The Secret to Getting Along in the SBC: Morris Chapman, Calvinists, and the GCR

Disclaimer:  SBC RELATED POST.  It seems that I am going to be writing about SBC Issues more, at least in the near future. After not writing about the SBC hardly at all over the past year or two on this blog, I have found myself really interested in what is going on in America's largest Protestant denomination when it comes to the promotion and adoption of what is called the Great Commission Resurgence. I wrote about it last week during the convention and will continue to do so until I get bored with it or no one is reading anymore.

Dr. Morris Chapman created a firestorm last week when he addressed Calvinism in his Executive Committee report at the Southern Baptist Annual Meeting. I wrote about it HERE.  Calvinists were upset that he seemed to call them out in ways that they felt were inaccurate. Baptist Identity folks have been making their claim for control of the SBC for a few years now. Before that, it was Conservatives. Before that, moderates. Now, we have the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) and its band of Calvinists/Non-Calvinists/Missional types and those focused primarily on missions and fulfilling the Great Commission. Still, it would be unfair to say that Traditionalists and Baptist Identity adherents don't care about the Great Commission. But, we are all wrestling with each other again and what had been happening primarily on the blogs has now broken out into the SBC at large. The next year is going to be very interesting.

Baptists are good at fighting. We are known for it actually. In thinking back on the Convention last week, I ended up giving some extra thought to the address that Dr. Chapman gave. It was easily dismissed as being out of touch and divisive because of a few statements about Calvinism.  But, what if we have missed the larger point of what he was saying?  He has been a respected leader in the SBC for at least 30 years now. Did he all of a sudden lose his mind? Does he have a history of saying things that are ignorant? I might not agree with all that he said (and I don't), but I am wondering if we dismissed his words too quickly because they didn't fit with what we all wanted to hear.

As I went back and read over his address, I found myself agreeing with almost all of it. Even his controversial statements on Calvinism are more understandable if you hear them in context of the rest of his address. He wonders why we cannot allow for a proper tension between Divine Sovereignty and the human response of faith, instead of putting all of the focus on God's work and none on man's response. Now, I might not agree that Calvinists put it quite like that, but I don't think that his words warranted Dr. Akin calling his address "shameful" and Dr. Mohler tweeting that he wanted to start a support group for those who had to sit through it. Read the rest of his address. He repeatedly says that our focus should be on Jesus Christ and His mission to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth.  He repeatedly calls us to refocus on our primary task, which is to focus on Jesus and the work that He has given us to do. Save the unfortunate comments on Calvinism, it was an excellent address. Even those comments on Calvinism (if seen in their proper context and considering that they are coming from a non-Calvinist who has concerns about the growing influence of Calvinism in the SBC) are not that big of a deal - save the fact that he didn't accurately represent what Calvinists believe about man's response of faith. But, then again, how many times have I heard Calvinists call anyone who doesn't adhere to all 5 points of TULIP a Pelagian, gospel-denying, man-centered, humanist?  Quite a few.

Here is the deal: We all need to tone down the rhetoric and respect one another. Dr. Chapman has, on many occasions, stated his belief that Calvinists have every right to exist and operate within the SBC. But, do Calvinists want to just co-exist, or do they see their position as being the position that is the most Biblical and the true Southern Baptist position?  Consider Tom Ascol, the director of the Founder's Movement, when asked about this:

The resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC is a type of theological homecoming. It is beyond dispute that the theological consensus of the SBC our our founding in 1845 was Calvinistic. As Timothy George has noted, every one of the 293 delegates who attended the constitutional meeting in Augusta, Georgia in 1845 came from churches or associations that held to the Second London Confession of Faith (in some cases in its Charleston or Philadelphia expressions). In the early decades of the 20th century that consensus broke down and soon was overtaken by strong emphasis on pragmatism, perhaps most notably demonstrated in the "Million more in '54" campaign. The shift of theological commitments from the center of our identity to the periphery resulted in denominational amnesia. We simply forget who we were.

The conservative resurgence was the first stage in our denomination's doctrinal recovery. With the reestablishment of a clear confession of Scripture's full authority as the Word of God written, it is inevitable that there should follow a recovery of the message of Scripture as historically understood by those who founded the Southern Baptist Convention. That is what is happening. We are witnessing a return to the faith of our fathers.

