Calvinism, the SBC, and a Bunch of Fighting: Where's Jesus?

Well, it's been a while since there has been anything controverisal happen in the SBC blogosphere, but over the past few weeks, tensions have flared once again. There was a conference at FBC Woodstock, Georgia (SBC President Johnny Hunt's church) called the John 3:16 Conference. Timmy Brister has a summary of the whole controversy if you are interested in reading it. I am thankful to Timmy for the compilation, but I don't suggest that you spend time trying to digest this. There are better things to do with your time.

A basic summary goes something like this: Non-Calvinists (called anti-Calvinists by some) had a conference with a bunch of SBC leaders (Jerry Vines, Malcolm Yarnell, etc.) where they said some things about Calvinism that were offensive to some Calvinists. Then, it hits the internet and a whole bunch of other people get involved. Then, there is a lot of fighting over whether or not Calvinists have a place in the SBC because it seems that some non-Calvinists (who are in control) have some problems with the Calvinists. Here's a definition of Calvinism, if you don't know. They are also fighting about who can take communion in SBC churches. I weighed in with a few comments on that subject, but quickly stepped aside. No point. I spent time in these debates over the issues of private prayer language and baptism 2-3 years ago. You might remember that. Well, basically, this is the same argument but with Calvinism and also communion as the focus. Believe it or not, some of this goes back to baptism. A bunch of people have their theological degrees all twisted up and are spittin' and hollerin' over who deserves to be in the SBC. What a waste of time.

I have spent a lot of time in theological debate over the years. Sometimes, it has merit. But usually, it only has value if you are already in relationship with someone and there is some trust there. I have found that it tends to have value in the local church, for example. There, you are living out the Christian life and the discussions are embedded in the context of relationship, trust, and love. Discussing differeing views on Scripture and theology make sense because you are wrestling with God and His truth together.

Beyond the local church, unless there is some hope for relationship or a mutual trust exists, theological wrangling normally just takes an adversarial tone. It becomes about who can win the debate and who has the most power. Invariably, people begin to jockey for a position in a pecking order. During the most recent controversies, Baptists who felt marginalized were fighting Baptists who were narrowing the parameters of cooperation over fringe issues. I was a part of this, but later saw that the cause was hopeless. People weren't listening. They were just reiterating their right to do what their position of power enabled them to do. I realized that you cannot have effective theological dialogue with people who don't know you or trust you. They tend to believe the worst about people that disagree with them. Lesson learned.

The reason for all of this arguing is that ultimately we have placed our faith in theological systems or our own interpretation of Scripture instead of in the person of Jesus Christ.  The Word of God is infallible. Our interpretation - not so much. Any systematic theology that disembodies truth from the person of Jesus Christ is just a man-made attempt to catergorize God. I am not saying that all theology is wrong. I love to study theology. But "theology" is the study of God. In much of our theological study, we tend to leave God out of it, believe it or not. We are trying to understand a system and master that system. We think that mastering a body of knowledge will lead us to salvation or will justify us. I know this because many people who claim to be defending "sound theology" say the nastiest things about their opponents. They become downright hateful. How can you defend "sound theology" while at the same time judge and disparage people that you treat as enemies. Didn't Jesus say to love our enemies and pray for them? The only people that Jesus really condemned were the Pharisees. It seems like we are acting just like them with all of our arguing over our man-made systems.

I was reading a book by Michael Wells called Heavenly Discipleship the other day and found this passage that was very helpful:

Our goal is not to fit others into our system, but to introduce them to absolute truth, Jesus. When men abide in Truth, chaos is absent and consistency prevails. I have personally observed abiding believers from dozens of different countries and denominations behaving exactly the same way. Abiding in truth brings agreement. Abiding in systems and labeling them "truth" brings division.

Therefore, when truth is properly defined, we can understand why we can know the Truth and the Truth will set us free. However, when truth is a system, the truth we know makes us angry and brings division. Our system becomes an extension of self-affirmation, so for others to attack what we express, they attack us. The Truth frees us from self and releases His love through us.

