Why I Don't Think the Calvinism Advisory Team Will Solve The Problem

Frank Page, President of the SBC Executive Committee, has named his committee to study the issue of Calvinism in the SBC. The goal, I imagine, is to make some kind of definitive statement so that everyone can have a reference point and the arguing, posturing, and political wrangling for power can cease. If the argument flares up again, people can point to the work of the committee and that should be authoritative. The committee has something like 16 members, evenly divided between Calvinists and Non-Calvinists. Baptist Press has an article on it here: http://m.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=38507

I don't think it will work - not if we do things the same way we have, anyway.

Have you ever noticed that almost all the same people are on the committees and task forces in SBC life? In just the past few years, we have had a GCR task force, a Nickname task force, and now a Calvinism task force. Al Mohler and Danny Akin have been on all of these committees. Paige Patterson is on every committee, even if he isn't in the room. He exerts that much influence. Has there ever been a committee/task force in SBC life that Al Mohler was not on in the past 15 years?

The supporting cast changes, to be sure. But, at the end of the day, the two poles of power in SBC life are Patterson and Mohler, with a little Akin/Rainer and some Caner brothers thrown in on the side. Even if there is a document that comes out of this that all agree to, when have our entity heads followed their agreements with each other? There is a standing agreement for entity heads to not meddle in each other's business, but that is ignored constantly.

Here is the real problem: I really think that this is about power - who has it, who wants it, and how you get it. "Traditionalists" want rules put in place that limits the number of Calvinists in SBC entities to the percentage of Calvinists in our churches under the guise of "proportionality." That view will not make it far. Calvinists want everyone to see that the founders of the SBC were Calvinists and that they have a place in the convention of prominence. And, the disagreement goes on.

I really do hope that Dr. Page's attempt to bring peace will work. But, the problem is that no one wants to take the lesser seat. Everyone keeps fighting for the best seat at the table. Under the guise of being "right," each side keeps grasping for power or protection or elevation. James 4:1-10 tells us that the reason that we quarrel and argue is because of the desires that are within US. It is not because of the other person, but because of us. We want something, but do not get it. So, we grasp for it. We don't ask God, and when we do, we are just thinking about ourselves. But, God wants us - all of us - and He wants us to repent and return to Him.

This is a "preacher" fight. It is not like the Battle for the Bible that made up the Conservative Resurgence years ago. This is about who gets to lead, teach in the seminaries, and speak at pastor's conferences. It is about power. It is not about theology or control of churches because both views are allowed for and protected by the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.

Unless the leaders that are on this Advisory Team call both sides to repent from trying to assert themselves - or even fight to protect themselves at the expense of others - there will be no real progress or peace made. We will continue to tear one another apart. Mohler and Patterson should lead the way in this repentance, reconciliation, and renewal. If that happens (and that is what I am praying for), then we might see great progress. Perhaps that is what Dr. Page is praying for as well. If they both negotiate for their "side" then even a consensus document will not solve anything.

So, yeah, it depends on what happens between the two leaders - and I am not talking about smiles and handshakes and nice talk. I mean something real. We haven't had very much "real" in some time.

Comments

[Alan Cross]

One more thing: If we have basically the same leadership on all of our committees and task forces, and the problems stay the same or get worse, then maybe those "leaders" are not capable of helping us fix our problems. Or, worse yet, perhaps they are at least partially the source of some of those problems. I am not saying this is the case. But, it is worth thinking about.

[Andrew]

re-typign my previous comment - delete if the other one went through

Excellent portrayal of "inbreeding" of committees!

I personally find it interesting that Mohler and Patterson had an informal discussion/debate about Calvinism in 2006 (I have the CD)...but we are still fighting about this issue today.

Are the minions not listening...or are they not the "two poles of power" anymore?

[downshoredrift]

Yes, that is definitely a possibility. Jerry Vines should be included in this discussion as well, as it seems that he continues to exert a great deal of influence. There are certainly other protagonists here. The issue is simply that unless there is a softening of hearts and a desire to be last instead of first on both parts, I doubt that we will make much progress.

And you are right. Mohler and Patterson did have a very public discussion on this issue in 2006 that was supposed to create peace. Apparently, it didnt.

Sent from my iPhone

[Tom Hicks]

Alan, I so appreciate you, brother, along with your theologically minded mission focused ministry. Thanks for your example and thanks for this post. I would humbly suggest a couple of items.

