good for the future of the SBC. The conservative resurgence remains the best example. Such reforms have happened before, they could certainly happen again. But insinuating (or outright stating) that such groups are somehow nefarious, underhanded, or conspiratorial is not helpful.
As for that little book, it is strange that it continues to be referenced. Does anyone know anyone who has read “A Quiet Revolution: A Chronicle of Beginnings of Reformation in the Southern Baptist Convention” and/or been influenced by its ideas? An obscure book has been found, written by someone no one has heard of, and the book is made publicly available on the web, and yet it is somehow the secret document organizing the quiet revolution of Calvinists within the SBC? If the suggestion were not being seriously offered, I would say someone was trying to write a bad conspiracy novel. That such accusations come from Peter Lumpkins is not surprising, but that anyone continues to listen to Lumpkins is.
“Does anyone know anyone who has read “A Quiet Revolution: A Chronicle of Beginnings of Reformation in the Southern Baptist Convention” and/or been influenced by its ideas?”
People associated with the Founders Ministries have read it and most likely, have been influenced by it.
In addition some folks have read it and have been influenced by it in believing that the intent of the Founders Ministries is to take over the SBC one church at a time.
Obviously some people have been influenced by the writings of Ernest C. Reisinger & D. Matthew Allen.
“People associated with the Founders Ministries have read it and most likely, have been influenced by it.”
Who, in particular, is known to have read it, other than whoever it was that posted it to the Founder’s site? What did they think about it? How has it motivated their subsequent actions?
Well Chris Roberts,
Who knows? Do you think no one has read it? Do you think it has influenced no one? Surely someone was influenced enough to post it, right? Surely someone has read it who has decided it may impact someone to believe a one-church-at-a-time takeover might be a good idea so they are resistant to it, right? Would that not be influence?
“Influence”? Sure, I guess.
“Calvinist blueprint for this entire reformation”? No way.
Come on, CB. You have to admit that is a stretch.
Jason G.,
Take notice that I am not he one who introduced the word “influence” into this thread. I simply followed up with a comment as to what may or may not be the depth of the influence of this book.
I don’t really know how much influence it has had. Obviously some, you would think? And most certainly the content of the book does promote taking the SBC back one-church-at-a-time, right?
But I will venture to state this: The book has not influenced all the Calvinists in the SBC to join in on a takeover. I don’t think most Calvinists in the SBC have read the book. They have probably not even heard of it.
I am going to venture one more thing here tonight. I don’t think that every Calvinist in the SBC is young. And I full well know they are not all restless.
Lastly, does Rick Patrick’s post have any merit? Obviously, it does. How can anyone just write it off as if it is the product of some grandiose delusion? The post has substantive content. Deal with the content. Debate the content.
The person who claims the book has become a blueprint for a takeover is the one with the obligation of proving its influence. That the book exists proves nothing.
CB,
Debating the legitimacy of the assertion IS debating the content of the article.
The author claims a grand conspiracy…but the article does not prove it.
The author claims that this book is the “blueprint” for this conspiracy. Is it not fair to expect some sort of proof that anyone is actually looking to this book for guidance? Is it not fair to ask for proof the book is well-read by the architects of this supposed conspiracy.
No proof was offered…only assertions.
Is this what we have come to in the SBC? We make huge accusations (see the thread on the Lifeway material) but base it on nothing but conjecture and assumptions? This article is more of that. All I ask is proof before making claims like “this book is the blueprint”. Absurd claim…and one with ZERO backing. Prove it. Don’t just claim it.
Chris Roberts,
The fact that the book exists does prove something. Who wrote the book? Why did he write the book? The fact that the book is twelve years old does not mean the author’s intent is not still in force. Why does not someone in the Founders speak up to retire the intent of the authors described in the book? Why is it on the Founders’ website?
There are several things here that can’t just be written off as unimportant just because you do not see them as important.
The fact that the records of the GCR meeting are sealed may not mean anything to you, but to many that does have meaning.
cb,
Just as the book’s existence proves nothing, assertions prove nothing. It is pointless to make speculative accusations on zero evidence. The book exist. Does its existence prove that it has in any way provided an influence for an as-yet-unproven attempt by Calvinists to take over the convention? No? Does evidence exist showing this book has influenced said unproven movement? No? Then why mention the book?
Chris Roberts,
I did not state that Calvinists had or are conspiring to take over the SBC or anything else. I do not believe that. I do know there have always been Calvinists in the SBC.
I do question the Founders in several things. I have for a long time. The book does exist. The book had a purpose. The purpose was defined within the book. You cannot deny that.
Also, I have made no accusations here. Yet, I know there are questions unanswered. I also know that simply because you say the existence of the book proves nothing or that assertions prove nothing does not mean that the book does not prove anything or that the assertions do not prove anything.
You declarations prove nothing. Yet the questions remain.
cb,
But we are talking in the context of a blog post that claims the book does prove certain things about what is going on in the SBC. A claim like that requires more evidence than the existence of the book and its quiet location on a website.
Two errors are typically in evidence here:
1. The assumption that a book has not been read by anyone and therefore has no influence.
2. The assumption that a book has been read by everyone and therefore has tremendous influence.
I know people that have read the book in question (myself included, after this post). Some critique it as bad, others laud it as wonderful.
It is a mistake to assume that every Calvinist-leaning or Calvinist-fallen-all-the-way-in SBC participant has both read and fully agrees with Quiet Revolution. Or with everything that Founders has ever done, for that matter.
It is also a mistake to assert from the other side that this particular work has no influence on the ministry of Founders as a whole or one individuals or groups of individuals.
It would be far better if we just went ahead and dealt with the idea: is this the plan? Is it a bad thing if it is? Is it a bad thing if it isn’t?
Apparently, in this discussion, it’s going to be necessary to know that book, so we might as well all read it. At least it’s free–I still haven’t read the editorial that got everyone fired up because I don’t have a paid subscription to the Christian Index. 🙂
Well stated Doug.
More people are going to read the book BECAUSE of this discussion than read it before this discussion.
Weird, huh?
I’ve not read it. Never heard of it until just now… and I’ve been reading the Founders website and blog for years.
Amen to that!
Squirrel
Chris,
Thanks for commenting. I agree with you there are agendas. Of course, I personally am not insinuating any kind of nefarious or underhanded conspiracy. Hence, the whole reason for my post.
(See my second to last sentence in the first paragraph.) I am totally agreeing with you that there is no conspiracy, since the agenda is out in the open. I am merely saying there is reform, and I’m looking for the primary source of that reform.
Perhaps another way of saying it is, “How did we get the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force?” What happened prior to Al Mohler standing up in Louisville and proposing the formation of that group?
As to the “obscure” book, since it is available on The Founders website, I guess you will have to ask them whether or not they consider its ideas to be significantly influential or not. Then again, since that is where the book can be found, maybe the Founders themselves are largely responsible for our current reform. Who do you think is the primary reformer, humanly speaking, in the Southern Baptist Convention today?
“What happened prior to Al Mohler standing up in Louisville and proposing the formation of that group?”
As I recall, it started with this: http://betweenthetimes.com/2009/04/16/akin-axioms-for-a-great-commission-resurgence/
thetruthaboutnewcalvinism.com
History, Doctrine, Character
Rick,
You ask… “Who do you think is the primary reformer, humanly speaking, in the Southern Baptist Convention today?”
As a 5-Point Calvinist in the SBC… I would say that the primary reformer in the SBC today is without a doubt Paige Patterson!
Paige Patterson made the Inerrancy of the Bible the cornerstone doctrine of the Conservative Resurgence… and thereby doctrine of First-Importance for an entire generation of young Baptist Pastors… Which was the beginning of Reformation in the SBC.
Grace for the Journey,
“Today” is the operative word, but now that you mention Patterson, let me ask, “Are Mohler and Akin today’s Pressler and Patterson?”
Rick,
I must admit I have missed the last three meetings of the Secrete SBC Calvinist Club… so I have no idea who is currently leading the great unwashed masses of Calvinist in the SBC at this time… 🙂
However, I do know that if not for Paige Patterson we might be discussing the ordination of Gays and same sex marriage instead of Calvinism… and for that we all need to be thankful for the Reformation Paige Patterson set in motion 25 years ago now.
Who knows, perhaps in 200 years Southern Baptist will look upon Paige Patterson much like the Lutherans look at Martin Luther?
I don’t know if Mohler and Akin are today’s Pressler and Patterson… Perhaps in 25 years we can answer that, but only time will tell.
Grace for the Journey,
My first thought was to just post, “Oh, no! They’ve found us out!”
But, sadly, too many wouldn’t take that as the joke I intend it to be…
Squirrel
Quote: “I am not interested in characterizing pejoratively those who disagree with me by calling them names.”
Would referring to the GCR as the “Grand Calvinist Resurgence” count as calling names or is pejorative mockery outside of the initial statement’s scope?
Excuse me…”Grand Calvinist Reorganization”.
Jason,
Thanks, brother. And you know what? You are so right, and I was so wrong to use that term. I have edited the OP. I suppose the comment stream can remain as it is, like Cain’s mark to remind me of my sin and so no one else will come after me and kill me.
Rick
I appreciate that. Looking back I think my statement was a little too snide as well. I apologize.
Jason,
You were right to rebuke me originally. However, you were wrong to apologize for it afterwards. 🙂
Rick,
Call me: 937-478-1201. I would like to overnight some information to you.
Paul,
If you think what you have is the absolute truth about Calvinism you have an obligation to make it available to all SBC Churches for FREE!
Put your Book on the WEB so all of us can see what you’re claiming!
Jim,
Wow. I assume you have made the same request of the T4G et al. I finally put that book together after 4 years of significant personal and financial loss, and apparently, little ole me is a bad guy for trying to get back some of my losses while remaining affective in maintaining the ministry that surrounds it. This, while T4G pays a big name marketing company to design a cross logo! Unbelievable. look, I have given away my share of freebie copies, ask my wife, I drive her nuts with that, but if the truth ain’t worth $15.00, just don’t know what to tell you, especially when people are paying 20 bucs a pop for a bunch of Christian mysticism. Not only that, I will video conference with anybody who wants to talk to me directly about what is going on, and if they aren’t a koolaid drinker, sure, they have a book.
Well at least do an e-book version and sell it that way. Can’t be too hard!
If it’s worth anything then I’m sure it will catch on and then we’ll all hear about it when Al Mohler and Tom Ascol review it.
Sorry but I’m not buying a pig in a poke. I own enough of them already.
As far as T4G – I’ve not bought or read anything put out by them either.
Jim,
Ok, we are editing “Another Gospel” which was never published and will offer on our site in pdf for free. It addresses symptoms–TANC addresses the history etc.
MEANTIME: This is for you my friend: http://wp.me/pmd7S-1jk
Thanks. Appreciate the effort.
BTW, I think it is laughable that Reisinger’s little booklet is thought of as the blueprint for a Calvinist takeover. Can someone tell us precisely how many copies of that thing even exist, much less have been sold and read.
Wow…that is grasping at straws. I’m not shocked that Lumpkins is behind that gem.
Fellows,
Peter Lumpkins is not the AntiChrist. The fact that he linked to the book does not make him bad. It simply means he linked to the book. The content of the book is the content of the book. What does it matter that Peter is the one who linked to it?
I realize that Pete can make a guy shake his head at times. he does that to me every time he puts up a post about SEBTS, Danny Akin or Nathan Finn. That is because SEBTS will always be home and I like Danny Akin and Nathan Finn. But I also know that Peter Lumpkins is a good guy and not the child of Satan awaiting for his appearance to be made manifest upon the earth.
So the fact that it was him who linked to the book is not realy the issue, is it?
I agree. I am sure Peter is a good guy. But he has been guilty of being a bit one-note on things like this and grasping at straws to make connections that can cause some guilt-by-association attacks.
This Reisinger one is one of the bigger stretches I have yet to see. Sadly, Rick bought it. But, you are correct that Peter is not the issue. So, I am fine to not talk about him, but just talk about the issue at hand.
The issue is the absurd assertion made in the article.
To say that something is a “blueprint” you would have to prove that the so-called leaders have actually read it. Can we do that? You then have to prove that the so-called leaders formulated plans BASED on that book. Can we do that? Heck, we still can’t even prove there is really a movement, so how can we identify the blueprint of such a movement?
This is a GIANT reach.
Seriously Jason G.,
I doubt that Rick has “bought into anything” based on one person’s input. Rick Patrick is his own man. The guy is a stand up guy.
Ok, great…do you have anything to say about the substance of my post?
Fine, his assertion is his own…but it is still an absurd assertion. Do you care to address the concerns I raised about Rick’s assertion?
Jason G.,
I really can’t speak for Rick. I can speak for me. Here is something I do wonder about. I wonder if we really need to change our name? Do we really need to change the name of the SBC?
I wonder what the motivation is behind the desire to change our name. Is our image really that bad? Is the reason to reestablish our image? Or, is it to redefine who we are? Honestly, I do not know.