There is a place for truth. Truth is a person. Jesus said that He was the Truth (John 14:6). When we know Christ on His terms, we will know truth and truth will set us free. It is appropriate to interpret Scripture and understand what it says about how we are to live and govern our lives, our families, and our churches. But, if the "truth" that we cherish causes us to violate other truths in the Bible about how we treat one another, then maybe our "truth" isn't truth at all. Or, if it is, maybe we are holding to0 tightly to a teaching and not to Christ. Every man made system of doctrine is incomplete because it leaves sections of Scripture on the cutting room floor. Only Christ is complete. We should understand Scripture by looking first to Jesus.

A proper focus on Jesus will enable us to believe and defend all Truth. A transforming relationship with Christ will teach us how to hold onto truth while also loving others. It will be both vertical and horizontal and it will not leave out portions of Scripture or the ethic of Christ. Focusing on Christ will keep the main thing the main thing and will not allow us to be diverted onto side issues of little consequence. A focus on Christ will enable us to love one another and stay unified, even in the midst of disagreements. Truth is not abstract or disembodied. That is what the Greeks taught and it was wrong. Truth is a person, Jesus Christ. In him, all things hold together (Col. 1:17).  

Comments

[John Alexander]

Thanks for the comments. A professor of mine at Beeson Divinity School once told me that when the fundamentalists completed their takeover of the SBC and purged the Convention, they'd then turn on each other. Prescient words, it seems. Personally, I can't understand the need for a fight.

It matters little to me. Since I use the Lectionary (Revised Common Lectionary, more specifically), I preach about predestination when the Scripture warrants, always emphasizing the responsibility that comes with God's choice. I also preach the necessity for a person to choose to repent when the Scripture warrants. I always tell the congregation that we cannot understand the tension between election and human will; we can only obey Our Lord's command to go and make disciples. We'll celebrate Christmas Communion in a few weeks, and I'll open the table to all believers regardless of church membership or denomination.

Let the SBC tear itself apart. It doesn't affect my congregation now, and it won't unless the mission boards splinter and leave us nowhere to send our Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon offerings. We're too busy reaching our community to care about the hostility at the upper levels.

[Steve Walker]

One thing the controversy of the last few years has done for me is help me connect with people -- both Southern Baptists and non-SBCers -- who care more about Jesus and the Great Commission than anything else. For that I am thankful. It has helped me as an individual, as well as our church, enlarge our tent, so to speak. We are now partnering with more non-SBC people and organizations, and it has been very edifying and missionally fruitful. If the SBC, at any level, told me or our church we were no longer welcome, it would be of absolutely no significance to me. It simply would not faze me in the least. When will these denominational leaders realize we don't need them? (We need them as brothers -- 1 Cor. 12:12ff; but we are not dependent on the denomination.) I can be a Christian without them. Our church can be a church without them. I can be a Baptist without them. Our church can be a Baptist church without them. We still support IMB and NAMB missionaries, but we also support non-SBC missionaries. We want to support those who "aren't qualified" for appointment by the SBC mission boards, but are quite called and gifted, i.e., qualified, by God himself.

I just think many of these denominational leaders have forgotten their real purpose. Have they forgotten what is most important? I don't know. I can't know what is in someone else's heart. But they act as if they have forgotten what is most important.

As I think about this controversy, I believe it has shaken loose some things that needed to be dropped, and will continue to do so. It has exposed a lot of things. I think the Church as a whole is better off, even though I think the SBC is worse off at this time. Will its demise continue? I don't know. But I know Jesus isn't worried about it. He knows the truth -- he doesn't need the SBC; the SBC needs him.

[Bryan Riley]

Great post, Alan. You are spot on. It is about a relationship with a very real friend, savior, Lord, and person, Jesus Christ, who is the Truth. God just doesn't fit in any box and all the attempts by us to make Him do so results in walls of separation rather than the Unity He calls us to.

[John Stickley]

AMEN, Alan. Well said.

[Bob Cleveland]

Good stuff, Alan.

I swapped some email with Gene Bridges the other day, and he used a term that I really took a shinin' to. It describe the SBC's (at least the vocal power players) as engaging in ..

ECCLESIOLATRY

Gotta love it!

[Joe Kennedy]

Our Adversary enjoys obliterating any semblance of God-honoring work... and he uses the Internet as one of his primary tools, doesn't he?

[Malcolm Yarnell]

Where is Jesus?

Good question!

Acts 7:56

Stephen saw Jesus at the right hand of the Father as he died for bearing witness to His Lord, trying to increase the church through bold evangelism.