Now, I like Dr. Ascol a lot. I like the Founder's Movement, even though I am not a Calvinist. I think that they are good for the SBC. But, Dr. Ascol presents a view of Calvinism that states that if we return to the Bible and it's authority, then we will all become Calvinists. I disagree as does Dr. Chapman. It was unfortunate that in Dr. Chapman's disagreement, he stated that Calvinists belittle man's faith response, which they do not, but still, is it also accurate to state that a commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture will necessarily lead one to become a Calvinist? I don't think so.

                                         

On both sides of this debate, things are said that are unfortunate. We should disagree boldly if we disagree on issues. But, as Dr. Chapman said in the rest of his address, our focus and commitment should be on the gospel of Jesus Christ and on taking it to the ends of the earth.  The "Secret to Getting Along in the SBC" is to love one another sacrificially and to allow people to differ on issues that are not core issues while we partner together around Jesus Christ and His Good News. We have stated that whether you are a Calvinist or not, you are welcome in the SBC. At the same time, the rhetoric from both sides needs to die down. Non-Calvinists need to stop saying that Calvinists don't evangelize. Calvinists need to stop saying that Non-Calvinists deny the gospel. Both statements are untrue (neither Drs. Chapman nor Ascol have said this, as far as I know, but others have).

                                                             

Here is my main concern:  We need to be careful that we do not enter a time where questions about the GCR or theological differences are dismissed or different positions are not allowed to be presented on the areas where we differ for fear that someone will lose their job or they will be shouted down. If Dr. Chapman was wrong about Calvinism, then someone needs to say so, but we don't need seminary presidents publicly saying that it was shameful and making fun of him. Not helpful. Is this what opponents of the GCR can expect over the next year?  I will defend the right of Calvinists to be in the SBC, even though they think that their view is the only correct view. Actually, I respect that. Why would you hold to a view that you don't think is correct? At the same time, I will defend Dr. Chapman's right to question that view or to question the GCR, even if he is shown to be mistaken about part of it or is responding to a caricature. That is where dialogue comes in and without dialogue, we have no hope for cooperation. There should be enough room for different voices in the SBC and we should be able to disagree on these issues and still work together.

                                                    

So, going back and reading Dr. Chapman's address, I can say that I disagree with him on his perspective on Calvinism (not that the correct view is a divine tension but that Calvinists diminish faith), but I do not disagree with his main point that we should keep Christ and His gospel central to all that we do and that we should cooperate together to take His gospel to the ends of the earth. Let's not lose the main point because we disagree with the direction the person is coming from. If we do that, then all dialogue will break down and we will never be able to work with those who differ from us in certain areas.

                                                     

Keep Christ central. Love one another. Agree on the main things. Partner for missions.

                                                     

Isn't this what we should be about?  If we have any hope for a GCR, we have to begin to get this right.

Comments

[Cary Grant]

I agree that the Calvinists (esp. the younger ones, which includes me) need to hear this message... the POINT of the GCR is exactly what you said at the end: "Keep Christ central. Love one another. Agree on the main things. Partner for missions." That is the heartbeat of the GCR. Yeah, some of it's leaders are Calvinists (Al Moehler, Danny Akin)... but some are not (Ed Stetzer, Johnny Hunt).

I really feel that Dr. Chapman was using Calvinism as a red herring, so people think that if they voted for the GCR, they were saying that Jesus didn't die for the sins of the world. The point of the GCR is not Calvinism, it's the... wait for it... GREAT COMMISSION! In fact, the people at the SBC who put the focus on Calvinism was not those who hold that view, but the ones who didn't.

The very end of his address is a perfect(ly horrid) example: It so frustrates me to hear a senior leader say that we need to have Jesus and missions as the central focus, and then proceed to (a) set up a straw man about Calvinism (and the leaders of the GCR by proxy) and (b) to end his with 5 points designed to raise questions about a movement who's whole point is to do what he said we need! I simply don't understand it - it's like talking out of two sides of your mouth... I'm for it, but I'm against it.

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Alan,

Good words,.... I think you are pointing out that we Baptist's have more in common than those quirky little differences while seen aspiring to be like Calvin or Arminius. Maybe we should be like Christ and just be satisfied that His love is enough in us as adopted children.

