;)
The Tug-of-War for the Future of the SBC
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life
Does it feel to you that the SBC is like a ship drifting in the sea without an anchor, without anyone really steering it? For decades we were driven by the desire to achieve doctrinal stability. That struggle pulled Calvinists and non-Calvinists, traditionalists and innovators, Baptist Identity and Unity-Seekers together for a greater cause. Once the battle for inerrancy was effectively won, the tug-o-war began. Everyone began to pull in the direction that they wanted the SBC to go.
Permit me to mix the metaphor one more time. I see the SBC like a car stuck in the snow (its getting cold in Iowa and I’m starting to obsess about the white stuff). We know we are not moving in the direction we need to go. The problem is, each constituency is trying to push the car in a different direction. Calvinists are in the front and non-Calvinists in the back. Both are pushing, but the car isn’t moving. The traditionalists are trying to push the car to the right. The young, hip, innovationists are trying to push to the left. The car stays stuck because we are all pushing a nd pulling in different directions.
Key SBC Constituencies
What are those directions? What are the SBC Constituencies? I will name a few. These are not clearly defined groups – there is a lot of overlapping.
1) Calvinism
In 1993, Al Mohler became president at Southern Seminary. There has always been a Calvinist faction in the SBC, but Dr. Mohler brought the doctrines of grace into the mainstream. Suddenly, Calvinism was cool. Southern is producing young pastors who love God’s Word and who take the task of expositional preaching seriously. As they have moved into churches in greater numbers, Calvinism has moved from the sidelines to the headlines in the SBC.
2) Anti-Calvinism (non-Calvinism)
With the rise of the young Calvinists movement came a push-back. There are many, some in prominent positions of leadership, who see Calvinism as a deterrent to evangelism and a threat to the vibrancy of our convention. As Calvinism has grown more common, anti-Calvinism has also grown.
3) The Mega-church movement
There can be little doubt that one of the most significant changes in the American church in the last 50 years has been the “walmartization” of the church – the rise of the mega-church. The mega-church tends to be less dependent on the fellowship and cooperation of the convention. They tend to be more independent and more likely to want to do things their own way. There are certainly some positives about mega-churches. There are also some negatives.
4) The Unity Movement
In the 90’s, the Promisekeepers movement broke down a lot of walls between denominations and churches, emphasizing the need for churches to come together and be one.
5) The Baptist Identity Movement
I’m not real sure if this movement is dying out or just laying low. At one time, the BI contingent was among the most prominent of the blogging movement. It is not an easy group to clearly identify, but they seem to believe that the solution to our current doldrums is to reemphasize those doctrines and practices that distinguish us as Baptists. While they are not Landmarkists, they do share some of those viewpoints. It is a reaction against the Unity movement which it sees as compromising the distinctive doctrines and practices of the New Testament (ie Baptist) church.
6) Cultural Relevance Movement
I struggled with what to call this group. While there are some Emergent churches floating around, most Baptists have recognized the theological flaws of that movement. But there are quite a few churches that have adopted the cultural relevance of the Emergent churches while trying to avoid the denial of the gospel that has been evident among the Emergent churches.
7) The Traditionalists
In the 50’s and 60’s, the SBC was booming. According to the traditionalists, if we just did things the way we did them in those decades, we’d have the same results. In Sioux City, most people simply do not want you to come knocking on their doors. But the traditionalist would say that door to door evangelism is the way. It worked 40 years ago and it will work today. What we need is to sing hymns to piano and organ accompaniment, have revivals in the fall and spring, sing 4 stanzas of “Just As I Am” at the end of every sermon – leave all this modern mumbo-jumbo behind and go back to the tried and true methods of yesteryear.
The GCR Movement
The GCR movement has the most noble of motives – wanting to refocus the SBC on the imperative of the Great Commission. But they have said that if the SBC wants to grow and prosper, it must change. They tweaked the Cooperative Program and asked the denomination to redefine its entire structure. The GCR was adopted by an overwhelming vote in Orlando in June. Now, it is in the implementation phase and the battle is anything but over.
9) The CP Movement
As the GCR gained steam, a reaction also grew, one that said that the CP is the key to our denominational identity and should be prized. This movement seemed to have been galvanized by the election of Kevin Ezell as the new head of NAMB. Ezell, they say, has been disdainful toward the Cooperative Program. How could we put him in charge of an SBC entity? The anger over the Ezell nomination has galvanized this group somewhat.
10) The Moderate Restoration Movement
A small but vocal group regrets the Conservative Resurgence and wants to turn back the clock to 1979, do away with the BF&M 2000 and reject our focus on inerrancy. I do not think this group is large, but it is certainly prevalent in the blogging world.
I’m sure I’ve left some out. Feel free to add your “constituencies” in the comment stream.
What is the Solution?
Frankly, I don’t know. There are not easy answers. I would make the following suggestions though.
1) Live and Let Live
My church doesn’t have to be like your church. We can have contemporary worship while you sing hymns. We do not have to force everyone to conform to our way.