Matthew 18:20

Jesus said that He is now with the church gathered in His name.

Revelation 19:7-9

Jesus will gather with the universal church, His bride, at the end of time.

Come, Lord Jesus!

[Alan Cross]

Thank you, Malcolm. Jesus is in all of that. The Bible also says that Christ is in you and me (Rom. 8:9-10; Col. 1:27) and that he can be found among the hungry, the thirsty, the lonely strangers, the naked, the sick, those in prison, and among the least of these (Matt. 25:34-36).

In every situation, may Christ live through us, both corporately and individually as go through life (Gal. 2:20).

And yes, Come, Lord Jesus!

[Malcolm Yarnell]

Indeed! But be careful to note that Romans 8 and Colossians 1 are speaking corporately, and, of course, we may not assume that Jesus indwells the hungry, etc. in a saving way, for in Matthew 25, he speaks metaphorically regarding our ethics.

[Alan Cross]

Malcolm,

I've run across the coporate view on those passages before and am very familiar with it. To see those passages only in a corporate way, though, is just not possible. I am not saying that indwelling of Christ there cannot be also seen corporately, but that does not eliminate the fact that Christ individually indwells each believer. Are you saying that the Spirit of Christ does not indwell us individually? Is Romans 7 also to be taken corporately?

I agree with you that Jesus is not speaking salvifically in Matthew 25. But, it does mean something. I think that it is saying that when we encounter those people, we should see that encounter as though we were meeting with Jesus Himself and treat those people in the same way.

[Malcolm Yarnell]

A plural (in this case, humin) can be taken distributively (focus on the persons) or communally (focus on the group). Since these letters were sent to the churches of Rome and Colossae, I would assume that they are to be understood communally. However, this is not to deny that the Spirit indwells individually. It is to suggest using other biblical passages that more clearly say that.

You are correct that Matthew 25 does mean something powerful, and is worthy of our seeing every person as the subject of Christian ministry, as if we were ministering directly to the Lord!

[Alan Cross]

I think that you make good points about the communal nature of Paul's letters to the churches. It is a mistake to read them individually at all times. Since we know that the Spirit indwells us individually, as you have conceded, and since the language in Romans 7 must be taken individually, then it seems logical that Romans 8 also has an individual nature to it. Plus, the very language of Romans 8 requires an individual understanding: "But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin," for example. How could the body of the church be dead because Christ lives within them communally.

I see your point about the communal nature of the letters and I do not dispute it. It just seems obvious that the passages that I listed are speaking about individuals here. I understand where you are headed ecclesiologically, and I believe in a strong local church myself. Ask the members of my church. Individualism is a cancer that is killing us. At the same time, a strong ecclesiology does not depend upon losing the self to the whole. We can be strong individuals in Christ while still being communally connected in the church. Actually, it is impossible to be strong in the Lord without being connected communally with the church since it is the command of Scripture. Still, one need not cancel out the other.

Good dialogue, Dr. Yarnell. May God bless you.

[Malcolm Yarnell]

True, as we recover the aspect of the church being the body of Christ, we cannot lose the truth of being embodied persons in the body of Christ. The pendulum too often swings from one extreme to the other. Enjoyed the dialogue, Alan. One could only wish that others might engage in such a pleasant manner.

[Alan Cross]

I enjoyed it as well. Thank you for engaging.

[wesmith]

Alan and Malcolm

This is a great Post with great comments.

The Bible says the Priesthood of The Believer

Title: Disciples Study Bible
Author:

EPHESIANS 4:11-13
Worship, Priesthood—The New Testament teaches that God ordained leaders
in the church. Their purpose is to equip each individual believer to be a priest.
See note on 1 Ch 6:48-49. This great doctrine of the priesthood of the believer
means that every individual Christian has direct access to God through Christ, the
one Mediator between God and us (1 Ti 2:5). We need no human mediator
between us and God. Jesus Christ gives us direct access to God (Heb 4:14-16).