Do I believe some people may have their own self-interest involved? Well, from past experiences with some folks involved that answer for me could be yes. Yet, it would be unfair of me to openly speculate to the point of naming people. I am not going to do that. But I am going to be cautious. I am going to ask questions. I am going to support guys like Rick Patrick who ask questions. Certainly, I am not going to dismiss him simply because I may not like his question or because I don’t like his proposition. Some things need to be answered.
I will say this. I think our convention needs to return to again believing something Dr. R.G. Lee stated long ago and I heard it from Dr. J.S. Bell: “We must trust God and tell the people.”
I do believe there are too many closed meeting in the SBC today. And this is coming from a guy who has been in many closed meetings.
cb,
I don’t disagree with your points here. I am not convinced of the need for a name change either. I am also concerned about the good ol boys club that STILL exists in the SBC. I am concerned about closed meetings.
I just don’t think all those things evolved out of some grand calvinist conspiracy.
Jason,
Let’s back up a second. The only thing I “bought” was a suggestion by Ron Hale that this book may provide a clue as to what was happening before the GCR came on the scene. I think it played a part. I think most people see many of our current reforms as having Calvinist roots — Founders, T4G, Southern Seminary, Acts 29 — and other influences pushing us in different directions at NAMB, at Lifeway, etc.
What I’m really trying to do is “trace” the GCR Reform the way others have “traced” the Conservative Resurgence to the Cafe du Monde.
Give it another read. You guys are still reading a conspiracy theory into my article, when what I wrote is that there is clearly reform, but no conspiracy. It’s out in the open.
My question…WHO?
What would you call a “quiet” or “secret” plan to reform something without anyone knowing it? The definition of conspiracy is “a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose”.
You proposed that it was done in a concealed manner. True?
You wrote: “the agenda was a secret.” and “Those favoring the Great Commission Resurgence will never admit that messengers approving the formation of the Task Force had in mind only the improvement of our Great Commission efforts and not the total restructuring of our denomination.”
So, it was a secret agenda that no one will admit about restructuring (and taking over) the SBC.
How is that not the definition of a conspiracy?
You even compared it with the covert manner in which the CR took place. You accuse them of keeping meeting private and their agenda quiet. They moved in secret, met in secret, acted in secret behind the scenes to further their secret plan. They even had an obscure book that you say serves as the blueprint for takeover.
You wrote: “Who can argue that the title of this book does not read like a blueprint for reforming the convention?”
Anyone can argue it’s not a blueprint. It’s much harder to prove that IT IS a blueprint for anything. The assertion that it somehow serves as such is difficult to swallow.
You can call it what you want….but what you tried to sell us in the article is that there is a secret group of people (or at least a group that works in secret) that sought to take control of the SBC and its entities…who formed their ideas from an obscure booklet and then hatched a secret agenda to change the SBC. They did this publicly, but it was actually decided behind the scenes without the knowledge of the public or the convention.
How is that “not saying” that this was a conspiracy?
Can you substantiate that statement?
😉
Squirrel
Yes I can. He is too old and he was not born within the nations comprising the European Common Market according to Hal Lindsey. Pete is from Tennessee. 🙂
Oh, well… Hal Lindsey…
Forget I brought it up…
😀
Squirrel
“Yes I can. He is too old and he was not born within the nations comprising the European Common Market according to Hal Lindsey. Pete is from Tennessee. ”
What is your authorial intent here, CB? :o)
BTW: I totally disagreed with Peter over the Caner debacle. Loudly, too. But I have to wonder why so much vitriol concerning him. He is not one of the many celebrity Christians so many are following doing the vast conference/seminar circuit influencing many young minds. He is a blogger and does not even get a quarter of the comments SBCV gets on less read posts. I just don’t get why people are so hateful toward him or see him as such a threat. Me thinks they protest too much.
Lydia, my dislike for Peter Lumpkins dates back to his defense of Ergun Caner. Prior to that, I had never heard of him. Lumpkins never dealt with any of the evidence of Caner’s patterns of dishonesty. Instead, what he did was launch personal & highly vitriolic attacks at people I know and care about. In other words, he made a point of doing his best to “shoot the messengers” – and it is a campaign that he is still pursuing.
BTW, I am not the one who brought him up, either.
Squirrel
Squirrel,
That was a hard time for a lot of us. I will admit that. Emir Caner is my friend. Ergun is his brother.
A Baptist blog is a strange place. Most of us know each other only by a name pasted to a comment. Yet, some of us have long histories and deep, strong ties. When a name pops up on a post or a comment thread it immediately triggers memories. In a lot of cases those memories are of strong ties and shared experiences. Also, and this quite often, there is knowledge of a situation that is all but impossible to communicate on a comment thread.
Maybe what I am saying here makes no sense to you Squirrel. But I would ask you not to judge Pete too harshly on the Caner issue. That was a hard time for many of us. Our reactions were strong.
Like I stated, Emir Caner is my friend. Ergun is his brother. It was a hard time. I hope you can read between the lines. I hope you grant us all a little grace on that one, Peter included.
I agree with Dave Miller who claims that Bill Belichick is the AntiChrist.
Guys, I think Peter is actually very careful to source his ideas and arguments and provide links for his claims in a way that I truly admire. I don’t know how to do that, as evidenced by that giant bold quote from the Little Booklet That Must Not Be Named.
Rick
That Peter uses and cites sources doesn’t change the fact that he goes from valid sources to invalid conclusions, fanciful leaps, and outrageous accusations, all mixed with enough venom to make a roomful of deadly snakes jealous.
Earlier I noted my surprise that anyone takes him seriously. I’ll add to that my surprise that anyone would say, “Why would anyone have a problem with Peter?”
You can also read about the “Quiet Revolution” on page 238 of “How People Change” by Paul David Tripp.
Rick,
When you asked me if I knew where you could get the book you mentioned, I was glad to offer you the link. I actually didn’t expect it to become a point of contention with others. Perhaps it might have been predictable had I known you would kindly mention it and offer public thanks on SBC Voices. We all live and learn, do we not?
As for the book itself, some here reveal their profound ignorance about the history of Founders and E. Reisinger, as if he were just another guppie in the tank. The truth is, he is the “father” of Founders Ministries, the *Man* who brained it and birthed it. He even bank-rolled it before it actually got off the ground. Think of J.P. Boyce’s role in the establishment of SBTS or B.H. Carroll’s role at SWBTS if you want a more accurate description of Reisinger’s role in Founders Ministries. Indeed some of Reisinger’s family serve on staff in some capacity at Grace Baptist Church, I’m told.
I also find it incredible that someone lamented your purchase of the book. Now why would there be objection to reading a book written by the “father” of Founders Ministries? A book that was not just “loaded up on a webpage”. Rather The Quiet Revolution is one of the basic “Modern Works” texts in the learning center at Founders Ministries.
Finally, I encourage you to read Founders materials if you want to know what Founders is and envisions for the SBC. Those who’ve ignorantly popped off about “conspiracy theories” may predictably be those very same ones who claim ignorance about Reisinger. He was very clear what he envisioned for the SBC. So, beware the ones who pooh-pooh your efforts in exploring further into some of the aggressive Calvinistic organizations.
What I find ironic not to mention comical are those who deny any Calvinistic aggression amongst Southern Baptists are often the very ones who claim “I’ve never read that book…I’ve never heard of Reisinger…how influential could one man be?…” In West Georgia, we call that a double hoot.
Grace.
With that, I am…
Peter
I encourage you to read the Founders materials as well. Please show me the purpose statement in Founders that includes a “take over” of the SBC. I would love to see that.
Without such a statement, charges of them believing that need to be backed up…or it is a sinful accusation. Believers should be better than those sort of attacks. Sad that it always seems to come from the same sources.
Odd…and calvinists are the ones called “aggressive” by some…but the same ones throwing that name around are the ones making absurd charges about takeover attempts. Makes you wonder who the truly aggressive are.
Are you sure Peter Lumpkins isn’t the antichrist? Has anyone checked for the mark of the beat behind his ear?
Without any evidence to the contrary, I am going to take the fact that Peter has difficulty with the truth and likes to sow discord among the brethren as antichristian characteristics.
With that I am….
prchrbill
How dare you say such things! Peter provides documentation for all of his propositions.
May it be part of the record, I have never read Reisinger’s book.
prchrbill,
Do you have valid evidence that Peter Lumpkins “has difficulty with the truth” that you can produce and will stand on its own?
This is what I can state on my own. I have had many conversations with Peter Lumpkins. Some of them were face-to-face. Some were on the phone. Thus far, I have been able to confirm with other people the things Peter Lumpkins has told me. Thus far, in my dealings with Peter Lumpkins, he has always told me the truth.
That is what I know. That is not speculation. I do not make these statements because we always agree. We most definitely do not always agree. Far from it. But, thus far he has not lied to me. I reckon I’ll stand on that.
CB,
Peter consistently and apologetically has lied about one Dr. James White, what Calvinists believe in general, and quite honestly is an over the top unpleasant person.
But that aside, you must have missed the humorous intent and Peter’s expense, something I am sure Peter can appreciate.
With that I am…
prchrbill
you need to go wash your hands.
do you recommend an anti-bacterial soap, or perhaps some GOOP…..
With that I am…
prchrbill
I realize I’m jumping into this conversation late, but prchrbill I think you are crossing a line. It seems you are excusing rude and harsh statements through the use of sarcastic humor. I don’t think this brings about a very good testimony to those who are reading along.
OK Rick, explain how the GCR was designed, planned, conspired to be a “total restructuring of our denomination”?
Well, William, that’s what I’m trying to figure out, although I am no longer using any word that starts with “C” — Calvinist, conspiracy, etc.
The GCR Task Force was going to “help us fulfill the Great Commission.” But then they met for a year, proposed changes ranging from CP giving records to making NAMB all about church planting to ending cooperative agreements with state conventions and basically shaking up the denomination’s organizational structure. Now we’re even talking about changing our name.
With so much change so fast, it just feels like there’s got to be something behind it all. Again, where there is reform, there must be a reformer. I suppose my working theory is that leadership structures like the GCR Task Force and the Name Change Task Force are not really formed to “study” an issue and “generate original ideas” so much as they are formed to carry out the vision of some reformers who are working through those organized bodies to accomplish their goals.
That’s not a conspiracy. That’s simply the reality that when most committees are formed, the people who form them already know what they are forming them to do.
Who do you think is behind the reform of the SBC?
Actually, I was asking about your phrase “total restructuring of our denomination.” The GCR did no such thing. It restructured nothing, though it did tweak a budget at the Executive Committee and call for NAMB to redirect its focus to be more on planting churches.
The structure was completely unaffected.
I think Calvinism has some popular personalities both in and out of the SBC that attract folks.
Your attempt to saddle Calvinists with the GCR and name change is unfounded, about as unfounded as speaking of the GCR as “total restructuring.”
William, when I speak of restructuring the denomination, I’m talking about (1) changing our missions metric, (2) cutting the EC, as you mentioned, (3) redirecting the entire focus of NAMB resulting in massive layoffs, (4) the impact upon state conventions that changing the cooperative agreements brought about , and (5) changing the way NAMB and IMB missionaries in North America relate to each other.
I won’t quibble about your objection to the word “restructure” because we did not merge NAMB and IMB, although perhaps we tried, and we did not exactly rename our entities or give them other duties. So let me try again to describe what I’m talking about. Primarily, the GCR “organizationally reprioritized” certain areas of Southern Baptist life, as evidenced by the five issues above.
It did NOT largely address the sharing of the Great Commission, except in that laundry list of individual and church challenges at the bottom of the report that no one really ever talks about anymore. All that stuff at the bottom is what I thought the Task Force would be about. Instead, all those things at the top became the major focus.
It certainly is a secret to almost 11 million of them, who have evidently been abducted by hostiles (Calvinists most likely) and are being held at an undisclosed location. It is easier to stage a hostile takeover if you first get rid of the vast majority of members. It is tactic 147b in the unpublished appendix of “A Quiet Revolution”.
Very funny, Bill, but I think the other 5 million are mostly in the dark as well, except for a few pastors and people who read blogs.
“Below is a mind blowing quote from chapter two, identifying non-Calvinist conservatism as “virtually indistinguishable” from theological liberalism, in that both feature “unstable” and “confused” doctrinal content.”
I know. My jaw dropped when I read it….and then I had to chuckle because they quote Paige Patterson quite a bit in chp 1.
Lydia,
Thank you for reading the “money quote.” If everyone would just go back and read the bold faced paragraph slowly three times, they will understand why such a sentiment might be offensive to a Non-Calvinist Conservative.
“Lydia, my dislike for Peter Lumpkins dates back to his defense of Ergun Caner. Prior to that, I had never heard of him. Lumpkins never dealt with any of the evidence of Caner’s patterns of dishonesty. Instead, what he did was launch personal & highly vitriolic attacks at people I know and care about. In other words, he made a point of doing his best to “shoot the messengers” – and it is a campaign that he is still pursuing.”