Blessings,
Chris

[Alan Cross]

Cary,

I understand that Calvinists were upset about Dr. Chapman's message. Acts 29 folks were too. So were missional people. There were a lot of things that I disagreed with. My point is simply that for the SBC to move forward with a focus on Christ and the Great Commission, we are going to have to understand that we have a lot of different views. Sometimes those views are going to bump up against one another. Sometimes we are going to disagree. But, in the disagreement, we recognize where we do agree and we move forward. Tom Ascol and other Calvinists have made statements that make a lot of Non-Calvinists mad. That is his right and he has his convictions. I like people with convictions as long as we can work together.

I just don't want to ignore the valid questions that Dr. Chapman raises just because some might disagree with his views. Once he starts eliminating Calvinists from the mission field or something horrid like that (like what the IMB Board of Trustees did to those who have a ppl or weren't baptized in a baptist church), then we have real problems. But, until then, let's discuss the issues and even disagree on this - as long as we can agree on the main things.

Maybe I'm naive, but that is my hope.

[Alan Cross]

Chris,

That's right. That's what I'm trying to say. We can learn a lot from those that we have differences with and sometimes their warnings about things need to be listened to as we move forward. They have things to add as well. I just don't want to see us running over one another because we have differences, and that goes on both sides of the debate. I'm pro-GCR and am NOT anti-Calvinist, but I think that Dr. Chapman raises some interesting questions and they are worth pondering as we move forward.

[Alan Cross]

Chris,

Absolutely.

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Alan,

Yes, I think that was the Apostle Pauls point as well....

Philippians 2:1-7 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, (2) make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. (3) Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; (4) do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. (5) Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, (6) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Pastors have a tendency to buck at the thought of serving another Pastor and not looking out for personal self-interests. Recognizing slavery (doulos) as the primary goal would do wonders in the SBC.

Blessings,
Chris

[Chris Johnson]

...meant to say "only" looking out for personal self interest.

-Chris

[thehigg]

Thank you for this post, Alan. I was hoping that you would take a second look at Dr. Chapman's address and see this...not that my post had anything to do with that!

I agree that he made some mistakes in his speech...primarily, in my opinion, rejecting the fundamental animus of the GCR: to consider how institutional inertia has limited our effectiveness for the gospel in the world and in America.

I hope I wasn't too hard on you and the others...and I am glad you weren't this time either!

[Tsquared]

But, the GC is to teach to keep all that was taught by Christ. Are you saying that the non-Calvinist position is not part of the GC because it was not taught by Christ? If it is the truth, then it must be taught as Christ commands and exclusively so. If it is not, then it must not be taught as doctrine for only those things which Christ taught are to be taught as part of it. So before the GC can commence the SBC must established what He taught. In which case, people like Hunt, Page, Patterson, Chapman et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum, must repent of their foolish teaching since what they have taught they must only hold as opinion if it is not the very teachings of Christ and all others false.

So which is true? Until that is decided the GC cannot be done regardless of the "can't we all just get along" love fest that you suggest. Unless, both sides decide theirs is mere opinions of men and not the Word of God they need to shut their mouths. If theirs are mere opinions isn't it true that non-Calvinists must be careful to explicitly state so and take great care that no one adopts non-Calvinist teaching as doctrinal. Why risk lying in the name of God? Why risk causing others to stumble? If it is the case that one is wrong, or both are wrong, then as Paul says the SBC is not to engage in such civilian affairs as opining or engaging in the wranglings of vain arguments and myths. They are not to go beyond what is written.

So which soteriology is right? For they are not compatible at all. They are mutually exclusive. Or is it case that it is neither which is the right one? If neither, which one other one should be taught so that the GC can be done? Or is it the case that there is no soteriology to which the SBC can appeal? And shouldn't the discovery of that be prioritized before it seeks to proselytize into a faith founded upon ignorance? Scripture forbids the teaching of opinions as doctrine. So, will you now be calling the SBC to a long awaited for repentance for exalting ignorance as faith? Will you call them to repent for the mockery the cavalier attitudes of the SBC makes of the knowledge of God?