ESV Study Notes

Eph. 4:11 Christ gives specific spiritual gifts to people in the church whose primary mission is to minister the Word of God (v. 12). For apostles, see note on 1:1. Regarding prophets, different views on the nature of the gift of prophecy in the NT affect one's understanding of this verse (see notes on 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:10). Since the Greek construction here is different from Eph. 2:20 More »
Eph. 4:12 Those church leaders with various gifts (v. 11) are to equip the saints (all Christians) so that they can do the work of ministry. All Christians have spiritual gifts that should be used in ministering to one another (1 Cor. 12:7, 11; 1 Pet. 4:10).
Eph. 4:13 The diversity of gifts serves to bring about the unity of Christ's people. Mature manhood extends the body metaphor used earlier for the church and contrasts with “children” in the next verse (see Heb. 5:11–14). Some people think that the learning of doctrine is inherently divisive, but it is people who divide the church, whereas the knowledge of the Son of God (both knowing Christ personally and understanding all that he did and taught) is edifying and brings about “mature manhood” when set forth in love (Phil. 3:10). The work of the gifted ministers (Eph. 4:11) was to proclaim and teach the word centered on Christ rather than on speculative or eccentric teachings of their own (cf. 1 Cor. 2:2). measure. Christ Jesus is the standard of the maturity to which the church must aspire. Christ's fullness is the full expression of his divine and human perfection (see Eph. 1:23; 3:19; Col. 1:19; 2:9)

Wayne

[Jeff Moody]

Is it possible that the SBC leadership simply gets tired every year and we have to develop a new controversy over minor theological issues?

I'm calling it now: Over the next 5 years, you have to be at least a 4 point calvininist with your own private prayer language and not believe that the gift of healing still applies today.

You all just wait...

[Kevin D. Johnson]

It is easy to dismiss controversy in the name of introducing people to Christ and there is some measure of truth in what you've outlined above, Alan.

So, in balance, I think I can say "Amen!" to the criticism of the tendency to emphasize a system of doctrine (on both sides of this debate, frankly) over and above more legitimate attempts to look at Scripture and really to focus on Christ.

That said, it shouldn't be forgotten that controversy has had its very rightful and important place in the history of the Church. Practically everything we know and teach today has come to us through the filter of saints disagreeing and arguing together about things (even to the point of the sword) that to us today seem quite irrelevant to our concerns. And perhaps these things were historically important but are now irrelevant to us--things like the internal wranglings of the trinitarian doctrine.

I have a hunch, though, that these things are often more important than we realize and not less and that our ancient fathers were perhaps just a bit wiser than we are presently on these points in understanding how they are often a matter of life and death.

And, while I respect your opinion that this is the sort of discussion that should be primarily had in the local church--the history of the Church has seen precedent that points otherwise. The Internet provides us with an opportunity to work together across denominational lines and even across lines that would never have been crossed five hundred years ago between Anabaptists, Separatists, Presbyterians, the Reformed, Roman Catholics, the East, and many others. We have the opportunity to learn and discuss things with one another and that in and of itself is a great privilege that shouldn't be minimized.

I agree that the debates can get heated and overwhelming at certain points but I do not believe that they are utterly futile. Rather, they should be seen as opportunities to better understand one another and work with each other to better understand the truth of whatever matter is under discussion--if not for us individually for the Church that has yet to appear as our Lord tarries. Our children and our grandchildren and their grandchildren may very hang on our own legacy.

Frankly, that means I'm thankful for men like Athanasius who stood up "contra mundum" (against the whole Christian world) for the truth of the Gospel. So too with Luther and Calvin and many, many others. We have them to thank and as we argue and discuss our posture should be as the Bible dictates but especially grateful and humble that our Lord has seen fit to give us the same privilege in standing up for the truth.

But, as I said, I agree with you--it needs to be the truth in love and especially focused on the person and work of Christ. Part of the reason the stakes are high on the atonement debate is exactly because it is focused on the nature of Christ's work--and astoundingly important part of our faith with huge implications and consequences if we get it wrong.

I also agree with you that the power politics should be put to death though I suspect they won't be. Power politics and what goes on in Southern Baptist seminaries and other agencies are the exact things that Christ came to oppose--just take a gander at Ezekiel 34 and the wickedness of shepherds who oppress their own flocks.

But, to sum up--we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just reading the minor prophets shows that we need room not only to discuss but also to hear the harsh words when the occasions call for it.

[Dogeared]

Alan,

In your attempt to be "above the fray" of the debate that is taking place, you have oversimplified the issues at hand. The sides in this debate are not equal in thier wrongness. The chronology of events that Timmy has provided proves this. Just because someone holds to particular framework does not make them prideful if they defend thier position. To imply that it is a waste of time is just silly after I've read your discussion with Dr. Yarnell over the nature of the church.