Squirrel, I have enjoyed your blog…esp the cooking! I agree Peter never dealt with Caner’s dishonesty (lies) and I came to the conclusion he liked Caner so he got a pass. I see the same sorts of defenses going on with issues related to Mohler, Driscoll, Mahaney, etc, from the Reformed wing. If he is your guy, he gets defended and a pass on things.
I have the advantage of being a woman (who must remain easily deceived even after salvation as the cross was not enough for us according to some) and do not have a “side” to protect or a celebrity to follow because I do not make a living in ministry. Therefore I have the advantage to look at each issue with no preconceived filter except for the easily deceived gene I was born with. Because of that gene I have the responsibility to dive into each issue from a birds eye view. Here is my take: The real problem is not Calvinism or Non Calvinism but the Nicolatians. (wink)
I need to get back to doing the cooking posts…
Squirrel
Yes, you do, because they combine delicious on a budget.
BTW, I’ve been real critical of Driscoll, Piper, MacDonald, etc… A guy doesn’t get a pass just because I like him, and I hope folks don’t give me a pass just because they like me, either.
Squirrel
Nobody likes me, so I never get a pass.
Jared Moore,
To the contrary dear sir. I like you. That is why I do ‘not’ give you a pass. 🙂
Brother Jared (and I mean that!), Don’t ever mistake my questioning what you write for not liking you. Would you believe that a few years back, CB and I used to get in each others “blog faces” over certain issues? Getting deleted, run out of blog town…the whole nine yards. We still disagree on those issues. It is what being a Baptist is all about. (wink)
Yep.
Jason,
Due to the blasted nesting of comments situation, I’m way down here now. You make some very valid points about the whole definition of conspiracy issue. In my previous post, riddled with even more of those insinuations, what I kept getting from people was that this is the way that legitimate denominational advocacy works. People get together and talk. They discover what they want to see changed about the convention. They meet at conferences and in private conversations.
I have no doubt that Al Mohler knew when he stood up that morning in Louisville that he was going to propose a Task Force. The minute business opened, Dr. Hunt recognized him at Microphone One and he proposed the GCTF. Later, it passed by 95%. It was not a spur of the moment thing. I’m not so much calling it conspiratorial or “secret” planning, but it was not done publicly, so perhaps “private planning” is the most generous term.
If the “private planning” which led to the Conservative Resurgence took place between Patterson and Pressler more than twenty-five years ago, then what historical private meeting between which Southern Baptists mapped out the GCR strategy? It didn’t just come out of thin air. Baptist Press doesn’t throw us many bones. Hey, the journalists aren’t even allowed to read the minutes of the Task Force. We just don’t know right now. We may know a lot more in June 2025 when they unseal the GCTF box in the archives.
I don’t like sealed records regarding stuff like this, either. It is one thing to keep the names of missionaries working in hostile places secret, but not something like this. We’re not talking Cold War strategies that need to be kept from the Commies, after all.
I never did understand the reasons for sealing the records. Secrecy breeds distrust, and, when the records are sealed and the people who know what went on are not talking, conspiracy theories are easy to concoct.
Transparency needs to be a priority in the governance of our Convention.
Squirrel
I agree with this entire post by Squirrel.
By the way, totally off the subject, I was driving the Youth Bus as we were passing out flyers for a church event yesterday afternoon. We saw a squirrel run under another car, which totally ran over about half of its head. It’s on the side of the road, body moving, head half gone, and the girls were all starting to cry, “Oh, no, poor thing!!”
Just be careful out there.
I keep tellin’ the guys to stop doing that…
Squirrel
Thanks, Rick. You just ruined my raspberry scone midnight snack. And I AM thanking you. I did not need it.
Rick Patrick’s dark side is coming out.
Yep, squirrel. I think we are all in agreement on that.
Those are all very fair points, Rick. I think there is no question that the GCR was the public result of behind the scenes conversations and discussions. That can’t be denied.
I guess the only thing I would say is that I don’t think calvinism factored into the GCR discussion.
You may be right. I’d love to know what did.
Uhhh… decline in baptisms, decline in funds, increase in the number of people who need Jesus, and a whole lot of people who wanted to do something about it.
In fairness, we were doing something about it before. Funds are still low and we still have plenty of lost people. Should we reorganize again? When I ask about the ideas and conversations and events that factored into our reform, I’m not exactly questioning motive, but usually there is more to a story than just the outward stated reasons. I’d like to know what happened behind the scenes.
Rick,
Actually in all fairness what we were doing wasn’t working – AT ALL! Don’t you remember year after year over the past 10-12 years various speakers at the Pastor’s Conference, whole agendas by Convention Presidents, and a plethora of state and national programs being trotted out with this very focus in mind. And none of them worked.
The GCR was about saying that we are wasting so much money on doing so many things which aren’t helping. We were spreading ourselves thin with projects that we were pumping millions of dollars into, meanwhile we weren’t planting Churches, which statistics were showing over and over again to be the most effective and efficient way to lead people to Jesus.
And so the two problems converged – lack of effective evangelism and the bleeding of money – to lead people to say, “We need to do something now, before we find ourselves like the CBF – bleeding cash and falling apart.” So men got together and said, “Hey let’s try something that has worked in other denominations that are growing – let’s try to trim our budgets and focus on evangelism through Church planting.” And that’s what the GCR was mostly about.
And the Convention approved the GCR overwhelmingly, which brings us to another point – why do people continue to act like we didn’t get the whole story at the SBC – like things are being hidden?
If you remember correctly, tons of folks like Lumpkins and others wrote article after article raising objections to Akin, to the GCR and to various components within it. And still the GCR went through. So it wasn’t like there was nothing out there that was negative. Plenty of people afterwards spoke of weighing the options of the GCR and prayerfully coming to a conclusion to adopt it.
Honestly, connecting the GCR to Calvinism and conspiracy and all of this is beginning to sound more and more like sour grapes about the GCR and the rising influence of Calvinism in the SBC. This is really not about the Quiet Revolution, it’s about desiring control. And now that those who feel they have been in control of the SBC are starting to see their influence slip, they are working diligently to claim that every thing is a conspiracy or some hatched plan.
Again, could it not be God’s plan? Could it be that strong Calvinistic influence is God’s design for the SBC in the coming years? It certainly was part of God’s plan in the 1st Great Awakening. Seems no one wants to consider that possibility now.
“I have no doubt that Al Mohler knew when he stood up that morning in Louisville that he was going to propose a Task Force.”
Piecing together bits from fuzzy memory, but as I recall the idea of a task force was public record well before the annual meeting. As I noted above, the inspiration was a sermon by Danny Akin. As I recall, that was picked up by Johnny Hunt who was the original force behind the GCRTF.
Google hasn’t been as helpful as I’d like – too many articles mentioning the task force – but if I’m reading this one right, Hunt proposed the task force and initial committee members during the 2009 meeting: http://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=30756
What Mohler did was present the proposals. Those, too, had long been a matter of public record and extensive debate.
There have been criticisms of the closed records from the task force meetings. I don’t know why those records are closed. Personally, I don’t really care. I know what issues were presented to us, I knew the issues well in advance, and I knew what I was being asked to vote for.
Thanks for the link, Chris. And yes, when Mohler presented those proposals, everyone sort of knew they were coming. Since Hunt named the task force the next day, he must have known it was coming as well.
I would be curious to know what happened after the Akin sermon and also how the Task Force was oriented to their new assignment. When I say I’m looking for the source of this reform, I’m looking for conversations, plans, a conference, an idea. Who first asked, “How are we going to bring this about?” “Who is going to propose these changes?” “Where do we go from here?”
I am also much more concerned about those sealed records, not because they will shed light on the things I knew when we voted, but because they MIGHT shed light on some things I didn’t know at the time about the process that has brought us to this place. I can’t imagine anyone is going to lose their job if we open that box. I actually think we are entitled to view those minutes since we, the messengers, formed the task force.
We know what’s in the sealed records. That has been revealed – to ensure confidentiality for those who were interviewed by the task force, not to hide the deliberations about the proposals. Here is the section about it from the SBC’s own website:
Speaking against the motion [to unseal the records], task force member R. Albert Mohler Jr. said unsealing the record now would cause the committee to break its promise of confidentiality to participants in the deliberation process.
“We invited persons to come meet with us, and we promised them confidentiality,” Mohler said. “In the course of those deliberations, of necessity we had to deal with some questions about personnel that are indeed legally privileged and are confidentiality covered and are matters of tremendous sensitivity.
“We would not have been able to have those conversations that were needful if we were not able to ensure confidentiality for a term to those we invited with us. This motion would require your task force to break its word to those we invited to come meet with us.”
[all emphasis mine]
So unless you are claiming that Mohler [and the other committee members who have made the same claim or who agreed with Mohler] are lying, then the sealing of records was not about decisions the committee made, but about granting confidentiality to those they interviewed. Somehow that has gotten lost in the whole discussion.
So redact the names of people, churches, locations, and organizations. I’m fine with that.
But, let me ask this, did the task force exceed it’s authority by granting confidentiality? Perhaps we need a codified open meetings/records rule in the convention, with clear guidelines as to what can and cannot be held in confidence?
I repeat my call for as much transparency as is humanly possible without putting lives at risk in our leadership.
Squirrel
Squirrel,
I don’t necessarily disagree with you about transparency, but my point is that the reasoning for the confidentiality is not because the task force is trying to hide their own work, but rather the forthrightness of those they interviewed. Claiming they wanted the records sealed in order to hide something the task force talked about or did is to call those men liars.
D. R.,
I understand that, and I’m not saying that I reject their reasons for wanted the records sealed. But, as I said earlier:
If there were clear guidelines in place as to what was to be kept confidential and what was required to be on open record in place prior to any meetings, then these questions would not arise.
… or, at least, would arise less often and be given less credibility. Those who see conspiracy theories will see them, regardless.
Squirrel
“So, it was a secret agenda that no one will admit about restructuring (and taking over) the SBC”
Jason G,
Where are the promised open records/minutes/notes of the GCR task force? Sealed up. Why are they sealed for the next 13 years or so? What would be the point of keeping them secret from their fellow brothers and sisters in the Holy Priesthood?
Oh, I think it is ridiculous that the records are sealed. My point was that what Rick was describing a conspiracy. I didn’t mean to imply I thought he was wrong. 🙂
The GCR definitely has conspiratorial elements. No question.
My major disagreement is that calvinism is the driving force behind the GCR, and that there is a calvinistic conspiracy to takeover the SBC. I don’t think there is any proof of those things.
See my comment above regarding the reasons given for sealing the records. Are you insinuating that the entire committee was lying about why they wanted to seal the documents?
I have no objection to the reforms taking place in the SBC and have been a supporter of the GCR from day one. Despite the dissent of some, the reality is that GCR has had support from a wide cross-section of the Convention from the beginning. The original petition, the vote for a task force, the make-up of the task force, the personalities that gave the full court press for its passage, and the messengers that passed it all represented a broad variety of people well beyond the Reformed camp and including many that would previously be considered anti-Calvinist. The fact that the GCR has broad support among reformed people does not make it a reformed movement it makes it what it is — a desire to more effectively partner together to fulfill the Great Commission. If doing that requires a wholesale restructuring of the denomination and even a name change, then so be it.
“The fact that the GCR has broad support among reformed people does not make it a reformed movement it makes it what it is — a desire to more effectively partner together to fulfill the Great Commission. If doing that requires a wholesale restructuring of the denomination and even a name change, then so be it.”
Exactly.
Maybe.
Actually, I’d like to qualify my earlier “exactly” to mean that I am agreeing with the overall sentiment. I remain unconvinced regarding a name change, and I do not think it necessarily follows from a concern for a GCR, though I do think restructuring is completely necessary.
Huh,
We may be closer than we possibly thought we were.
I really question the name change idea. At the same time, there are some things that have needed a change for a long time, in my opinion.
“…the reality is that GCR has had support from a wide cross-section of the Convention from the beginning.”
Fair enough, Todd, but at first they named zero Task Force members from Alabama, they claimed the state conventions were “bloated bureaucracies” before they reversed course and said they were not. You also have to admit that GCR has had a fair amount of opposition as well. Orlando was not unanimous, and the implementation has been far from harmonious.
As to the name change, there’s another task force whose formation was even less conventional. I’m not even sure how that would work given our autonomy. Do you think the folks who vote to remain “Southern Baptist” are going to change their sign and stationery? If they vote against the name change, I don’t think they’re going to use the name change even if it passes.
Anyway, thanks for sharing and for your insightful perspective. The world would be a very boring place if everyone was exactly like me.
Lots of states didn’t have representatives on the task force.
As for name changes, it’s true that many will probably not change. After all, we still have training union in my church.
Rick,
It wasn’t unanimous, but 80% is pretty outstanding. Many pastors would feel called to a Church that gave them an 80% approval. And any organization that can pass a controversial change with that sort of percentage would be ecstatic.
Except for that part where the woman from Ohio raised her hand and said we were out of order, and we agreed she was right, and then we asked the messenger to come up to the platform and make nice and then just sort of went on with what was, by all accounts, a parliamentary fiasco.