The reason that Calvinism is such a big issue is the perception (true or not) that the Calvinists want every church in the SBC to be Calvinist and view those with non-Calvinist theology as defective, even (in some cases) gospel-denying. Some anti-Calvinists act as if they will not be content until every evangelism-hating Calvinist is driven from the convention.
But why can’t we just follow our own convictions on the issues I’ve defined and let other churches do the same. I’m not talking about compromising fundamental doctrine or even Baptist distinctives. But one of the root causes of our disunity is the insistence of some that every church has to be like theirs.
2) Focus on the Big Picture
Why do we join together as a convention? Because there are things that we can do together than cannot be done as effectively if we work independently.
My church runs around 250 or so on a Sunday Morning, with a budget of around 450,000. We’re a smaller church. There isn’t much we can do by ourselves. But joining with Southern Baptist churches across the country, we can be a part of the most extensive world missions program in church history.
So, lets focus on that. The gospel. Evangelism. Missions. The Great Commission. Cooperation. We need to realize that these are worth putting aside some of our ecclesiological preferences.
3) Understand and Apply Doctrinal Triage
Much has been said about doctrinal triage, both positive and negative. Mohler’s triage rubric defines Level 1 doctrine as fundamental Christian truth – those doctrines that make us Christian. Level 2 doctrines are those distinct doctrines that make us Baptist. Level 3 (the infamous tertiary doctrines) are those on which we can disagree and still be both Christian and Baptist.
If we will accurately understand and apply the principles of doctrinal triage, it will go a long way .toward fostering unity.
4) Love and Grace
Frankly, I’m just surprised at how Christians treat one another. I have been critical of Kevin Ezell’s words and actions since he became NAMB President. But I have been shocked at the vitriol that some have expressed toward him, toward the SBC in general. In blogging, you see people who level wild accusations and behave in the most irresponsible manner.
We need to recognize the power and importance of love, respect and grace. We are all being conformed to the image of Christ. We start in different places, but while we move toward the same destination of Christlikeness, we are not all at the same place and do not all grow at the same place. In the meantime, we need to demonstrate a little grace and mercy to one another.
Vitriol is not one of the fruit of the Spirit.
Conclusion
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But the most obvious solution is for us to realize that we can love Jesus, love the Word and still NOT agree on everything. We can walk together even while we disagree on certain issues. If we can accept our differences and come together in unity around the gospel and cooperate to obey the Great Commission, our future can be bright.
Related Posts
-
Are We Baptists Making a Mountain Out of a Molehill?
-
Should New Testament Churches Practice Democracy?
-
A Manifesto on Biblical Baptist Identity: Living Under Christ’s Lordship, Not Baptist Rules
-
Baptist Identity? Assembly of God Identity? Denominational Issues in an Ecumenical World
-
Does it Really Matter?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
I want to be like Dave Miller when I grow up….
I think part of the problem is that we have trouble affirming those who are different that us. Rather than saying “well that is their way of doing it and God is going to use that model/method/etc to reach some people and He will use mine to reach others,” we host conferences and write books against the other side.
Recently a group of people held an anti-insider conference {Insider stuff goes way beyond “The Camel”}. I met an insider who asked me if I discipled people out of the Quran. Now I have no problem using it as a bridge, but that is a far cry from discipling them (as in a new believer)out of it. Granted, not all of the insider folks would agree with that man, there are enough like him to make even forward people such as myself a little squeamish. But why host and attend a conference demonizing them? I am simply too busy actually trying to get proficient in language and build relationships to care if someone out there is doing it poorly.
Rather than all of the infighting, we need to look at the other side and say: if this is of God, then they will have fruit and if it is not, then they will not. While I am not in the BI camp, I am sure that those guys are going to reach folks who would never be interested in talking to me and vice versa. While we might not be comfortable at each other’s churches, we need to treat brothers as brothers.
Brother rastis,
As a BI “folk” I am comfortable in a worship service in any church that lifts up the name of Jesus and glorifies God.
Brother Dave,
You need to reconsider your wording concerning Dr. Ezell. I do not know whom it was you were referencing with the “anger” statement, but I can assure you the people I know that did not support his nomination were not angry about it. Maybe you should revisit your thoughts here.
Blessings,
Tim
Blessings,
Tim
I came around long after the Conservative Resurgence, so my perspectives are certainly limited. But I wonder if some of the infighting isn’t in fact spillage from the “Battle for the Bible.”
The question of innerrancy was something worth fighting over. It seems that some of the 2nd and 3rd tier issues (to use the triage model) have become the focus of some who don’t realize the difference between the doctrine of the Trinity and the proper tempo of music that is acceptable to God.
Part of the issue too is that Baptists have been proud of being traditional and non-credal. The traditionalism comes out in the support of CP giving and opposition to the GCR. The non-credalism comes out in the opposition to Calvinism (the John 3:16 conference and subsequent book are more about NOT being Calvinists than about delineating what we should believe as Baptists).
These are just a few examples. The hard part is, we should be able to debate these things, to advocate our views and to oppose views we disagree with. The real problem is, and it has been coming out in Dave’s recent posts, that we should not be vitriolic and hurtful towards one another.