[Alan Cross]

Dogeared,

Discussing theology is not meritless at all times. I said that. I also understand the argument and I followed what Timmy was saying. My point is that many people who get amped up about debating theology do so in a way that then violates other dictates of Scripture, primarily passages about how we should treat one another. This especially happens when we are not in relationship with the person we are debating. It seems that you have misunderstood my post in saying that I "oversimplified the issues at hand" and in saying that my argument is "silly." I was not talking about discussing theology per se, but rather, about how we do it. In all things, we should keep Christ central and represent Him.

The only people that Jesus got harsh with were the Pharisees. Even in that, His focus was on connecting people with God and He opposed those who were putting stumbling blocks in the way of the people.

[Dogeared]

Alan,

I understand completely what you are saying...but you can't have it both ways. We certainly don't need to ditch "being kind one to another" (Eph. 4:32). I have actually seen kindness attempted in the midst of these debates. But what's sad is when people like Tom Ascol try to be cordial and then get attacked by people like your recent vistor to this blog.

[Kevin D. Johnson]

Actually, Jesus was harsh with a lot of people. Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, Herodians, the merchants at the Temple whose tables He turned over, etc. He was an equal opportunity critic like every prophet before Him. Doubtless, the Pharisees wound up with the brunt of the criticism at least far as the four Gospels present it (and I share your enthusiasm for a condemnation of debate that is lacking in love for the other party especially), but the fact that Jesus was harsh means that often times we have an obligation to address things as necessary in a way that some may feel is unnecessary.

Compassion for those who are unjustly abused in a debate is noteworthy and reflective of the appropriateness of your overall point. However, I think perhaps in this day and age we are a bit too thin-skinned and as a result we skirt many important issues that have a direct bearing to your overall goal--introducing Christ to people.

[Kevin D. Johnson]

I should add as well that Jesus was not afraid of harshly addressing the common people -- as He did in Luke 4 and they as a result got very upset with him.

[Alan Cross]

Let me try to restate my point. The truth is that we often use theology as a substitute for a true relationship with Christ. We break up into theological teams and whoever is on our team, that is a person that is worth treating well. I have seen it a million times. A sense of fraternity develops as you go to war with those who see things your way against those who don't. You disparage the other side and think ill of them. If this is not happening in the SBC, then I apologize for completely missing it. At whatever point it is not, then praise God. But, when it does happen, then I believe that God is dishonored.

Jesus was not defending a theological system. He was not trying to cover Himself with a right understanding of God's Truth. He was the Truth. He was the Way, and the Life as well. He calls us to know Him. When we know Jesus, we know the Truth. Truth is not a disembodied concept that can be argued over. Truth is a person - the Son of God. He can be known. I think that if we would start with Jesus and know Him, a lot of the doctrines that we fight over would make much more sense.

How can we have a doctrine of the Church apart from the person of Christ? How can we have a doctrine of salvation apart from the person of Christ? If we focus more on knowing and walking with Jesus and less on being right on our systematic theology, then I think that we would come to a great deal more agreement. I also think that we would be more correct in our theology. I could draw a lot of implications to this and give a lot of examples, but I think that if we understand that the Bible is primarily about God's revelation of Himself and the pursuit of a people for Himself through the person and work of Jesus Christ, then I think that we will see the Bible as a whole, instead of just a bunch of unrelated doctrines.

Love God, Love your neighbor. All of the law and prophets are summed up in these commands.

We should not be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).

I do think that the we can discuss and even argue theology if our motive is to teach one another and bring one another closer to Christ. When it becomes something else, that is when we are in error and there is little profit in it.

[Alan Cross]

As for dealing harshly with others, yes, Jesus did that at times. But, are we in the spirit of Christ when we get harsh with others to win theological arguments over some of the issues that we fight over? I'll let the Holy Spirit judge that.

As for a previous statement on trying to "be above the fray," I think that if we are looking to Christ, we do tend to stay out of the ugliest aspects of these disagreements. We can state truth and even advocate our positions. But, when real division comes in over these things, we might be valuing our teaching over some other things that are also supposed to be important.

[Strider]

I just wish I had read this post before I got into that discussion with CB last week over at SBC Today. Thanks for being kind.