Orlando was not one big happy family. There has been a lot of tension since that time as well. I think it’s misreading the tea leaves to believe that 80% – 95% of the convention is all on board with our new changes. I’m sure the name change idea will not go over with that kind of a percentage.
Still, I hear you, D.R. It did pass, and overwhelmingly. Hey, about 50% of it looked fine to me as well. I’m not trying to be contrary. I’m just trying to trace the roots of our current reforms, wondering where they plan to take us next.
I mean, what’s after the name change? Does someone, somewhere have a plan for all of this? Or are we making it up as we go along? As to the box, they may not be lying at all. I certainly hope and pray they are not. But there is only one way to find out. And that happens in 2025.
I went to see Star Wars 3D tonight – strange, its almost exactly like the one that came out a few years ago.
Look, folks, I am not going to take the time to go back through and delete a bunch of comments, but I do want to say that SBC Voices is not the place to lodge your complaints about Peter Lumpkins. If I wanted this blog to be about Peter, I would most certainly write articles about Peter or link to his posts.
I just really don’t want discussions at SBC Voices to be about Peter Lumpkins. Please let that thread die right now.
Dave,
I am letting that thread die, however, i want to postulate something to you, that perhaps you are overlooking.
As far as “Calvinist Conspiracy’ theorists go, isn’t, he who will not be named, one of the biggest proponents of such conspiracies, and has he not devoted much of his own blog with anti-calvinist bigotry, and is he not a voice in the SBC? In fact as I look over to the left, there is an advertisement for his blog, how can he not thrown into this discussion, when we know that he is someone that is eluded to in the main article?
In all fairness, much of what was said was in jest, but with a hint of truth.
With that I am…
prchrbill
He’s not only in the ads section on the front page, but also in the “Featured SBC Blogs” reader on the front page.
Lumpkins is anathema around here…ok.
I didn’t say he was anathema. I just don’t see the value of talking about him as some did here.
Joshua,
You are making a joke, right?
No, my point is that Lumpkins’ blog is apparently viewed worthy enough to have an ad here, worthy enough to be linked to on the top/front of this blog, and then when people talk about his blog in a post that is very related to the content of Lumpkins’ blog, Dave responds with, “I just really don’t want discussions at SBC Voices to be about Peter Lumpkins.”
That’s fine if that is the policy. SBCVoices can certainly run their site however they desire. I’m merely noting the irony of the situation.
Our supreme leader Tony handles the ads. I don’t think Peter had to be deemed worthy, he just had to buy the ad. As to why he is on the blog roll, well, check the technorati rankings. Peter, whatever you think of his writing, is a prominent blogger.
I am certainly not defending Peter. He can handle that himself. But he pays for the ad, so it goes up. And his blog is one that is read by many.
Those are facts, not value judgments.
Yes, but people who sell adds make value judgments all the time. Posting an add may not be endorsement of that persons views but it does lend credibility to the person or institution placing the add. You have to ask in each case — do I really want to lend credibility if not tacit approval of this blog/book/business/etc.?
Oh for Pete’s sake! anyone who wants to advertise here can contact the advertising group and advertise here if you are decent, and not vulgar. The difference between Peter’s ad that leads folks to read his blog, and the links we are afforded with our comment name that lead folks to read our blogs, is ours is free and he pays for his…as does David Brumbelow with his Ancient Wine and the Bible ad. If ya don’t want ads, then send in your donation to Tony to keep this thing going so everyone can chatter on and on about how anti-calvinistic, hateful, arrogant, deceitful, and satanic Peter Lumpkins is. Not once in all of Peter’s blog has he ever slandered anyone like this particular thread has him. Jest or no jest. And the Bible warns us to avoid coarse jesting, too. Now doesn’t it?
Peter has had some things written on his site that I agree with and as a Calvinist in the five points I am concerned about.
The posts that not only he but others have written on celebrity pastors concerns me greatly. I agree with Lydia’s stand on this. I also do not believe in Elder authority as it has been used to abuse congregations and gain control. Wartburg Watch has brought out some thing that greatly concern me in this area and Peter has written about those as well. I do concur with some of the concerns some of you have. I think power is a dangerous thing.
My goal is that we work together and the power struggle stop. A
Rick: As a valentine present, I will say that I do not think non-Calvinists are even close to the liberal slope.
I’ve been a calvinist longer than I’ve been a Baptist, and I’ve been a Baptist for 31 years.
If there’s a takeover plot somewhere, I’d kinda like to get in on it. I’ve learned a lot of guerrilla tactics from CB, that I haven’t been able to use.
🙂
Bob,
I could not get reception today. I think I may hate AT&T. Anyway, spent most of the day at UAB. Still know little. Gotta go back. Call you tomorrow.
Back to the subject at hand. I just have a hard time believing that a Calvinist takeover is in the works. I do think Howell Scott is on to something maybe. But, I tell you what may take us over. Apathy.
It may have actually already gotten us while all the Calvinists and whatever the rest of us are were not looking. Maybe that was because we were not concerned enough to look. 😉
Call: Please do. I have a hearing aid fitting at 2:45pm but am free other than that.
Apathy? Yeah .. maybe it comes as a package deal with autonomy.
You get a hearing aid fitted at 2:45 and my right ear was “shot out” in the early 70’s. We are doomed. All we will be doing is saying, “Huh?” all afternoon. 🙂
I’ve had less productive conversations, CB. Not with you, but….
Bob,
We will be in touch soon with details on the next covert meeting. I need your address so I can send you a free copy of Resinger’s book. Study it. Know it.
But the first rule of Calvin Club is: There is no Calvin Club.
Wait….I’ve said too much.
😉
I think I’m still an ordained Presbyterian Elder .. it’s a lifetime appointment, I think, like judges but without the pension .. so I’m still on the mailing list. I’m always getting non-existent invitations to imaginary meetings of the club that doesn’t exist, that aren’t being held.
Lydia,
The decoder ring is under the masonic cornerstone plate at the Old North Church.
And here I thought I was the only Calvinist Presbyterian who left his roots to become a Baptist! So many are going the other way, we are a rare breed.
Jason, too funny…. but seriously while you are at the meeting, ask Jared to share the decoder ring and then sneak me the new definitions. I have chocolate for you.
Exactly, Jason… there are rules…
Squirrel
“If there’s a takeover plot somewhere, I’d kinda like to get in on it. I’ve learned a lot of guerrilla tactics from CB, that I haven’t been able to use.”
You gotta move outta the hinterlands and come to ground zero.
Which is where, again?
Louisville. I am not supposed to know this but they meet in the mega underground cavern which is below the zoo.
AKA, Dr. Mohler’s library.
The Mole Cave?
Rick,
I have been at an Associational gathering tonight, but saw your post. I don’t know (as in know with 100% certainty) that my theory is correct. As with any theory, we can make observations and come to certain conclusions based on the available evidence in front of us. Whether by some great coincidence or sheer luck (and I don’t believe in coincidences or luck) or by planning and strategizing (largely behind the scenes), the reforms which you write about (namely the GCR and the Name Change) have either been implemented (GCR) or are in the process of being implemented (Name Change).
I think that it is fairly obvious that a political alliance consisting of some mega-church pastors and some Calvinists (however you define that term and including both organizational leaders and pastors) is spearheading the reform movement in the SBC. That many within these two groups appear to be less supportive of the CP and state conventions/local associations seems, at least to this observer, to be clear on its face.
I do not have a problem with different groups forming alliances. After all, as you rightly point out, there were groups which formed to push forward the CR agenda in its day. That this current alliance has an agenda — broadly seen as reforming the SBC (methodologically and theologically) — is not a secret and is not part of some grand conspiracy. Read the Reisinger book that Ron references. The reform and radical redefinition movement comes from a certain philosophy of ministry and a vision for missions. Nothing wrong with having a vision. I happen to disagree with the vision — as implemented through the GCR and now the Name Change — but there is nothing sinister or sinful about trying to implement a vision. Of course, if power is abused or shortcuts are taken, then that would be another matter altogether.
I continue to find it curious how this alliance responds to any questions or criticism. The Gerald Harris article in the Christian Index is illustrative. Not only do you have Calvinists attacking Harris and his article, but you also have establishment leaders and employees of the Convention — through Baptist Press, the public relations arm of the SBC — offering a strong defense against Harris’ article. I’ll be waiting for the BP article which quotes SBC pastors and others who agree with Harris’ article. With these dustups, more dots are uncovered which can be more easily connected, thus making not only my theory, but Ron’s as well, more likely to be true. Thanks for your perspective. God bless,
Howell
And thank you for restoring sanity and reason to the discussion. Many on the comment stream still try to make this about conspiracies when I am merely trying to trace the roots of a reform movement that has indeed been rather quiet until now.
I think the Name Change effort will mobilize rank and file Southern Baptists, perhaps even more than Harris’ article will. I always appreciate your writing and perspective.
Rick,
I don’t think that calvinism had much to do with the GCR. The fact that some of the main guys behind the GCR (Hunt, Floyd, Merritt, etc.) have been quite outspoken against calvinism leads me to believe they would not just acquiesce if that was the main driving force.
I think you ask important questions, but I think your linking of the GCR with calvinism might have muddied the waters of what you were trying to do.
Just a thought.
Well done, Rick Patrick. You, along with your crack team of investigators have uncovered the truth. We thought we could keep it a secret until after New Orleans, but alas, we have been discovered. Pardon me if I seem a bit disappointed. This was our big chance (if I’m permitted to use that word) to finally reform the SBC. Once someone got his hands on our blueprint, it was all over. I mean, Ernie Reisinger was our Karl Marx. He put the marching orders together and we followed suit. Its been a long time coming, you know. Back in the 1980?s, when Ernie used his own resources to distribute a book by another member of the illuminati to graduates of Southern Seminary, it was the seeds of revolution that he was sowing. You know, those men who founded our Southern Baptist institutions were revolutionaries- co-conspirators, if you will.
We never thought anyone would suspect that their names would ever be brought up in the 21st century, so we used a codeword to keep it a secret: We called them “Founders.” We never thought anyone would decipher the meaning of that. I mean, after all, the stuff they wrote and preached about happened so long ago, no one would surely read anything by them. There has been a long line of illuminati ever since.
We never thought that our conspiracy would be uncovered, but since its all over, we have a confession to make: Some of the people that you thought were a part of our organization are not. This may be a shock, but since you already know, Danny Akin is not an illuminati. He does not qualify. To qualify, you must: 1. Be a 5-point Calvinst. 2. be agressive. Since Dr. Akin is neither, he does not qualify. There are other young mega-church pastors that you have suspected. They are not in our circle either. Modern church growth methods disqualify you as well. Now, the next revelation will also be a surprise, Dr. Mohler has not qualified for our group. He has sat under a non-calvinst, megachurch pastor for several years- automatic disqualification. I know all of this may come as a surprise, but since you uncovered the plot by finding our Saul Alinsky playbook, we had to let you know.
Congratulations,
Calvinst Illuminati
You know, TBH, since the very subject of my post is the absence of a conspiracy but the presence of reform, I grow more weary and intrigued with each attempt at humor.
Not one person, not one, has addressed the idea espoused in the large block quote in bold, which equates conservative non-Calvinists with liberalism. Can I get one Calvinist to please reject this idea? Most just dismiss it and say they never read it before, but that’s not what this Non-Calvinist conservative needs to hear right now.
I would have expected the comment stream to be about the tracing of our current reform and an effort to distance Calvinists from one who is apparently the weird uncle at the family reunion. Instead, just mockery about a conspiracy no one is uncovering.
There is a difference between uncovering a conspiracy and tracing a legitimate denominational reform movement that I don’t happen to support in its entirety, although I support about half of it.
“Not one person, not one, has addressed the idea espoused in the large block quote in bold, which equates conservative non-Calvinists with liberalism.”
There’s really nothing to address. The author was pretty clear – there are significant differences between non-Calvinist theology and liberal theology, but nonetheless there are points of comparison.
He is not saying non-Calvinists are liberal; he is not saying there is no difference between the non-Calvinist and the liberal; he is saying that only on certain points, there is no difference. Having only read that one paragraph, I don’t know enough to say whether or not I agree with him.
Rick referred to the GCR using this phrase: “total restructuring of our denomination.”
That’s absurd. The GCR did nothing much aside from tweak a few things. It restructured nothing. One might legitimately say that it gave impetus for Kevin Ezell to redirect NAMB to put more resources in church planting (from about a third of NAMB’s resources to, eventually, half, hardly ‘total’ even within that one agency), move Frank Page to cut a couple of high profile jobs at the XComm…that’s about it.
I have some reservations about Calvinism in the SBC but this whole topic is far too Area 51ish to me.
William,
Here’s my direct quote from paragraph one: “It is not a conspiracy.” So stop acting as if I am saying it is.
The GCR is a legitimate denominational reform movement. All I’m saying is that there are forces behind it. There were forces behind the Conservative Resurgence, right? Why should this reform be any different?