Brother Andrew,
To say;
Brother Andrew,
One other point. The purpose of the CR was because the seminaries were not teaching what the Baptist in the Pew believed. Yes, it was inerrancy that was the issue, but the Seminaries were identified as the culprit because they were taking people sent to them from churches and changing them from Bible Believing hot hearted soul winners and changing them into questioning the very faith that led them to go.
Let’s look at today. I am not saying Calvinism is a “bad” thing, I am just saying the Baptist in the Pew do not condone the doctrine and they will quickly tell you they are not Calvinist. I think it was either 2006 or 2005 a study was commissioned and found that there were on 3% of pastors identified themselves as Calvinist. From what I understand Dr. Stetzer did another survey in about 2008 and found out that a large percentage of pastors coming out of seminary identified themselves as Calvinist. What am I saying? It appears that we have a huge problem that needs to be dealt with once again in our seminaries. Once again we find ourselves at a cross roads concerning what is taught in our seminaries and what is held by Baptist in the pew.
Blessings,
Tim
Thanks for posting the scorecard, Dave. At least now I can keep track of who the partners are in the dance.
The problem with the Moderate Restoration Movement is not the moderates–well, I mean their aberant, unbiblical theology IS the problem but it’s not the main danger. They are, at the core, a loud, lunatic fringe element that most people recognize as having a doctrinal statement that could fit on a postage stamp (and it would read “It’s all good”) and so they outside of blogtown are ignored, I suspect.
The real danger with them is the folks who identify themselves as conservatives who would agree to disagree with them and consent to working with them and giving them a seat at the table (a la the Unity Movement above). Moderates are a bacteria–you don’t stop taking anti-biotics once you feel better. The bacteria may start to grow and get stronger. Since moderates were allowed to remain in the SBC after the CR, they have done just that. All they need is for those who would rather seek unity rather than truth to say “Can’t we all just get along?”
Tim,
I’m sure your reasoning above is not fully fleshed out. However, using the approach of trying to teach seminary students the same beliefs as those in the pew could lead to just about anything being taught. I.e. if a majority of people in the pew did not hold to inerrancy should the seminaries then stop teaching it?
I’m not sure how you can make a universal statement about the beliefs of the people in the pew anyway. Besides, as long as cooperation is based, atleast in some manner, on the BFM2K Calvinists can affirm it and stick around.
When you say seminaries do you mean all six? It would also seem that if a seminary has a statement of faith such as the Abstract of Principles which is Calvinistic then those professors would hold to it.
Dave,
First of all (and in order to win a few much needed “Brownie Points” with you)… Good Article!
Now that my shameless act of sucking up to you is over, let me move on to the discussion at hand… The struggle to move the SBC in one direction or the other will never truly be over. I realize that some desire a uniform “Baptist Identity” where all churches in the SBC are by and large clones, or carbon copies, of their own church. This mindset denies the basic reality that the SBC is not a denomination in the traditional understanding of denominations, but is instead a “Convention” of independent and autonomous Churches. This autonomy practically guarantees diversity and an endless struggle over the direction in which the SBC will head.
In my opinion the only way this “Tug of War” will ever subside is for the SBC to genuinely embrace and celebrate the autonomy and diversity of the local church in the SBC. Yes, I know… “Don’t hold my breath on that one.” I must confess something here… I once was a card carrying, flag waving, member of “Baptist Identity Movement”… (Cross myself and spit twice). In a convention that is 100% comprised of independent and autonomous churches I have now come to realize the utter futility of that misguided effort!
I think one of the major contributors to this endless “Tug of War” in the SBC is a profound lack of understanding that the SBC is (as mentioned above) not a denomination. Yet we continually refer to ourselves as a denomination. I heard Danny Akin stop and correct himself at the convention this year when he mistakenly referred to the SBC as a denomination… it is not. The proper understanding of the SBC is that she is a “Missions Organization” made up of, and financially supported by, fully Indipendent and autonomous churches.
If we could somehow teach the members and pastors of our churches the foundational truth of what the SBC truly is… we just might… just might… see a little less of this “Tug of War” for who controls the direction the SBC is headed in, and a little more effort in fulfilling the Great Commission that is, I trust, at the heart of all our efforts.
Grace Always,
Tim,
I think you’re trying to read your own issues into my comment. I’m fully prepared to debate the issues of seminaries and Calvinism, but Dave’s post wasn’t primarily aimed at that.
Besides, seminaries shouldn’t teach something just because the majority of the pew-warmers believe it. If that were the case, I’d expect my professors to advocate a veiled Modalism and profess Inclusivism. Mark brings out a salient point: What if the majority of the pew-warmers didn’t hold to inerrancy? The point is, if we are going to be Biblical and Baptist, we have to teach what we believe the Bible says, not necessarily what the majority of pew-warmers say.
Besides, I’ve never heard a professor say that you had to be a Calvinist. They’ve certainly advocated the position, but I’ve never heard of them setting up the Ephesians 1 Conference. Truth is, I was quite Arminian prior to looking into the doctrines of grace. And I became a “Calvinist” prior to attending Southern. Besides, there are many “non-Calvinists” at Southwestern and Southeastern, too!
