Steve Lemke, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
Brad Whitt and “Southern Baptist Irrelevants”
Brad Whitt fired the shot heard ‘round the SBC about a month ago when he published his article “Young, Southern Baptist, . . . and Irrelevant?” in the South Carolina state Baptist Courier and on his own blog. In essence, Whitt expressed the concern that traditional Southern Baptist churches like his own were feeling marginalized and trivialized as “irrelevant” in many forums in Southern Baptist life. It created quite a furor, with some thanking Whitt for voicing “how I’ve felt for years,” while others criticizing him or saying that the concerns he voiced were unfounded. Six additional state Baptist papers published the article, and discussions in blogs and Facebook from all over the country weighed in on the validity of Whitt’s concerns. Whitt, a graduate of Union University, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, serves as Pastor of Temple Baptist Church in Simpsonville, South Carolina, and has been the President of the South Carolina Baptist Pastor’s Conference. He has now posted his response to these many comments on his blog in an article entitled, “The Challenge for Contributing, Committed Southern Baptists.”
Whitt’s article appears to be a bit of a parody of a much ballyhooed article in the September 22, 2006 issue of Christianity Today, entitled “Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism is Making a Comeback and Shaking Up the Church,” by Collin Hansen, which he later expanded into a book by a similar title, Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists. (I am quoted in both by Hansen, although he evidently wanted me to play the role in his article of naysayer against Calvinism, so the quotes he utilized did not reflect the more nuanced answers that I gave in both the paper he quoted and our brief telephone interview). Many of the “new Calvinists” or “neoCalvinists” of whom Hansen wrote befit the label provided by both Mark Driscoll and Ed Stetzer of “Reformed Relevants.” Driscoll defines “Reformed Relevants” as “theologically conservative evangelicals who are not as interested in reshaping theology as much as updating such things as worship styles, preaching styles, and church leadership structures” (Mark Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church,” Criswell Theological Review, n. s., 3, no. 2, Spring 2006, 89-90). If Whitt intended to reference Hansen’s article, you’ll note that he retained “young,” and substituted “Southern Baptist . . . Irrelevant?” instead of “Restless and Reformed” or “Reformed Relevants.” So, if this reading is correct, Whitt is a young pastor who is content (not restless) with a clear Southern Baptist identity, and he is resistant to the notion that only the “Reformed Relevants” corner the market on relevance. Rather, he is saying, he is a young pastor who is a “Southern Baptist . . . Irrelevant?” rather than a “Reformed Relevant.” Obviously, by the question mark, he does not consider himself to be as irrelevant as others might suggest.
Revealing the Fault Line
What do we make of the “Brad Whitt phenomenon”? Obviously, Brad has touched a nerve in Southern Baptist life. In fact, his article and its response may reveal one of the deepest fault lines in the SBC. If I understand Whitt correctly, that fault line would be between what might be called those who have a “high Baptist identity” and those who have a “low to moderate Baptist identity.” There may be better nomenclature than this, since those who fit the description of the “low to moderate Baptist identity” may not feel comfortable with that label, but it does seem to finger the distinction that Whitt has in mind. Though it varies from situation to situation, this fault line is manifested in many ways – commitment to Cooperative Program giving, prominent use of “Baptist” in the church name and identity, commitment to distinctively Baptist doctrinal beliefs, and a cluster of ecclesiological/methodological issues about how to “do church.” These two groups are difficult to define, in that they overlap each other at many points. Both sides are Bible-believing evangelicals with a Southern Baptist slant. The difference between them may be more of an ethos than clearly defined lines or labels, but it definitely does have theological implications, particularly with reference to Theology, Christology, Pneumatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. Much of the “pushback” reaction expressed against Whitt’s original article zoned in on some of the specific illustrations he used about stylistic issues such as the pastor’s attire. The larger issue he was raising (be it theological, ethological, or traditional) seemed at times to get lost in the details. The problem is that it is hard to generalize or illustrate these differences of ethos without overstating the case or stereotyping. Hence, none of the illustrations which follow in the depiction of the contrast between the two perspectives are universally true, but are merely suggestive of the ethos of the two perspectives.