Read my nested comment above in which I admit “restructuring” may be a stretch. (It would only have been appropriate if NAMB and IMB had been merged, which I am certain was on the table in those discussions.) But I am very comfortable saying the GCR “organizationally reprioritized” Southern Baptist life. I listed five ways in my comment above.
If that’s not the primary work they accomplished, then how would you characterize the work of the Task Force? Did they usher in a new era of gospel success, Great Commission achievement and denominational peace and harmony?
Rick, the comment arrangement sometimes causes me to miss replies, etc. I missed yours way, way above.
Your post and the entire comment stream is way to Area 51is for me. I wouldn’t saddle that all on you.
The five in your list were certainly touted as being grand changes but in reality did little. NAMB is the only real change and it was between incremental and total. Thank God someone changed things there.
You’re still overreaching here. The SBC of 2012 looks remarkably like the SBC of, well, pick any year out of the last 20.
William,
Forgive me for not knowing where you serve, but I would certainly say that my experience here in New Mexico would indicate that you and I must have different definitions for the word “tweak.” If by “tweak” you mean radically restructure how NAMB “partners” with the State Convention — in our state, entering into new “partnership” agreements which will end up cutting over $1 million in funding when all is said and done and, if by “tweak” you mean that NAMB has become almost an exclusive church planting network (it will be much more than 50% when all is said and done), apparently encouraging “sending” churches to plant new churches without support from or even so much as consultation with the local associations and the “partner” state conventions, then by all means, we agree on the definition of “tweak a few things.” Otherwise, not so much. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Re-read what William wrote. He clearly said that NAMB underwent significant changes because of the GCR. He used the word tweak in reference to the overall GCR. Certainly NAMB has been the most radical of those changes, but other parts of the GCR have had little to no major influence on the convention as a whole.
As for not consulting local associations or partnering with state conventions, church planting shouldn’t really require that. Church planting should be done by Churches. NAMB recognizes that, which is why they are working to encourage Churches to partner with them to plant. Adding the bureaucracy of local associations and state conventions has caused more problems, not less. And I can testify to that given that I am a member of my association’s new work team. Churches in our association don’t care to wait for us to put proposals together and present ideas to the various committees and then to the Executive Committee and finally to the association itself. It’s much more efficient for one Church to do the work, plant the Church and be responsible for it, with NAMB partnering with the plant and that mother Church.
And beside, often when you get traditional pastors together in an association or state convention they will push their own agenda as in “no planting within 5 miles of my Church”, “no churches that look like XYZ”, “only this sort of pastor”… If you don’t believe me, I can tell you of an account of a Church planter that was approached by a state convention to plant a church in a certain town. He was given a list of rules that would have made any true Baptist scream “autonomy”. We need to reach people for Jesus, not satisfy all the demands of a bunch of pastors and laypeople who may or may not have their own personal agendas. NAMB’s way may be a radical departure from how it’s been done, but then again, isn’t that better than continuing to do the same thing while getting the same results.
D.R.,
Hope you are doing well. I did re-read William’s comment and I will have to kindly disagree as to the extent of the “tweaking” done. At least where I sit in New Mexico, the “tweaking,” which was a GCR-inspired restructuring of the new NAMB, has been major.
As to the new ways that churches are being planted by NAMB, I would only give you my experience here in NM. I would not say that the model that you outlined and that NAMB is using is somehow illegitimate, in and of itself. I think that this new model of church planting could even be more “effecient” than the previous model. However, what the new model seems to discount is the impact that it will have on overall cooperation among Southern Baptists at the local, state and national level. For those who define cooperation differently or for whom cooperation is not as important, then the benefits of the new model may outweigh its costs.
However, I can tell you from personal experience that this new model, particularly when NAMB begins to support (i.e., with money from CP and Annie) sending churches in the southeast to plant new churches out west without so much as a heads-up to the state convention or local association (I’m not talking about permission), then the level of partnership and cooperation will erode fairly quickly. And, when that happens, the funding — both CP and Annie Armstrong — will be redirected. When that happens, we will really begin to see “autonomy” at work, but maybe not in the way that the GCR envisioned. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I’m in Ga, Howell, within spittin’ distance of Alpharetta.
I’ve said before that I would like details of how NAMB’s changes affected your state. Generally, I like the ‘tweaked’ NAMB, which was doing stuff like funding VBS training in Arkansas with the earlier Cooperative Agreement kickbacks.
My point with Rick, is that the SBC of 2012 is not greatly changed, reformed, or restructured.
William,
Thanks for the response. I can’t speak to things in Georgia (perhaps William Thornton and Peter Lumpkins can add some insight, which, by the way, both can do quite well), but I can tell you that in New Mexico, the vast majority of churches and pastors are experiencing a greatly changed, reformed, and restructured SBC. It doesn’t all revolve around the changes at NAMB, although these have impacted and will continue to impact our state and how we do missions and ministry. With over $1 million to be cut within the next few years, we will have to decide what our priorities will be. Other state conventions may decide that what the national leaders say, particularly with church planting, will also become the state’s priorities. However, as I have found in NM, we are still an autonomous state convention and not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the SBC.
Therefore, when funding has been cut and is being cut for everything that is not church planting (i.e., children’s ministries, student ministries, collegiate ministries, discipleship ministries, Native American ministries, etc. — all because none of these “plant” new churches), then the churches of the BCNM will have to decide how we use the resources to do missions and ministry, which starts in our own back yard. Each state convention will have to decide that. Thankfully, we do not have to follow any orders from Alpharetta or Nashville (even though they have at times tried to dictate what we do).
If you and others don’t think that NAMB should be funding VBS training (the single-largest evangelistic endeavor that SBC churches undertake each year), that’s fine. However, the BCNM and other state conventions can keep more CP money in the state so that we are not accused of getting any more “kickbacks.” I would be more than happy to see that start immediately! That may not bode well for the new church planting efforts, but cooperation and partnership is a two-way street. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Well Rick, its because there probably is some truth to that statement if the conservative becomes an unbiblical pragmatist. Just look at the practices of some churches around the convention. Many of them are hard to distinguish from the liberal Baptist churches. If you are calling Reisinger a “wierd uncle”, then I suggest you read his bio or something before making such a sweeping statement. He was a contributor to the CR. Don’t forget that.
TBH,
Not me, them. I think he’s a legitimate voice of the Founders, and someone whose views Calvinists need to interact with and explain to the rest of the convention. The “weird uncle” is my term for the way all the others earlier in the comment stream just sort of dismissed this guy…”Hey, nobody ever reads that,” “this book doesn’t matter,” “that guy is way off in left field.”
They just ignore him. They are the ones who apparently treat him like the weird uncle. I have read his book and quoted it for everyone to see. I am taking him more seriously than they are.
“… there probably is some truth to that statement if the conservative becomes an unbiblical pragmatist. Just look at the practices of some churches around the convention. Many of them are hard to distinguish from the liberal Baptist churches.”
Please share some examples of conservative non-Calvinist churches practically synonymous with liberal Baptist churches. I have no idea what either you or Reisinger mean by this claim.
Ah! You’re reading the material. Very good, Rick. Don’t you feel strangely drawn to its contents…as you quote to everyone you see? I see possibilities here. Yes, yes you are drawn to the writings. This is a wonderful development. Ernie would be so proud.
So far I’ve been able to resist this pull to the dark side. The “free will” force is strong in me.
Rick, I really wouldn’t know where to begin. Can of worms. All I can say is that there is a direct connection with the problems many pastors and churches face with unregenerate church membership and the practices and presentation of the gospel in Baptist churches that can be directly attributed to a weak theology and praxis.
So, basically, many of our conservative Non-Calvinist churches are, in your view, filled with “unregenerate” church members whose immoral lifestyles are aided and abetted by an “easy decisionism” type of evangelism and lax discipleship that does not really result in transformed lives?
See, if I believed that, I would want to take us over too! It would be unloving of me NOT to reform such churches.
But I think the above characterization exaggerates the flaws of our non-Calvinistic conservative churches and ignores their strengths. At least now I understand what he means when he equates conservative churches with liberal ones. He’s talking about the existence of what I would call “backsliders” or perhaps people who have never really been saved.
Let me add that, in my opinion, the remedy for bad Non-Calvinist conservative discipleship is good Non-Calvinist conservative discipleship. The remedy is not Calvinism itself.
“many of our conservative Non-Calvinist churches are, in your view, filled with “unregenerate” church members whose immoral lifestyles are aided and abetted by an “easy decisionism” type of evangelism and lax discipleship that does not really result in transformed lives?”
Yes, I believe that. Though you can remove the non-Calvinist part; but I see far too many of our churches giving in to simplistic notions of salvation and the Christian life. Walk the aisle, pray a prayer, you’re in the club. Thus a church can celebrate 100 salvations this past Sunday, rejoicing in this great work of God, yet have no idea where those people are – other than the membership roll – a year from now. Thus many of our people know the Bible is the Word of God, but have little knowledge of its actual content aside from some fortune cookie snippets. Thus immorality is rampant in our churches. On and on. We are in desperate need of revival because our churches are nearly as sick – if not sicker, because we ought to know better! – than the world.
Reform movements aren’t going to turn things around, though I do believe many churches need a good reform movement (not necessarily Reformed, per se, though I do wish more would embrace this theology from the Bible). As a pastor friend in the area has said, “One problem with things like the GCR [and, I would add, the movement to change the name] is it’s just rearranging furniture, and rearranging furniture is not going to change people’s hearts. What we need is revival.”
Amen, Chris.
And, may I add, that true revival is God’s doing, and is not the result of strategies and committees and such. (Although God certainly moves committees to form strategies, etc.)
Squirrel
This has been an interesting post and comment thread.
In my opinion the questions related to Rick’s post have not been answered. Maybe they never will be. Who knows?
Yet, something of an even greater importance has surfaced here. Something of which, maybe several here, will agree.
In my opinion here it is from Christ Roberts’ comment:
““many of our conservative Non-Calvinist churches are, in your view, filled with “unregenerate” church members whose immoral lifestyles are aided and abetted by an “easy decisionism” type of evangelism and lax discipleship that does not really result in transformed lives?”
Yes, I believe that. Though you can remove the non-Calvinist part; but I see far too many of our churches giving in to simplistic notions of salvation and the Christian life.”
Gentlemen, I believe this to not be a problem within any stripe of Calvinistic or Baptistic churches alone. I believe this to be the problem in the entire American Protestant and Evangelical Church Culture.
We may bombard Catholics and specific cult groups as unbiblical and filled with lost people all we want. We can call Catholics and cult groups a national mission field if we want.
But the truth is, conservative Protestant, conservative Evangelical and if you have your origins geared a specific way, conservative Baptist are filled in their membership rolls to capacity almost with lost people. And this includes all stripes of Calvinistic or Baptistic type fellowships.
American Christian churches are as weak as day old tea because our roles and much of our leadership is lost, having never experienced the New Birth.
A name change, the GCR, the CR, and any reform movement you want to trot out will not change the problem. The only thing that will change the real problem is the preaching, teaching and living out of the biblical gospel. Our nation needs a Holy Spirit awakening brought upon it.
Thanks, CB. You’re right.
DingDingDingDing
MacArthur has been saying for 40 years that the biggest problem in the church is the number of non-Christians in the pews. Too many people in the church are not in the Church.
So, what’s the answer? The same as it has always been.
Squirrel
Amen!
Gentlemen,
When God brought me to Himself by grace, I was not a religious guy and that is an understatement.
Shortly after I was saved, I went to church. (the very next Sunday) I wanted to tell what had happened to me. When I got inside the church, I came to a strange realization for me at the time. I saw a bunch of people in that church that I knew in my recent “life.” You know, the life I had only died to about four days before making my first visit to church.
Some of those people were a little uncomfortable. The preacher let me tell my story. After the worship ended and all were on their way out, the pastor had me stand with him at the door to shake hands with people. That was a new experience for me.
There was this one guy that owned a business that I had done some “work” for on a couple of occasions. He came up to me as I was standing with the pastor and said, “It is good to see that you have become a Christian!” My response was basically due to ignorance, yet there was also a degree of genuine surprise in me also.
My response was, “It is good to see you here also Mr. Riddle. Did you get saved this week also?”
It seemed that time had stopped there for a moment. That was my first experience with a “moment of silence” in church as I stood there, the pastor stood there and Mr. Riddle stood there just looking at each other.
I came to realize that I was not welcomed in that church, but that was my first lesson in awareness that churches of all stripes are full of lost people and that a lot of preachers preach a lot of “stuff” that is not the biblical gospel. And I don’t think they don’t preach the gospel because they have “lost the gospel” like I once heard a guy mentioned on this thread say. I think many of them don’t preach the gospel because they are afraid to. I think they are cowards.
What am I saying? I am saying I do not believe Southern Baptists have lost the gospel. I believe that, for many, preaching the gospel is not convenient. I believe that, for many, preaching the gospel may not insure job security. I believe that, for many, preaching the gospel is not going to happen because the pastor is a coward.