Tim Rogers,
“Now, I hear Johnny Hunt speak about his close friendship with Tom Ascoll who was a leader in the movement that characterized Johnny and what he taught about Calvinist doctrine as some buffoon because he was not a Calvinist.”
Your anger over the fact that two “Brothers in Christ” have reconciled is a disturbing confession, and honestly a shining example of what is wrong with the Baptist Identity Movement… and why it must never be allowed to control the future of the SBC.
Tim, don’t bring that other debate here. I said what I believe needed to be said and we will not discuss it anymore here.
Rastis, well said. I think that, for instance, Mark Driscoll (not SB) is reaching a group of people that would probably not even consider attending my fellowship.
The more boats in the water, the better. Its a big ocean.
Tim, I see you are back from exile. I don’t know why you seem sensitive about the Ezell matter. If you have criticized him, I don’t know it. But my comment (and perhaps I should have clarified it) comes from the comment streams on another blog, where I have been shocked at the anger and disdain directed against Ezell.
I have written articles against some of the things he has said and done. But I’ve stopped doing it because the anger against him is so powerful that I do not want to fan that flame.
I don’t have any idea if you have been critical of Ezell. I know you always defend your friends and perhaps one of them has. I don’t know. I’m just mentioning what I have seen at SBC Voices.
Dave,
Excellent article! I find myself identifying with several of the groups, which, I suppose, most people would. The SBC is a big tent, but even tents have sides. I think the tug-of-war will continue because we have not just multiple groups, but multiple visions of what the SBC should look like. Couple that with how to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in missions money each year and you are bound to have problems. Maybe those underlying problems were always there, but the CR just kept a lid on everything.
Greg,
While we have disagreed on some issues, I think your analysis here is spot on. The SBC is a Convention of like-minded, autonomous churches who choose to partner together for missions and ministry. We are not a denomination, although we have denomination-like structure. However, if we begin to embrace a “more independent, less cooperative” model of missions in our structures, then I think that will affect the overall direction of the SBC. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Greg, you have no need to curry favor with me. I respect your blogging even when I disagree with it.
And this comment I agree with fully. Respecting the local church, and that each church does not have to be like every other church – that is a great need.
Andrew – insightful comments. Mark, same thing.
Howell, I think you are right. It is not just different styles but different visions. That makes things a little more difficult in terms of unity, doesn’t it?
If we can maintain our highest vision for cooperative missions, then we will be well.
Rick, this is not a dance. We are Baptist.
Dave,
My apologies. I will switch to a more Baptist metaphor.
Thanks for posting the scorecard. At least now I can keep track of who the pugilists are in which bout.
“But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.”
1 Corinthians 12:18
God has arranged the parts in the Body of Christ just as he wants them to be. It seems to me that, many times, we attempt to arrange the members of the SBC just as we want them to be.
What can we learn from this?
1. It is important to distinguish who is and who is not really a part of the Body of Christ. There are some “posers” out there. God did not place the “posers” in the Body. There are tares that grow with the wheat, though. Some people’s sins and errors come to light ahead of time. When such occurs, we can, and ought to deal with them. Others we will not know about until later on. We should be careful not to pull the wheat out with the tares.
“The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them.” 1 Tim. 5:24
2. The SBC is not the Body of Christ. Neither is it a microcosm of the Body of Christ. We have some requirements for membership and active participation that are not requirements for membership in the Body of Christ. We should be careful, though, that we do not act as if we were, all by ourselves, the Body of Christ. We are only a part. In what we do, we should work to show solidarity with the rest of the Body.
3. When all is said and done, and the smoke blows over, the important thing is the advance of the Kingdom of God and the growth, edification, and unity of the Body of Christ. Everything we do in the SBC should be evaluated in accordance with these criteria, not by what causes the SBC to grow, or by what advances our pet causes, whatever they may be.
Personally, I think the SBC still has potential for being a useful tool in God’s hands for the advance of His Kingdom, and for the growth, edification, and unity of the Body of Christ. That is why I am still in it (in addition to the fact that the local church I am a member of is also a member church of the SBC).
In my opinion, there is room for discussion over all the issues represented by the groups mentioned in Dave’s post. We should feel free to express our opinions, and agreeably disagree with others over these issues. But our bottom-line motivation needs to be the advance of the Kingdom of God and the growth, edification, and unity of the Body of Christ.
Thank you, Rick. Fighting is an appropriately Baptist metaphor.
STephen, This post is about the current state of SBC life. It is not about the CR. That can be discussed elsewhere. Comments that do not address the topic I wrote on will be deleted.
Please do not post comments that do not address the topic.
As a group blog with a variety of different contributors, who many times share common perspectives, but sometimes differ with each other on various matters, we have decided to let each contributor take primary responsibility for monitoring the comments on his own post. I support Dave in his decision to monitor the comments on his post as he best sees fit.
Dave,
Very good post and thank you for the careful discussion. IMHO the SBC has always been about two things: missions and education. There are a lot of other things that we have gotten into in the past – but these seem to me to be what really pulls us together. Our passion for missions, and our commitment to theological education. Essentially this is the purpose of the CP – to fund our cooperative efforts of education and missions.