1. The Baptist Faith and Message does not deny Southern Baptists the right to hold firmly to, advance, and articulate extra-confessional matters as intellectually and biblically necessary. One example, aside from Calvinism, is apologetic methodology. Though foundationalism (or evidentialism or classicalism) is not mentioned in the Baptist Faith and Message, are we not allowed to advance that methodology over the other as the most intellectually viable form of the defense of Christianity? Would you say that we may or may not do that? What about educational methodologies, such as subject/memory oriented contemporary education vs. classical logic/rhetorically oriented education? May we not advance one method over the other as most intellectually valid and necessary to faithfulness and cultural impact? I would suggest that to say we are not allowed to do this is to exceed the bounds of the BF&M and thus suggest that the BF&M is an exhaustive and sufficient document for all Southern Baptist convictions about what is most intellectually necessary and biblically defensible. To bring the matter closer to your own home, I suspect that you, Alan, believe that cultural engagement through practical ministries, such as serving children in public schools, feeding the hungry of society, helping the poor and needy by practical means, etc., is one necessary aspect of the most biblically and intellectually viable form of missions. But the BF&M only says we are to "provide" for the poor and needy. It never specifies how, and one might argue that we "provide" merely by preaching the gospel and calling them to Christ and that the biblical texts which teach we are to take care of the physical needs of the poor and needy refer primarily to God's own people, the church, not to the lost world. This is not my view, but if it were, I would defend your right to advance your view as the most intellectually defensible and effective form of missions (as I'm sure you would), even though it is not required by the BF&M.

2. Paige Patterson, Malcolm Yarnell, Jerry Vines, and the Caner brothers, to name just a few, are advancing their version of "Traditional" Baptist Theology as the most defensible and biblical form of soteriology. They also regularly denounce and castigate Calvinism and Calvinists. I know you would apply your arguments apply to them as well. But do we really want to live in a convention where no one advances any view or feels strongly about anything but what is already stated in the BF&M? Why may our leaders not argue for their convictions (as the only biblical and intellectually viable conviction), while agreeing with the right of others to argue for their convictions as long as they are *not in conflict* with the BF&M? Charismatic gifts are another example. I am a cessationist, but the BF&M does not exclude continuationists. I would expect a continuationist leader to argue that his view is the most intellectually honest and defensible Christian view (otherwise, why would he hold it?). I would expect the same of dispensationalist leaders. If we say Calvinist leaders may not defend their view as the most intellectually honest and biblical view, then are we saying that no leader may advance anything but what is in the BF&M already? If so, then why would we ever have any resolutions at the SBC? Church discipline, a classically Southern Baptist doctrine, isn't mentioned in the BF&M. Does this mean that Southern Baptist leaders may not insist that practicing church discipline is the only intellectually honest and biblically defensible position in faithful church life? Don't we really just need to acknowledge that it's okay for people to hold convictions, to think they are right, and to advance their positions as the most intellectually honest and necessary view as long as their views are not in conflict with the BF&M? And isn't to suggest or require otherwise itself an extra-confessional demand? And isn't to require this to demand we be unthinking past the confession? And wouldn't that make it impossible for we Baptists to have the kind of robust intellectual ballast necessary to confront the intellectual challenges of our age?

Love you brother and so appreciate you, your ministry, and your writing. May we press on in the kingdom work.

[Alan Cross]

Tom, you make great points and I cannot say that I disagree. If I did, then I would have to shut down my blog and not say much of anything. Your persepctive here is a good balance to any attempt to promote uniformity or a lukewarm theological perspective where no one can have an opinion.

On this issue, however, I think that we need to oppose both extremes. The one extreme that we must oppose is any move to silence, remove, or eliminate Calvinists from leadership in Southern Baptist life. That would be a mistake. Calvinists have been around from the beginning. We should not be afraid of them or seek to demonize them. We are in the same family and should converse and consistently hammer out an agreement. Much of the advocacy of a theological perspective of this nature should happen in the local church. I have no problem with Morningview, for example, leaning in more of a Calvinist direction.

But, for the SBC entities, those should be platforms where we can work together under the umbrella of the BFM2000. Entity heads should not be promoting one view over the other, in my opinion - and if they do, they have to work very hard to nuance and explain and make room for the other perspective in Baptist life. Both Calvinists and Traditionalists have been wrong here.

For example, I have no problem whatsoever with Tom Ascol and Founders promoting their perspective. I love Tom. But, if Tom were the president of Southern Seminary, I would think him to be out of bounds. Does that make sense? The entities are the places where we should all be able to cooperate.

Now, having said that, I have no problem with SWBTS and Southern each having differing views and articulating them. We have 6 seminaries and they can have different flavors. But, they need to recognize the environment of a diverse SBC and tread lightly and with great respect for the other side. That does not always happen.

To sum up, yes, I agree with you. But, I think that when it gets to the entity level, especially on this issue which has been a bone of contention since Charleston and Sandy Creek, we have to go the extra mile and do some serious relational and theolgical work to continue to hammer out our place of consensus. Otherwise, the whole SBC will fragment along these lines. There are some who want that, to be sure. But, for guys like you and me, I would hope that we would strive for the unity of the saints in Christ and not to allow for division unless it is required biblically.

Thanks for your insight. As always, it is greatly welcomed.