[Alan Cross]

Tsquared,

What???? Please don't take that as an invitation to repeat your statement. If you want a Calvinistic denomination, the PCA is waiting for you with open arms. If you want an Arminian denomination, there are many to choose from. The SBC has always allowed for both views to co-exist together. If we were to choose one or the other, then who gets to decide? Whoever has acquired enough power to force their view on everyone else, because a decision like that would not be about truth, but only about power and winning argunents.

The subject of this post is not to debate Calvinism vs. Non-Calvinism and to decide which is better. It is simply to state that peaceful co-existence can occur and that Dr. Chapman's addressed, while ill-timed I feel in his statements against Calvinism, are no different than what many Calvinists have said.

In other words, we do need to give each other some grace and allow people to speak their minds on issues, just like I am allowing you to do here.

[Chris Poe]

Alan,

As something of an outsider, I really don't have a dog in the hunt here. However, I agree with you that that the reaction to Dr. Chapman's comments may be somewhat overblown. Ironically, Dr. Akin made similar comments about Calvinism in a recent interview with Trevin Wax. Unlike Dr. Chapman, he did state the positive contributions of Reformed theology, but he went on to cite several examples of men who apparently were hypercalvinists that were basically against evangelism, etc. Some were seminary students and some were in the ministry. That's not the first time that Dr. Akin has warned against going to seed on Calvinism. I have been in Calvinistic circles myself for about 8 years. I am finding the protestations of "I've never met a hyper-Calvinist" or those who state that they've never met anyone who doesn't overemphasize the sovereignty of God and who underemphasizes the responsibility of man to respond in faith increasingly hard to take with a straight face. I'm not stating that all or even most Calvinists do this, but that it is an issue with some. And no doubt the trend in recent decades has been to stress responsibility so much that sovereignty is neglected. But you can over correct so much that you end up in the ditch on the other side of the road.

I only read the transcript in the Fla. Baptist Witness, and did not hear the audio. There were other non 5 point Calvinists that reacted negatively to Dr. Chapman's message as well. I wonder if the message was perhaps delivered in a way that tended to generate more heat than light? Otherwise I wonder what the ruckus was other than the perception that he was anti-GCR delivering a message to a crowd that voted 95% for and that from what I recall the comments about Calvinism, Driscollism, BI, etc. highlighted concerns about those camps while noting nothing (or very little) positive that they contribute.

[Dave Miller]

1) I appreciate your SBC analysis - I consider it some of the best I've seen. I guess that's probably because I agree with it, but I think you articulate your views well. Thanks.

2) As I have said elsewhere - I think we Calvinists could be better served by spending less time complaining about how people perceive us than asking questions about WHY they have that perception. Some just may be people with a hostile spirit. But I am a Calvinist who has been put off often by the arrogance and rigidity of some of the young Calvinists I have seen - those who seem more interested in defending the doctrines of grace than in displaying that grace in their discussions; those who seem to operate from an specific agenda; those who insinuate that those who do not accept the doctrines of Grace hold to a false, or inadequate doctrine.

Perhaps our energy should be focused on changing perceptions rather than complaining about them.

[CaryGrant]

@Alan: Maybe I'm naive, but that is my hope, too!

The point I was trying to make in my original comment was not to bring up a big Calvinism in the SBC debate, heaven knows we have enough of those already, and most of us are sick of them. I was simply trying to say that I think Dr. Chapman is against the GCR, and used the Calvinism deal as a red herring to draw people's attention off of the real issue... focusing our attention on the Gospel and streamlining the SBC to be most effective in reaching more people with the Gospel.

If someone says what we need is to focus on the Great Commission and then brings up wedge issues and questions the motives of people who have the same goal, then that person just lost their credibility, IMHO. What I gathered from the Executive Committee Report: We can focus on effectively sharing the Gospel, until that focus starts to change the way we do things as a Convention.

I half-expected the next song to be "I Shall Not Be Moved".

[Todd Burus]

Alan,
It surprises me that no one has pointed this out, or if they did I missed it, but the link you give is to a "prepared manuscript" and not a "transcript" of what was actually said. The part of Chapman's speech which has elicited so much ire from the Calvinist camp is a portion which was ad libbed from what the manuscript says.

[Alan Cross]

Thanks, Todd. Do you have a link to what he actually said? Has the offending part been quoted anywhere that I can see? I'll look as well.