That being said, however, it should also be pointed out that these two areas are a reflection of theology (everyone say “duh!”). While we have in the past attempted to identify a cooperative theology (that is after all, what the BFMs are) they are never complete – and intentionally so. Conflict comes about when one group begins to try and draw lines in the sand (some lines need(ed) to be drawn) which would unnecessarily add to that cooperative theology. As a calvinist who is also a BI and a strong supporter of the CP – I do get caught up in the discussion sometimes myself. Fortunately, there are brothers with more wisdom and patience to keep folks like me in line. Then again, I am also glad guys like me are around to help steady others in our SBC boat.
I do have one thing I believe ALL Southern Baptists should be in agreement on, however. The Texas Rangers Baseball team!
Respectfully,
Wes
GO RANGERS!
You walk on dangerous ground with those last comments, Wes. Some sins can be forgiven…
Ignoring your Rangers comment, the rest of your comment makes sense! I do think there is value in our differences. Those theology-loves keep us grounded and keep us from going in wild directions. The balance between the new and the old gives us perspective.
Each of these groups (with perhaps one or two exceptions) has something to offer for the furthering of the denomination.
Dave,
It just occurred to me that perhaps my comment #20 was subject to misinterpretation. I am not in any way insinuating it is you who are attempting here to arrange the members of the SBC as you want them to be. What I meant was we all have our own vision of the SBC, and who are the “good guys,” and who are the “bad guys.” What matters is being able to accept and learn from all, though, provided they don’t show themselves ahead of time, to not even be true members of the Body.
Then again, it’s entirely possible you understood what I was saying, and this comment is superfluous. But, after reading it over again, I just wanted to clear that up, just in case.
Brother Dave,
My apologies brother certainly didn’t mean to offend. I just assumed that any true “Southern” Baptist would be pulling for the Rangers. LOL
All kidding aside – while the vitriol that we do too often see is counterproductive and even offensive to the gospel (the very reason I have simply stopped reading some blogs), the tug and pull of various groups I think can be productive. We have seen it throughout the history of the SBC. As Greg pointed out – we are a cooperative convention of independent churches. It is our independence that not only causes the tension – but also offers the remedy. I like the note that you made that some of the groups within the SBC are not really productive – but history indicates that groups like that either pass completely into oblivion or shrink to the point of being inconsequential.
Blessings to you an all my yankee brethren.
Wes
Dave,
I think the majority of the Baptist Church Body hasn’t a clue what is going on in the Baptist Convention. I mention some things in my SS class that you guys bring up and it is like time stood still for that moment. Whaaaaat?? Maybe it simply doesn’t matter much on a local basis and it matters most to preachers, missionaries and music directors. The concern that I have always had was the literature from LifeWay. We are stuck with it because the leadership wants to use it. I don’t think the format has changed since the 60′s. It is still evangelistic in design and we do not have much of anything in place for discipleship that would be considered true discipleship for the local church. Try to move that bolder from the tomb! We Baptist push evangelism 99% and think that discipleship occurs in SS or in the evening classes that use a DVD with a facilitator. I thought when Jesus rose from the dead He lead captivity captive and gave gifts to men. It was my humble assumption that those gifts were to be developed within the local church and the local churches men and women were to disciple new believers. Where are we getting the idea that a famous preacher from New York or an energetic lady from Houston has the Spirit more than the ignorant, but mature, believer in the local church? I don’t think it is a matter of people going out in the public place to bring in sinners. We can do that without a problem and fill the building. The main thing we have wronged the world by is discipleship. Baptist people are the most ignorant people regarding the things of God that I have ever seen. All teachers do now is ask questions that have simple answers like: “Faith”, “Love”, “Jesus”, “Compassion” etc. and the SS class thinks they had Sunday School. I have had a man make a statement in SS that he couldn’t forgive one of the members of his own family and never was corrected (except for me when I was just a class member). We seem to be stuck in Kindergarten and can never grow in grace and truth unless it is done privately and individually. If someone in the Convention is reading this please do not tell me or others that say the LifeWay material is vague and watered down to simply, “Teach it the way you want to”. I have heard that statement so much that it reeks. Please give us some Maturity Level material!! Maybe we need to simply support the things the Convention does well (offering designation) and let the rest die on the vine. I know that isn’t right, but, neither is knowing the truth and supporting the wasteful things with God’s money. The Convention isn’t mentioned in the Bible so we have liberty there, I believe.
Anyway, good post Dave. Thanks for letting me rant at the front row.
Brother Mark,
Yes.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, while the SBC is democratic in nature, truth is not determined by majority vote. I must be reading you wrong. You seem to be advocating judging doctrinal standards by a majority vote.
I thought that was what biblical hermeneutics was for.
Brother Mark,
Sorry for the double comment but I had problems the first time I commented and did not want to type a full response only to get another error.
I have never said Calvinist should not be part of the SBC. At no time will I ever say that. What I have affirmed is a statement by one of our former leaders as he said; “The SBC has always had Calvinist and Charismatic, but the SBC is not Calvinist, or Charismatic.”