I believe preachin’ the gospel ain’t for sissies.
Amen Squirrel.
BTW, in reading your quote, I just realized I misspelled “rolls” in my second usage of the word in my comment.
Gettin’ old ain’t for sissies either. 🙂
Very nicely put, CB!
Rick
Reisinger states:
“What is interesting is that both liberal/moderate Baptists and (for lack of a better phrase) conservative, non-Calvinistic Baptists reflect that theological confusion. For all their differences (which we do not minimize), the two perspectives are alike in that their theologies are inherently unstable. Liberalism runs by nature to an intellectual abandonment of the doctrinal content of the faith. A conservative, non-Calvinistic system runs by nature to a practical ignoring of the doctrinal content of the faith. In the end, there is no difference. Perhaps we will see that, another generation or two down the line, conservative, non-Calvinistic Baptist theology will end up being virtually indistinguishable from liberal theology.”
So Reisinger says that non calvinism leads to liberalism. If non calvinism leads to liberalism then so does calvinism (and history testifies even more so). Both europe and america are littered with denominations, churches and institutions of a reformed background which are bastions of liberalism if their doors are even still open. In fact, is there even one example of a reformed tradition that has maintained a conservative theological stance as long as Baptists? If there is, I do not know of it. On the contrary, we have a number of baptist churches in our area which are over 200 years old which do not have a “reformed” tradition and have remained conservative and vibrant. I don’t know of any Presbyterian churches in my neighborhood that can say that. I believe there are keys to longevity of faithfulness to scripture in the life of a church but it is not what Reisinger suggests.
Rick,
Its not merely “my view.” Talk to some calvinists and noncalvinists who are theologically minded shepherds and they will most likely affirm. You tag “immoral lifestyles” on to the end to make it sound like this observation is extreme. Listen to the words of Jesus: “many will come in that day…‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?”
BTW, there is a noncalvinst commenter in this stream who predicted more than 10 years ago that some of our now conservative seminaries would become liberal again in a few years after the CR. That has yet to manifest, but downgrades happen in every generation- in churches, associations and conventions. Just ask C.H. Spurgeon.
The fact that a non-Calvinist would find this paragraph disturbing and offensive should shed some light on why Calvinists are disturbed and offended whenever a non-Calvinist makes the claim that Calvinism will destroy our Convention and lead us to abandon evangelism and missions.
Just want to throw this comment into the midst of all this discussion. Some people have portrayed Bob Ross as a mean, anti-Calvinist, who is a Calvinist hater. This is really funny, because Bob Ross is Calvinistic in his theology. lol.
Bob Ross just disagrees with the Calvinist crowd, who believes that regeneration takes place before faith. He takes great exception to the Calvinist crowd, who believes that you’ve got to be saved, in order to get saved.
David
Vol, this is not “mean?”
“An unanswered question is, why did the Lord strike Tom down with a bolt of lightning? Was it because the Lord got tired of Tom’s promotion of lies and discord among brethren? Did Tom finally see the light (pun intended), realize the discord he was causing and attempt to lessen the trash talk that so frequently filled his blog?”
I don’t care if you are Calvinist, Arminian, or Zoroastrian. The vitriol that Bob Ross spits out is a blight on the blogosphere. I wouldn’t touch his “calvinism” with a 90 foot pole.
David: Were you glad God struck Tom Ascol with lightning?
not entering into any of this discussion….I’ve had my fill of it… I simply pointed out that many people, who are calling Bob Ross a mean, anti-Calvinist, are missing that Bob is, in fact, a Calvinist! lol
David
It doesn’t matter that he’s a Calvinist or not. What he said was mean-spirited and wrong. You can say the man was wrong and still like him, David.
Jason,
I didnt say anything except that it’s humorous to me that some people say that Bob is anti-Calvinist, when he’s a Calvinist.
David
David, but why did you bring it up to begin with? He has had nothing to do with this discussion until you brought him up. Then when people respond, you say you don’t want to discuss it?
“It doesn’t matter that he’s a Calvinist or not. What he said was mean-spirited and wrong. You can say the man was wrong and still like him, David.”
this is interesting. When it comes to Driscoll or Mahaney their so called “correct” doctrine gives them a pass on their behavior/cultish movements, etc…. and no, they are not official SBC, except for the major influence our leaders have promoted them as being to the SBC..
And therein lies the problem. Both sides of this debate are inconsistent when policing themselves.
Lydia,
As I said on another post I am no Driscoll fan, have not read him or listened to him and have never defended him. And I will not defend him. And he is not SBC as you note.
But I have yet to see (though I have not read everything) any SBC non-Calvinists denounce the Ross’ writings. It is either silence, quasi tacit endorsement (linking to them on SBC Today) or what David has done here.
Well, I don’t know about anyone else but I’ve been pretty consistent with my criticism of Driscoll. Mahaney has not been much on my radar, but I have to agree that SGM has some cultish behaviors that would certainly make me steer clear.
Their Calvinism certainly does not give them a pass. I have been somewhat vocal in my disagreement with Mohler as a culture warrior. This is not a sycophant blog where the same 3-5 people show up every post and go sit in the amen pew and throw stones at whoever else shows up.
I do think I said Bob Ross was an anti-Calvinists, so I will retract that comment, but what I’ve seen on his blog and his movements around the blogosphere doesn’t impress me as to his credentials as a Christian. Plus his revisionism has turned Charles Spurgeon into Charles Finney.
Claiming to be a Calvinist or not, Cavinists everywhere, and non-Calvinists, should disavow anything coming from him and that site unless and until he changes.
BTW, he calls us Calvinists who believe that the bible teaches that regeneration occurs prior to conversion…he calls us heretics.
“…extreme Calvinist Reformed theology such as the heresy that one must be born again before he can believe on Jesus for salvation.”
BTW: I am stunned that Ross is a Calvinist. I am still smarting over being “easily deceieved” that he was the PBS painter guy. (Good one guys….I love a good “gotcha”)
Lydia,
FYI, I also think Driscoll is wrong. Too much “shock-jock” behavior for me to be comfortable. To be honest, I don’t know enough about Mahaney except that there is some situation going on there. I believe the only thing I’ve ever even read of his was “The Cross Centered Life”.
Jason: I think you should become aware of the CJ Mahaney situation and the Sovereign Grace Ministry fiasco because CJ is a big part of SB life even now, coming back from a hiatus.
Debbie,
How do you figure that C.J. Mahaney is a big part of SB life even now?
Debbie,
Nevermind, you’re right. I just looked it up and he’s big in the T4G and the CBMW.
“not entering into any of this discussion….I’ve had my fill of it…”
C’mon David, that’s a cop out and you know it. I’ve seen you hang in there far, far longer on less important matters in the blogosphere than whether it is appropriate for a presumed Christian to suggest that God struck another Christian with lightning as punishment for his work with Founders.
Is there a possibility that you agree with him? You’ve been pretty vocal in your displeasure with Founders, but I wouldn’t put you at that level. You can’t tell us you think he was wrong? That this type of thing does nothing to advance the Gospel, no matter what soteriological side you are on?
If we can’t be unified in denouncing this type of anti-Christian behavior, what can we be unified about? It’s time to man-up. (apologies to Lydia, person-up just doesn’t have the same ring)
Vol,
“He takes great exception to the Calvinist crowd, who believes that you’ve got to be saved, in order to get saved.”
That portrayal of Calvinism is simply false and another mischaracterization of Calvinism.
Calling yourself something doesn’t make it so.
If a guy David liked believed and said what Ross did, he would be fighting like crazy for us all to believe he wasn’t really a calvinist but just had “calvinistic leanings” (see previous discussions on people like BH Carroll).
But because Ross is a nutjob, he just says “oh yeah, he’s a calvinist”…then doesn’t want to discuss it.
THAT is what is funny here.
I am also curious why he refuses to answer the question about Ascol. Please fill us in, David.
David,
You do realize that you are the first person to even mention Bob Ross in this thread, right? At least Lumpkins was mentioned in the original post. Why is this even relevant? Does this in any way advance the discussion?
Squirrel
One other thing, this is a note to CB, Tim Rogers, Peter Lumpkins, and a few others….the secret, smoke filled room meeting will take place at that certain hotel in New Orleans on Sunday night before the SBC takes place….it will be in room 666 from 5-10 pm…ribs and crawdead etouffe will be served…we will have a special word from Wes Kenney….special music will be brought to us by Dr. Emir Caner.
I’m looking forward to seeing all of you……please make a note of this….dont forget to bring your special badge, in order to be let into the room.
David 🙂
Will that take place before or after our meal with Dwight and CB? 🙂
Todd,
Our meal with Dwight and CB will take place at another time. I believe we have another agenda to discuss!!
David 🙂
Todd,
You have to be a wackadoodle, or a conspiracy nut, in order to get into the smoke filled room meeting.
BTW, who’s bringing the smoke machine, CB? Was it Bart Barber’s turn to bring that? or, was it Robin Foster’s turn this year?
David
Yeah, I probably wouldn’t fit in… Now if you have a meeting for naively optimistic people-pleasers, let me know 🙂
The secret meetings that have taken place in “smoke-filled rooms” (without tobacco ofcourse) in recent years are not attended by the calvinist-megachurch pastor illuminati axis, but are made up of anti-calvinist bloggers and some SBC seminary and college personnel. That’s where they strategize mic position plays.
Ofcourse, if you want to attend a meeting that takes place in the light, you can attend a Founder’s breakfast or take in a “9 Marks at 9.”
TBH,
I do think Vol was mostly joking around. Nonetheless, maybe you have been around for a while. If so, you know there have always been secret meetings in the SBC. In many of those meetings, Calvinists and mega-church pastors were present.
I have not been to one in a long time. I attended many in the past. Yet, I am sure they still occur. I know they still occur. They always will. The SBC, by its very nature is a political entity.
People meet in secret. People make plans. People ultimately publicly reveal what is necessary of that which was planned in secret to accomplish their goals publicly. Sometimes that is good. Sometimes that is bad. Politics in and of itself is not bad or good. It is always dependent on the men using politics to accomplish the desired goal as to whether the political action will be for good or bad.
Not really a comment directed at Vol. No, none of those secret meetings are a surprise to me. The accusation leveled in the post is against a certain “kind” of secret meetings of a particular theological persuation. There is no proof of it. However, there is proof of another kind of group meeting secretly. Sure, groups will meet, but the narrative being told here suggests conspirators meeting to plot sinister plans in private with playbook (which few have read to boot.)
The narrative here specifically disabuses everyone of the notion of a secret sinister plot. Sentence four reads, “It is not a conspiracy.”
Rather, the narrative here admits plainly the existence of reform and seeks to identify the reformers who met privately and began this reform effort.
Who is reforming us? Mohler and Akin, I guess. Maybe some Founders, some T4G, and a few others. I want to look past the official groups and identify the process of organizing the effort to present the GCR agenda. I want a history of the roots of the GCR.
There must be a difference between an accusation and a probing question, a thirst for historical knowledge.
The problem you raise, Rick, is at the root of our problems. To get anything done in an institution like the SBC you have to organize. So, politics is necessary.
The line between organizing to accomplish and conspiring to control is a thin line and difficult to distinguish. Often, it comes down to where stand on an issue, I’d guess. My side organizes, your side conspires. Perspective.
However, Rick is right here. He has not advocated a conspiracy here, but an effort to influence and reform.
“However, Rick is right here. He has not advocated a conspiracy here, but an effort to influence and reform.”
This is true and as of yet, his questions go unanswered.
BTW, SelahV, not “everyone” here made Peter out to be a devil and let the record show that I believe Peter to be an honorable man. He makes people mad, but most honorable men do.
In addition, Bob Ross was wrong to take pleasure in the fact that Tom Ascol was struck by lightening if that is what he did and it does seem that he did.
Lastly, there have always been Calvinists in the SBC. I will go so far as to state that the strongest personalities for change at the BSSB (now LifeWay) during the CR were Calvinists with the exception of Bob Tenery. I also believe that while I served on that board of trustees, I met some lost and on their way to hell Southern Baptist pastors who were trustees and I don’t know what their soteriological dogma was.
cb,
What questions has he asked that are left unanswered? I think I have missed half the comments. But I’d love to take a stab at some.
Thanks.
Jason G.,
First, it should be obvious that Rick Patrick made a concerted effort to stated that he rejected a conspiracy. Yet, he was bombarded and goaded as if he was advocating one. He was not and he stated as much more than once.
It seems to me that true dialogue did not take place relating to the content of his post. I think flags of defense went up.
Maybe that was reactionary due to past methods of the efforts to communicate the concerns some people have for recent and current events in our convention. That is understandable.
Nonetheless, I believe Rick Patrick was truly seeking to gain an understanding of some things and he was, in my opinion, brushed aside as a conspiracy theorist. I think that was unfair. I think that was unfortunate.