I mean the study in 2008 that found more students coming out of seminaries identified themselves as Calvinist.
Blessings,
Tim
David, I read your comment in the way you intended it.
Bruce, I don’t think your concerns about the maturity level of our SS literature is something you alone feel. Many feel the same way. Some of the adult classes at our church use other material because they want more bible content.
Some even (gasp) use the Bible.
Brother Dave,
It think it was Dr. Adrian Rogers who said; If SB said the Bible taught pigs fly, then the Professors must teach that pigs fly.
The issue we are discussing is not about “biblical hermaneutics” it is about receiving funding from a source that trusts their funds are going to teach their beliefs and then finding that different doctrines are being taught.
Blessings,
Tim
Wes, I think you are right on target.
Tim,
If the SBC held that the Bible wasn’t inerrant, on what moral standard would it be wrong for an SBC-supported seminary to teach inerrancy?
Your comment seems to value the BF&M, as the official position of the majority of Southern Baptists, more highly than the Scriptures on which it is based.
Brother Andrew,
No, I do not value the BF&M over the Bible. However, we are speaking about the people that are paying the bills. This is exactly what the CR was about. Yes, inerrancy was the problem that needed correcting. However, inerrancy was not the issue that everything rested on. Everything rested on the people in the pews believed the Scriptures were inerrant but the Prof–those being paid by the people in the pews–taught the scriptures were inspired in spots and they were inspired to spot the spots. (Tongue in cheek) That is just another way of saying the Profs taught differently than the people in the pews believed.
Your question hits at the heart of what we are speaking. The problem with the pre-CR was the people in the pews would receive profs in their churches and depending on the leaning of the church depended on the way the prof would present himself. There were profs at SBTS that were so well-versed in double-speak that a running joke was that regardless of which side prevailed in the CR that particular prof could go either way. So, we had a problem with saying on thing but teaching another. No one ever said that various doctrines should not be taught and studied in the various seminaries. What everyone has always advocated is that the prof’s present the doctrine of inerrancy as the prevailing view. The profs would not do such. As a matter of fact, when inerrancy was explained to the former Pres of SEBTS he replied that he had no prof. that would affirm that view. I say all of this to tell you that if a majority of the SBC held that the Scripture was not inerrant it would be wrong and even a question of integrity to teach inerrancy as a prevailing view. Why? Because the people who are funding the salaries do not expect inerrancy to be taught.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I’m sorry but you have described the lowest form of simony. The idea that people ought not to get the truth if they are paying to get a lie flies in the face of every OT prophet and a good many of the NT ones as well.
In essence you have made the seminary prof a slave of mammon.
rick
Tim,
Why not just openly declare your true agenda… Everyone knows that you and the rest of the BI Boys would dearly love to get all the Calvinist professors, including Dr. Mohler and Akin, fired. A “Calvinist Purging” of the convention is your ultimate goal. You have been pushing this same old agenda for years now… well I have a little news for you >>> Your Time Has Come and Gone >>> It’s our time now!
But by all means, don’t take my word for it… just keep beating this old dead horse… In the meantime the “Calvinist Resurgence” is busy planting new churches and answering the call to missions all around the World.
Just came back from our local associations annual meeting where Dr. Ted Traylor “let up a fire” for evangelism, church planting, and missions work… It was awesome! Many young Calvinist in room who are sold out for the “Great Commission Reassurance” and pastoring local churches got their batteries charged! What a wonderful experience!
Grace Always,
It appears that the CR worked. Where the professors were previously teaching scripture is an open and living document that has fleeting application, now the professors (mostly) hammer home that all scripture is God breathed and is good for instruction and correction. We are inundated with theology and historical context and culture of the original hearers so that we can better understand the original message and thus how to extract that application to the 21st Century. We are taught the original languages so that we are not completely dependent on another’s commentary. We are taught that exegetical preaching trumps topical preaching any day of the week and twice on Sunday so that we are more likely to preach what HIS word says rather than my word backed up with scripture. This is the work of the CR in the seminaries today.
If that means that many of us are inclined towards reformed theology and the doctrines of Grace, then that is not because the professors are making us so, it is because that is what the Spirit is revealing. The professors have not told me what to think but taught me how to think and search and study and seek God’s face as I read His word.
If this means that the majority of the people in the pew don’t agree with that view (which I doubt your un-cited research) then it could be that we “young” Calvinists (as we are called) haven’t finished preaching yet.
By the way Tim,regarding “Johnny Hunt…(and) his close friendship with Tom Ascoll,” perhaps it is the case that when Johnny was hammering into your head, he was self-righteous enough to think that his view of things was the ONLY view on things. Perhaps he has matured and realized that he was wrong and that his witness of Christian fellowship (Jn 15:12-Love one another) is of greater eternal significance than his SBC distinctiveness.
I love when you add your wisdom Wes. The convention seems to have adopted in the 2000 statement a similar belief, but not always consistent with its previous conditioning, when it stated about guidelines, education and the furtherance of the gospel……
“With the 1963 committee, we have been guided in our work by the 1925 “statement of the historic Baptist conception of the nature and function of confessions of faith in our religious and denominational life . . . .” It is, therefore, quoted in full as a part of this report to the Convention:
(1) That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us. They are not intended to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament, viz., repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.
(2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.
(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.
(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.
(5) That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life. “
Baptist’s have always tried to remain relevant in the world, where sometimes relevance steers clear of truth. But, at least the groups that were tasked with faith and message statements understood the “general” nature of their task and the “fallibility” of their initiatives. If any Baptist caves into the belief that the bible is just some good thoughts of fallible men….then the SBC will just become another large group of politically motivated religious zealots, when we are called to quite another task. Its not about whose in the pew,…that target is way too horizontal.
Matthew 6:1-14 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. (2) “So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. (3) “But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, (4) so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. (5) “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. (6) “But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. (7) “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. (8) “So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. (9) “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. (10) ‘Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. (11) ‘Give us this day our daily bread. (12) ‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. (13) ‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]‘ (14) “For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
Jesus always led us back to the Father…not the convention.
Blessings,
Chris
This is a recent video clip of Johnny Hunt talking about his change of heart towards Calvinists.
The two groups that appear to be the greatest danger to the SBC are the moderates and the unity folks. Of course, moderates are like a cancer–actually, they’re not “like”–since they deny inerrancy (a doctrine no real Christian will deny) and they affirm pluralism (something no real Christian will affirm). I would guess, though, that there are really not that many of them in the SBC. However, the folks that are in what Dave called “The Unity Movement” are a good deal more numerous. They remind me of denominational workers and seminary presidents of about 30 years ago–they affirm correct, conservative biblical doctrine but they are willing to “agree to disagree” with moderates on issues like inerrancy, for instance, because they want to be unified. Well, you can’t unite in the truth untill you separate from error. Their willingness to compromise on the clear teaching of scripture makes them, in some ways, more dangerous than moderates.
Once the CR happened, it was inevitable that a lot of Calvinist professors would be hired at SBC seminaries. The CR wanted professors with (1) Ph.D.s who (2) held to biblical inerrancy, (3) believed in substitutionary atonement, and (4) were complementarians. It was hard to find somebody who met all four conditions who was not a Calvinist. An Arminian who gets a Ph.D. often ends up giving up on 2,3, and 4. The best books advocating 2,3, and 4 were written by Calvinists. The people in SBC pews wanted 1,2,3,4, and it was hard to get all four without hiring Calvinists.
Thanks Chris, btw – how are things in the NE?
The various Baptist “Confessions of Faith” have virtually all been a simple expression of what that group believes. Even further, most of the COF were written (at least in the early years) to express that Baptist faith in terms that Non-Baptists could understand.
Now, I do believe that we live in a differnet time. We not only need to express what we believe to non-Baptists (though this is less and less necessary), we must draw a line as to what distinguishes us from others. I am not a Southern Baptist simply because that’s the way I was raised – I am a Southern Baptist because I am convinced doctrinallly of those truths we hold dear. Some of those truths are first tier, other second and even third tier. Some I am wiling to die for – others not so much. I suppose its a matter of where you draw that line.
Different “groups” within SBC life, I think, often help us to to take a better path – because they force us to (1) know what we believe and (2) why we believe it. Even if we disagree with one another we are sharpened by the diologue.
BTW Chris, are you getting to watch those Rangers? Man its something to behold. They’re up 3-1 over them thar yankees with just one more win to go! LOL
Blessings,
Wes
I remember when I graduated from seminary that I was sure of a lot of things. I had a passion to change my world and the beliefs of those around me to my way of thinking… because I just knew I understood things correctly. I often wondered how others could possibly hold a different view. I have changed my own views on many things over the years. As I have grown, thought, prayed and studied, what I once thought was obviously true sometimes had to be put aside for a new outlook. What I am saying, I think, is that if two sincere Bible Believing followers of Christ disagree on the same topic, it may be that one is wrong and the other is right or it may be that they are both wrong no matter how obvious the truth may seem to either of them. I think unity is achieved through humility and dependency not on uniformity of opinion. One pastoring experience of mine left me disillusioned and grieving deeply. Everything I was sure of in the past no longer seemed so solid. I was adrift. I could not tell what was really true about my faith. In the midst God held on to me, I could not hold on to him. I learned humility and dependency. Humility which allows me to cooperate with those who admit we both might be wrong and dependency which requires I cooperate with them because I need the rest of the body to survive.
It has been years since I last followed the SBC fights at the annual conventions. Last time I remember was the fight over the Bible and liberalism in the seminaries. That was about 20 years ago. I am embarrassed to see we are still fighting. The Pharisees couldn’t see the truth when it walked among them. They knew that the scriptures were inerrant and they knew what the scriptures said. And they were wrong.
Humility which allows me to cooperate with those who admit we both might be wrong
Cooperating with someone who denies inerrancy, the historicity of scripture, the miracles of Jesus, and claims belief in the virgin birth is optional is not humility.
Joe, there are more than two options. One of the things that I mentioned above was the need for theological triage. I do not advocate cooperation with people who deny the fundamentals of the faith.