Jason G.,
There are many people who have the questions in their mind that Rick Patrick does. Many of then just do not know how to ask. (Alabama is full of Baptists wanting to hear answers to the questions Rick posed) Rick Patrick made a decision to bring his concerns to the venue of a Baptist blog. Rick is an experienced blogger so he knew he was bringing his concerns into a rough neighborhood. He did not whine, pout, or grab up his marbles and go home. He kept his chin up and kept on seeking to gain answers to his questions. I think he deserved better than he got. And yes of course, that is only an opinion, but it is my opinion.
As for me? Well, I have been around this convention for a while now. I have seen a few things and know many of the players. And I have been in a lot of meetings that were by invitation only. I have some questions, but it is not of the same intensity as it used to be for me.
Maybe that is because these days, I am just mostly here for the coffee………Mostly 😉
CB,
The reason I asked what questions remained unanswered is because I didn’t think he was really asking questions as much as he was raising concern. I think his concern is legit, and I (and others) have interacted on those points he brought up.
He did state that he was not saying it was a conspiracy, but then the language he used alluded to a conspiracy. I asked him about it, his answer basically admitted that was true. But I take him at his word.
I think there is some concern over the secrecy of leadership. That is fair. I also think that calvinism has nothing to do with the GCR…I truly think that is about the GC. I think the leadership is broad enough and covers the range of the calvinistic/non-c spectrum enough to remove a hidden calvinism as the driving issue. (BTW, you have to admit that aspect of his post does ring of conspiracy, true?)
The implications raise questions too. Restructuring? Budget cuts? Position cuts? Directional focus? Name change? Some are needed. Some are questionable.
I think his whole post has been discussed, but if there is something specific you think really remains unanswered, I will gladly attempt to answer. You have said “his questions go unanswered”…but can you be specific?
Jason G.,
I would imagine we could hash some of this out all night between us and even if we came to no agreement, we could part the dialogue on good terms. I seem to detect that virtue in you.
With that in mind, let me step back from the content of this post and enter again something I directed to you on the “Birch” post. I do think it would apply here due to the nature of this post’s comment thread having taken a similar route as did the Birch post. I think you missed this comment which is easy to do on a long thread. Here it is again:
If the intent of the Founders ministry has changed since the writing of the Reisinger work, then a new work with the new focus should be written, don’t you think?
I do not know if the Founders are intent on taking over the SBC at this time. You do not know if they are not either. That question has not been answered has it? Of course there is a twelve year old work that states that was a goal before, right?
Also, and I know this is not popular to bring up, but why the SBC being linked to the Founders site? No answer has been given for that either.
Ultimately, if the Founders Ministries has no intent on taking the SBC over one church at a time as in the past, why continue to exist? If the folks in the Founders want to work together with other Southern Baptists, why not just disband?
Lastly, David Worley’s questions on the Birch post have not been answered. Opinions have been given, but no answers.
Jason G., I am of the opinion that the Calvinists, in general, within the SBC, have no desire to “reform” the SBC. But I do wonder if the intent of the Founders Ministries has changed since the early days when E. Reisinger wrote the book so many state to be of no influence today?
CB,
I like you. I think we would get along very well. Perhaps we could meet up at the SBC in Nola this year. I think it’d be fun to discuss theology and current SBC happenings.
I must admit, I do not enough about Founders to really answer for sure what their goal is, and I definitely can’t speak to what their goal was back in the day. My limited interaction with Founders would not lead me to think the goal was a takeover of the SBC. Though I am sure they would love to see a spread of what they understand as good theology and polity through the SBC. I doubt there is a desire to run the bureaucracy of the SBC. My also limited interaction with Dr. Ascol has proven him to be a humble, genuine, winsome, godly man who wants what is best for the SBC and all people within the SBC, even non-calvinists. So, I find the accusations of a “takeover” mentality to be hard to swallow.
I am not sure if Founders has answered the questions about “takeover” before. Maybe they don’t feel they need to. I searched and couldn’t find any official document from Founders that gave that as their goal, vision, purpose, or mission. The only time that language shows up is in Reisinger’s booklet. I don’t know if we can take that as the Founders manifesto, or just one man’s view. I don’t see the problem with asking the question. But I also don’t think they MUST answer because if it was never their official (or unofficial) position, then the question could be moot in their eyes.
I think Founders exists because it is a place for those with similar theology to network and find pastoral support. They may have no agenda, but if they provide a pastoral network for people – then that is fine for me. Lots of those networks exist. It is basically like an association, but theologically connected rather than geographically. I am a fan of having many support networks for pastors…often they overlap. They can work with others and also have a beneficial support role within their network.
I think if David wants to get clear answers about Founders, he probably needs to ask Ascol or others in Founders. I’m not sure this blog is the appropriate place for that. Perhaps e-mail correspondence with those in Founders leadership would be more appropriate…and provide more accurate answers.
Lastly, on Reisinger, I know that booklet is now being touted as widespread and influential. But most people on here have said they had never read it or even heard of it before this discussion. I still find it funny that it is viewed as “THE manifesto” or “THE blueprint” – we don’t even know how many copies exist. Now,for the content, I am not sure how much of that booklet is Reisinger’s personal view and how much is the official position of Founders. I wouldn’t want to assume they are necessarily one and the same (they might be, but we can’t assume they are).
I am not an expert…I don’t know all the answers…I can only judge by what I have seen and experienced and can deduce from the evidence. But I am always willing to openly discuss whatever issue arises.
I don’t know how you guys have not heard of this book by Reiseinger..it was the main textbook for leadership classes at SBTS…really thought that was the case at all the seminaries..is it not??
“I don’t know how you guys have not heard of this book by Reiseinger..it was the main textbook for leadership classes at SBTS…really thought that was the case at all the seminaries..is it not??”
Recently?
Not true.
I had never heard of the Reisinger book on a quiet revolution until I begin reading the references to it. I am a Sovereign Grace believer and preacher who served 28 years in actual pastoring, been an ordained Southern Baptist minister for (it will be, May 20 of this year) fifty years. I did meet Mr. Reisinger once and corresponded with him a few times, but his agenda was his own and we never saw eye to eye. I have read some of his other writings. As to calvinism, those who argue against it are really in the wrong denomination to do so. History, institutions, churches, etc., are all set in the mold of such theology from the beginning. And it was the calvinists of Virginia who instituted the allowing of differences (preaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to communion). Those who don’t want such theological underpinnings need to be in the General Baptists who have always been the promulgators of general/universal atonement, and they did not start the missionary movement. It was them calvinistic baptists that did. Now I am no fan of the term calvinism, due to being a freedom loving baptists. However, let it be known that though the General Baptists were first on the scene to advocate religious liberty, the Particular Baptists were the first to put it into law and practice, beginning with Rhode Island from whence it spread. Outside forces want to keep their hand in matters, and they will use whatever means are available, though they prefer pluralism and a more humanistic theology.
I spoke to a good friend, yesterday, about these matters. He was very busy, but he took time out to talk about this for perhaps 20 minutes.
I first met him in FBC Pelham about 30 years ago. He left FBC 21 years ago, and joined Briarwood Presbyterian. I asked him why and he told me “We always felt there was more to this .. more to know .. more to experience”. And, at Briarwood, he learned he was right.
Briarwood’s missions record is outstanding.
I know this: if there was a Calvinist takeover of the SBC, I don’t know what would happen with reference to the CP, but I know that the personal evangelism efforts of local churches and local members would skyrocket. I’ve said it so many times before I can’t count them all, but EVERY SINGLE TIME someone has approached me, to witness to me, wherever, it was without fail a Presbyterian Church Member. We preach year after year after year that we have to have a “burden for lost souls”, and when the local member doesn’t “have it”, they seldom witness. On the other hand, the Presbyterian Churches of which I’ve been a member have, without fail, taught that God says we are to be His witnesses, and we must, if we are to be obedient to our Savior.
And need I point out yet again, our miserable collective track record about making disciples of those God sends us?
Those folks who think that Calvinism will lead to weak witnessing … I wonder how they had the sense to turn their computers on by themselves. It just ain’t true .. unless you have bad Calvinist preachers just like we got bad Baptist preachers.
Straw men abound in the SBC. I just hope more folks figure it out.
Greg,
There is a club to “secrete” SBC Calvinists? Like the Mama Monster in Alien?
Now, that WOULD be a conspiracy!!
That’s disgusting.
no, it’s just bad spelling
No it’s that darn auto word insert feature on my Ipad where it tries to figure out what word you are typing and will auto insert that word… Even when it is not the word you were looking for…
Clearly the predetermined word choice is in error, while the exercise of your own free will results in a word choice that is right and pleasing to God. 🙂
The real conspiracy you folks need to worry about is a real and deadly one set forth in Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, regardless of disclaimers to the contrary. the evidence is abundant and overwhelming for those who are willing to take the time and spend the effort to do the research of the sources. I read enough, gathered enough info., etc., but I am called to preach first and foremost and to pray for a Third Great Awakening. The conspiracy is in everything, and the name of the game is control, regardless of what is set forth for public consumption. Right now the possibility of a Third Great Awakening is the greatest threat the conspiracy faces. The first two with the launching of the Great Century of Missions almost blew them out of the saddle. They had to send in infiltrators, sappers, dividers, polarizers, what not, to blunt the effect, and they did a pretty good job of it though it took them a hundred years to get rolling and another 100 years to strengthen their hand to the point of virtual world dominance. Now the rising tide is threatening again, and one of these days (perhaps today) the power of Heaven will fall and the whole earth will be converted in one generation and continue for a 1000 generations. So the prayer goes for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and His true Gospel and His true church.
Let’s say the Founders want to reform the SBC, so what? Based on the Calvinist responses here they are not doing such a hot job since none here seemed to be following their lead.
There does seem to be SB’s who are vocal that they desire to stop the growth of Calvinism from expanding any further than it is today. As best I can tell they do not have an actual organized movement. However, should we be concerned with those who desire to stop any further growth of SBC Calvinism?
Mark,
I think you are right. There are Southern Baptists serving in pastoral and entity positions who are vocal (some highly vocal) about the spread of Calvinism in the SBC. I have heard some speak and read others who refer to it as if it was the cause of a cancer in the SBC.
At the same time, there are Southern Baptists serving in pastoral and entity positions who are vocal (some highly vocal) in their desire for Calvinism to spread in the SBC. I have heard and read others who refer to it as if it was the cure for a cancer in the SBC.
Mark, it was just not always that way. I for one, wish it was not that way today. Frankly, I like Danny Akin’s position on dealing with this issue far better than I do Al Mohler’s. I wish the Founders would simply disband and I wish high profile preachers would stop the ranting against Calvinism as if it was the theology from hell.
But those are just wishes of a guy who believed in the cause of the CR and that the cause was totally justified. (I still do)
Today, I do have a fear.
I remember years ago that many of the Old Line Liberals made statements in trustee board meetings and in other forums that “when the conservatives (They actually referred to us as fundamentalists) take over this convention, they will turn on each other.” I was young then. I always brushed that off as angry reactions from those who had lost the war.
Well, today I can’t help but think maybe for once in their liberal, gospel watering down, theological dwarf seminary student making, missions entity destroying, local church, associational, state, and national convention killing existence, they were prophets.
I pray I am wrong and my fears are unfounded.
The founders do enough to alienate the other Sovereign Grace ministers in the SBC with actions and comments of arrogance, CB. Baptists being like a big number of cats will not herd like cattle; they will not be driven, but they can be inspired and led. Any imposition of theology from above runs into the nexus of resistance to Rome’s approach to life, something we have been fighting for about 1500 years. I like the fact that people are being persuaded and coming to Sovereign Grace on their own, being owned by the persuasion of the facts in the case for truth is a clean feeling, while being dominated and driven to the truth by manipulations just doesn’t jive with that sense of true deliverance. God can drive, and He does sometimes, but, ordinarily, it seems, He prefers an approach that is indirect, winsome coyness, a effort that cannot be resisted because it is so wonderful as the lady told a friend of mine named Spurgeon.
Dr. J, you seem to use Sovereign Grace as a synonym for Calvinism.
I just like to say I’m not a Calvinist (in any typical sense at least), but I thoroughly believe in God’s Sovereignty and I desperately trust in His Grace.
This whole idea of “teams” huddling around a systematic approach to the Bible narrative, seems to be a bridge to nowhere.
I am amazed that Calvin gets so much press in a Baptist blog.
I do like your suggestion of winsomeness. I think that is something you do quite well.
“Sovereign Grace” is a synonym for Calvinist soteriology, as very few “Calvinists” subscribe to the entirety of Calvin’s theology. (Not that reading Calvin isn’t a profitable use of one’s time. It is.)
I’ve found it useful to hold to some very precise definitions. “Calvinist” is limited to Sovereign Grace soteriology. “Reformed” is typically used to mean Calvinist & Covenantalist. So that’s the way I typically use those words. I’m “Calvinist” because I hold to the 5 points as defined at Dordt, and I hold to the 5 “solas” of the Reformation. But I’m not “Reformed” because I am not a Covenant Theologian.
Squirrel
Squirrel,
So do you hold to a type of dispensationalism?