But the groups that I mentioned above all share 2 things – A commitment to the fundamental doctrines and a commitment to Baptist doctrine. But we differ on many other things.
That’s where that term “tertiary doctrines” comes in. Most of the things we divide and fight about do not define either fundamental or Baptist doctrine. They are methodological, strategic or doctrinally tertiary. That is where humility comes in.
Dave,
You write: “Most of the things we divide and fight about do not define either fundamental or Baptist doctrine. They are methodological, strategic or doctrinally tertiary. That is where humility comes in.”
I firmly agree that we should have humility in all things – every doctrine, no matter what “tier” should be approached and presented with humility. It is something that I am still learning after nearly 30 years. My urgent prayer these last few months has been for “humility without fear.”
My concern – and I am neither trying to butt into yours’ and Joe’s conversation nor to start trouble – my concern is where we establish “tertiary” doctrines. I like the idea of theological triage – but where do we draw the lines? I would hope we could all agree on the first tier doctrines, but sometimes I think these even escape agreement. I may consider baptism a second tier doctrine while others see it as a first tier – or third. I may consider certain aspect of eschatology as first, second or third tier – that others would consider me heretical over.
This is where the tension comes in. One group pulls in one direction, while another pulls in the opposite direction. I love your picture for this post – with the four groups pulling in various directions the center tends to remain in place. Our center is Christ and I believe that for most of the time, the tension; the pulling back and forth – if done humbly and convictionaly – can be a good thing to keep us centered on the One who is Preeminent above everything – and everyone else.
Grace,
Wes
Plus I am just finding if very hard to be humble right now – being from Texas an all … just one more (well, for this series)!!! LOL
Grace Ya’ll
Wes
Whoa Joe, next thing you know you will have me humbly cooperating with Satan himself. You are very passionate about several issues. Good. We need passion. I am suggesting that in some ways we Christians work together our passions need to be tempered with humility. Everyone will have to determine for themselves what things will interrupt their cooperation with another. Over my life I have seen too many Baptists with too many causes… our independent spirit has been our curse. If we don’t agree we get a group of like minded dissidents and split and go start another church.
I like your style Wes….!! Things are going well in NE. It’s beginning to get colder though.
cj
Wes is living on the edge with this Yankee fan.
Dave -
I must confess that my previous comment was more snarky than I wanted. But I believe that Tim has inadvertently revealed himself to be part of a constituency in the SBC that you did not name: the Investors.
My previous church had this issue (along with a mile wide, unrecognized streak of BI on the edge of Landmarkism). This chruch embarked on a proposed multi-site structure but was withdrawn after 5 years becasue those in control of the $$$ (large tithers and deacons) were not happy about the way the money was being spent. The campus was fairly sucessful, but did not grow at the rate expected (ifyou build it they will come was reigning here).
All the while, the underlying contention was how the money was being spent. The vision for the land that was purchased was bigger than the projected budget. Instead of casting a longer vision, most people began a hue and cry that they needed to scale back the vision; instead of trusting God, they decided they needed to be with in their monetary means.
I think there is a large contengent of SBC that probably cross your previous catagories who are trusting in the almighty dollar rather than Almighty God… “If we don’t have the money, then God couldn’t possibly be giving us that vision…”
In other words, if we can’t tackle/handle the project or mission ourselves, then it must be the wrong vision. The organization (and many of it’s constituants) seem to have forgotten that we are to rely on God for manna, not on man for money. It is not the people who provide the tithe, it is God.
Its an interesting thought, Greg. Love to see that fleshed out a little. I don’t know if its a constituency as much as a lack of spiritual vision. But interesting ideas.
On a side note…
Those who would be TRULEY Southern Baptists would root for the Astros… Houston is much farther south than Arlington
I’m only commenting on Greg’s #53 comment because of his #55 comment which makes me feel good.
The Lord requested that each of the tribes choose leaders to go spy out the Promised Land and 10 leaders unveiled the unbelieving hearts of the people and there was consequences. The Apostles needed to pray and study the word in lieu of serving tables and asked the disciples to choose out from among them those full of the Holy Spirit to do the serving and it worked. Our churches today have CEO types trying to be like Moses and lead people into a direction they say God is telling them to go. I think we miss the heart of the church body if we do not allow them to get together and make the decision themselves. Sometimes that is a better teachable moment than not following the preverbal leader. The people have the same responsibility to God as the pastor. We need to be challenged by the pastor while he is hearing from God as to what the people need to hear from God in the sermon. There are times that the people may be right by not extending themselves because they know things the pastor may not know. I believe God speaks through the people, too. The only thing I don’t know is the whole situation you have referenced in comment #53.
there
I predict that in Alabama the Tug of War will break along Shocco Springs. Compromises will not be based along ideological lines of Ronnie Floyd or other leaders in the SBC because state leaders have massaged the National trends to keep the state conventions functional.
When churches who are not mega churches and there only three mega churches in Alabama, maybe 7 that I am aware of; push comes to shove the Mega Churches will be left to form their own doctrinally pure convention, and the rest in Alabama will cooperate along the lines of something pre 1979