Exactly so, John. I’m a CalviDispyBaptoGelical 🙂
I’m a Calvinist soteriologically, and a Premillennial Futurist eschatologically.
Although “Dispensational” is just as troublesome and polarizing a term as “Calvinist.” But, at it’s core, I would define Dispensationalism as recognizing a distinction between Israel & the Church.
Squirrel
Wow I really appreciate that. I’m a Noncalvinist but I have a great respect for many of my Clavinist brothers, but I reject the Reformed doctrine of replacemnet theology.
Of course, the term “replacement theology” is not embraced by reformed people.
Jason G.,
I realize that what you’re saying is true, however, the outcome is the same.
Squirrel, you refer to yourself as, “CalviDispyBaptoGelical”
I know you mean this tongue-in-cheek, but don’t you think that part of the problem is that we seem to have a nagging need to “label” everything?
The Bible does not seem to endorse such parochial labeling (1Cor. 3).
Frank,
1 Corinthians 3 is dealing with divisions over personalities, not over doctrine – that is a big difference.
Labels are useful. When I read a book, I want to know what the author’s presuppositions are. When I hear a sermon, I want to know the preacher’s theological positions. I, especially as a pastor & preacher, have no problem defining what I mean by the words I use, and letting people know exactly where I stand on this or that issue or theological debate.
I’m prepared to say what I believe and why I believe it, and articulate my position, all the while knowing that I am totally, 100% unable to change your mind about any of it. If the person I’m addressing doesn’t find my arguments compelling or my reasoning persuasive, so be it.
Squirrel
John Wylie,
No. That is not true either. I know Dispensationalists believe that, but it isn’t true.
Squirrel, “” all the while knowing that I am totally, 100% unable to change your mind about any of it.””
I wasn’t particularly disagreeing with you and I do take a little different approach to the parochial ideas in 1Cor. 3.
I wasn’t aware you were trying to change my mind on anything because I wasn’t aware that I was disagreeing with you about any particular thing you said. My comment was “in addition to,” not “contrary to” what you said. I thought your definitions were useful and clear.
I’m sorry if I offended you. That certainly was not my intent. I will try to be more careful.
Jason G,
Whether you call it “replacement theology” or “supersessionism” or “fulfillment theology” or whatever, the truth is that, if you see the Abrahamic Covenant promises fulfilled in the Church, and not in ethnic Israel, then it most certainly is true.
I was just listening to Voddie Baucham, a man I love and respect dearly, from whom I’ve learned a great deal, while I was cooking dinner tonight, say that the church is the “true” and “spiritual Israel”, to whom all the covenant promises belong.
I do know what supersessionists believe, and I understand why they believe it. I just disagree with them.
Squirrel
PS–Just for the record, because I don’t think I’ve stated it before, I don’t consider myself either a Calvinist or a Non-calvinist so I don’t really have a dog in this fight.
I’m not really a “middle of the road” kind of guy either, because I don’t take a systematic approach to theology even though I have a degree in philosophical theology. My specialty (thesis) is in the area of apologetics. Though, over the years I’ve drifted to a more, narrative approach to theology.
What this does for me is allow me to deal with texts that create a tension between two possible systems. I guess as I get older I’m more interested in the “main points” of a passage than the theological minutia (sp?).
That is not to say I completely disregard the value of a systematic understanding of theology. I just like the narrative much better.
Finally, to help me clarify my own thoughts, I’ve come to realize after many years in ministry that I’m not going to solve problems theologians for thousands of years have not solved. So, when discussing theology becomes “fussing” about theology, then I feel I’m out of my league.
Frank,
No I wasn’t offended at all. Sorry if I came across that way. I guess I am a bit “knee jerk” in my reaction to any version of “I hate labels.” It’s sort of a pet peeve of mine, as labels keep me from drinking Drain-O instead of CocaCola. 🙂
Squirrel
Frank,
Also, the “you” in “change your mind” wasn’t actually personal. I was speaking of apologetic methodology in general, and my not shying away from labeling myself and explaining my labels.
Squirrel
Squirrel,
I don’t believe we should use terms to describe other people’s theology that they would not use themselves. The term “replacement theology” not only is rejected, but it isn’t even an accurate description of the belief.
How is the outcome not the same? I mean you basically believe that God is done with national Israel and they will experience no national restoration. Whether you call it replacement theology or not the outcome is the same.
JW,
Replacement is not a synonym with fulfillment. Not even close.
I think we all know enough that nuance and definition of terms is crucial. I would hope we would be a bit more careful when debating such issues. I would want to represent those with whom I disagree very carefully and in a way that furthers discussion, not hinders it.
With all due respect, and I really mean that by the way, even after the distinctions you’ve drawn how is the outcome any different?
JW,
You don’t see a difference between the fulfillment of a promise through a people and a complete replacement of that people?
It’s as simple as continuity vs. discontinuity. 🙂
Dispys are so hung up on discontinuity they can’t even define the view of those believing in more continuity without using a term that means discontinuity. 😉
I mean fulfilled, superceded, or replaced all mean that God is fininshed with Israel as a nation. Based on what you’ve said I will not refer to you as believing in replacement theology, but I still would like to know nuanced or not what’s the difference in outcome?
Jason,
I didn’t here, and don’t normally elsewhere, use the term “Replacement Theology.” I simply said that I see a distinction between Israel and the Church that Covenantalists do not see. I see a future for ethnic Israel and a future literal fulfillment of the promised blessings given throughout the Abrahamic Covenant. Covenantalists see these promises fulfilled not in ethnic Israel, but in the church.
Is that an accurate statement, brief as it is, and no doubt lacking in detail, of what you believe?
Squirrel
Squirrel,
I would say that all of the OT promises are fulfilled in Christ (true Israel), and thus belong to all (Jew and Gentile) who belong to Him (the Church).
… and not to ethnic Israel… 😀
Squirrel
So the outcome is the same regardless of what you call it. God is done with national Israel.
Through the lens of a 19th century belief system, then I suppose you could draw that conclusion. 😉
Of course, if this was always God’s plan (an idea precluded in Dispensationalism) then we can speak of it as fulfillment of the plan. No replacement needed. Big difference, IMO.
Squirrel,
Is Jesus an ethnic Jew? 😉
Jason G.,
Even then my proposition was that ultimately the “outcome” is the same for national Israel. You never have answered my question as to how does the outcome change regardless of what you call the doctrine. 😉 Fulfillment, supersession, or replacement all make no difference concerning the ultimate outcome for national Israel.
Guys, if I might jump in, here is a Covenant theologian on whether covent theology is replacement theology. It is not. Notice the dippy distinction.
”
Recently I had a question asking whether “covenant theology” is so-called “replacement theology.” Those dispensational critics of Reformed covenant theology who accuse it of teaching that the New Covenant church has “replaced” Israel do not understand historic Reformed covenant theology. They are imputing to Reformed theology a way of thinking about redemptive history that has more in common with dispensationalism than it does with Reformed theology.
First, the very category of “replacement” is foreign to Reformed theology because it assumes a dispensational, Israeleo-centric way of thinking. It assumes that the temporary, national people was, in fact, intended to be the permanent arrangement. Such a way of thinking is contrary to the promise in Gen. 3:15. The promise was that there would be a Savior. The national people was only a means to that end, not an end in itself. According to Paul in Ephesians 2:11-22, in Christ the dividing wall has been destroyed. It cannot be rebuilt. The two peoples (Jews and Gentiles) have been made one in Christ. Among those who are united to Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, there is no Jew nor Gentile (Rom. 10:12; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11).
At least some forms of dispensationalism have suggested that God intended the national covenant with Israel to be permanent. According to Reformed theology, the Mosaic covenant was never intended to be permanent. According to Galatians 3 (and chapter 4), the Mosaic covenant was a codicil to the Abrahamic covenant. A codicil is added to an existing document. It doesn’t replace the existing document. Dispensationalism reverses things. It makes the Abrahamic covenant a codicil to the Mosaic. Hebrews 3 says that Moses was a worker in Jesus’ house. Dispensationalism makes Jesus a worker in Moses’ house.
Second, with respect to salvation, Reformed covenant theology does not juxtapose Israel and the church. For Reformed theology, the church has always been the Israel of God and the Israel of God has always been the church. Reformed covenant theology distinguishes the old and new covenants (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 7-10). It recognizes that the church was temporarily administered through a typological, national people, but the church has existed since Adam, Noah, and Abraham; and it existed under Moses and David; and it exists under Christ.
Third, the church has always been one, under various administrations, under types, shadows, and now under the reality in Christ, because the object of faith has always been one. Jesus the Messiah was the object of faith of the typological church (Heb. 11; Luke 24; 2 Cor. 3), and he remains the object of faith.
Fourth, despite the abrogation of the national covenant by the obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ (Col. 2:14), the NT church has not “replaced” the Jews. Paul says that God “grafted” the Gentiles into the people of God. Grafting is not replacement, it is addition.”
R Scott Clark
I think that is well said. Thanks for posting that, Les. I did not intend to give a defense of covenant theology, but I did allude to the fact that the term “replacement” is a reading of foreign theology onto the covenantal understanding.
So, the outcome is not the same at all…as I said before.
Les,
R. Scott Clark would also tell you that any Baptist couldn’t be truly Reformed, because the real Reformed theologians are paedobaptists… 😛
Here’s the source.
And, in a way, he’s right, since Covenant Theology started as a polemic against credobaptism.
Squirrel
Les,
Most dispensationalists that I know do not believe that the Mosaic Covenant is permanent. We believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is permanent. We believe that the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled in Christ. How you characterized our understanding of the realtionship between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant is exactly opposite of what every dispesationalist I’ve ever known believes.
Further, there are some people in the Reformed camp who believe in punitive supersessionism. The belief that because Israel has not kept her end of the covnenant she has been superseded by the church. They cite Matthew 23:38 as a support for this doctrine. Supersession and replacement are synonyms. Now I will respect that you and Jason don’t like this label and will refrain from calling you that. But to act as though it is just a blatant or ignorant mischaracterization is really not fair.
And Jason,
The outcome is exactly the same because it teaches that God is done with the nation of Israel. That was the outcome that I was referring to in my original response to you. And that statement is still true.
John Wylie,
Those were not Les’ words, he was quoting from R. Scott Clark. But I totally agree that Clark has it wrong. I just spent two weeks going through the Abrahamic Covenant with my congregation preparatory to starting Romans 9, 10, & 11, and I stressed that it was the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant that are everlasting, but that the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled by Christ and replaced by the New Covenant. (Sorry, those messages are not online yet, as I’m way behind on my podcasting.)
Squirrel
Thanks Squirrel.
Les, my apologies, the way the quotes ended up on the comment I was confused as to whose words they were. But regardless I would never believe that you would purposely mischaracterize the dispensationalist view. I’ve read enough of your comments to know that you’re a man of fairness, integrity and peace.
John Wylie and Squirrel,
Squirrel you are exactly right. Those were not my words. It looks like the “” marks might have gotten screwed up. I pasted that and posted it on my iPad. Some times those things get “squirrelly” (sorry Squirrel, I couldn’t help myself).
I was just really wanting to interject what at least one covenant theologian thinks about Israel. I was not trying to open up his views on dispensationalism.
As far as how he sees Baptists and being Reformed, I disagree with him…of course that also depends how one defines “reformed.” He would probably toss me too. I am currently in a PCA church and have been ordained in the PCA and as a SB pastor. I have no problem affirming both paedo and credo baptism as valid. The WCF does not require paedo. So I don’t know what Dr. Clark (or my SB brethren for that matter) would do with me.
Blessings!
Sovereign Grace was before calvinism as it was before Augustinianism. Cf. John Gill’s Cause of God and Truth for evidence of such beliefs stated by early church fathers. As to winsomeness, consider Whitefield and Edwards along with Gano, Shubal Stearns, Daniel Marshall, John Leland, John Taylor, and Elijah Craig (along with James and Lewis, one a brother, the other an uncle if memory serves). The theology of Sovereign Grace is the theology of the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions, and I might add that it was the theology behind the documents of America, especially the checks and balances issue with executive, legislative, and judicial, taken from Isa. The doctrines are really designed to make a believer balanced, flexible, creative, magnetic, and constant. In short, a subliminal seduction for God’s cause. Christians win by witness and by example. And if you knew this theology as it is really meant to be known, you would be far more evangelistic, missionary, and compassionate, and winsome to an extent you never dreamed possible.
Jim Shaver,
You may find this interesting- Review of “The Truth About New Calvinism” By Paul Dohse.
Mark,
Yes I had already read that. I’ve read several documents now and have reached the obvious conclusion.
Early in this discussion there was the question of the influence of “A Quiet Revolution” and whether it represents the views of Those People. On the Founders website, FAQ # 10, it says:
“To read about some of the hopeful stirrings of reformation going on currently in the Southern Baptist Convention, see A Quiet Revolution by Ernest Reisinger and D. Matthew Allen…”
I’ll leave the implications up to you guys.