The contrast that Whitt appeared to be expressing was that the “high Baptist identity” churches tend to have a more traditional or blended worship style, and are very conservative on a cluster of ethical issues (with a focus on homosexuality, gender roles, and right to life issues). The “high Baptist identity” folk tend to be more appreciative of and involved in the associational and state convention work of Baptists, and to utilize the Baptist “name brand” materials (LifeWay, etc.) by default unless there is a reason not to do so. They tend to place a high premium on discipling their new members in “the Baptist way,” and normally structure their discipleship structures in programmatic ways recommended by the denomination. The “high Baptist identity” churches are scandalized by “low/moderate Baptist identity” pastors who curse, advocate moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages, who endorse different ethical agendas such as environmental and social justice issues, and who actively engage marginalized groups (such as homosexuals).
The “low Baptist identity” churches tend to be more contemporary in worship style, and more open to innovative methodologies and perspectives. They tend to have less brand loyalty, and to utilize what they perceive to the most effective or most affordable products or programs, regardless of the name brand, rather than necessarily being committed to Baptist published materials or institutions. They tend to have a somewhat more ecumenical approach, with a greater sense of identity with the broader Christian community, including other denominations. The “low/moderate Baptist identity” churches find “high Baptist identity” churches to be old-fashioned, out of touch, and irrelevant to the contemporary setting (and hence the title of Whitt’s original article).
Converging Fault Lines and a Solution
The “Baptist identity” fault line is by no means the only fault line in Southern Baptist life. It is connected with a series of other interconnected, overlapping, and converging fault lines – smaller churches vs. megachurches, anti-GCR vs. pro-GCR, majority Baptist theology vs. Reformed theology, advocates of associations and state convention vs. detractors of associations and state convention, Cooperative Program as a high value vs. Cooperative Program as a tertiary value, etc. These fault lines are not identical, though they may parallel and converge at times. But an earthquake in one of the fault lines sets off shockwaves in each of these other fault lines.
In Part B, of this article, I intend to “chase out” some of these additional fault lines in Southern Baptist life, and propose two possible futures or solutions for these fractures in SBC life.
Steve Lemke
Dr. Lemke,
I am looking forward to more of your thoughts in this regard.
Dr. Lemke -
Thank you for weighing in on this issue. Brad Whitt has indeed made a much needed stand. I pray that his shot will ricochet throughout the SBC until it hits the heart of the matter. Of all the fault lines you mention, I’m convinced that “Majority Baptist Theology vs. Reformed Theology” has the potential alone to cause this great denomination to crumble. Reformed vs. non-reformed messages are distinctly different portrayals of the Cross of Christ. Thus, at the heart of this problem is a need for SBC leadership to focus not on methodology and missiology, but the very message that identifies us as a denomination. It is my prayer that when the dust settles, the world will once again see Southern Baptists united with one voice to tell the old, old story to perishing souls.
-Max
Well, I’m Reformed and I don’t think it is a issue for Southern Baptists to fight over. It is an issue worth debating and discussing, but not fighting.
You’re incorrect to say that we have distinctly differently portrayals of the Cross of Christ. I know you believe in penal Subsitutionary atonement. We have more in common than you realize.
What would be your solution to the perceived problem anyway? “Kick out the Calvinists?”
Dr. Lemke,
Thank you for treating Brad so well in your discussion of his position. Others have been unusually unkind in my opinion. One thing is clear: because of his principled stand, no one will accuse him of irrelevance any longer.
Your clarity of insight and careful choice of words, especially in defining the fault lines, will help Southern Baptists frame this important discussion far more respectfully in the future. I look forward to the possible solutions you will propose in Part B.
Max, you say that Reformed vs Non-reformed positions are completely different in their portrayal of the Cross. In what way?
Like Bryan I am wondering the same thing. I don’t see this as Reformed Theology vs. anything. It’s a matter of working together. So many are afraid of Reformed Theology and I am wondering why that is. This is not a vs. of anything but in some people’s misinformed idea. It is false information.
This is the problem we have. It is a us vs. them mentality when it should be how can we work together to accomplish missions. The one thing the SBC was created for yet keeps getting put on the back burner to politics. It is now April, those who have been silent otherwise now come out 3 months before the Convention.
“Majority Baptist theology”??? Why not just say, non-reformed vs. reformed, or Arminianism vs. Calvinism?
Intrigued and encouraged, I await the second installment…
Trey, people wih a Baptist identity don’t define their theology in terms of Arminius or Calvin. Neither was a Baptist. Neither Calvin nor Arminius could affirm the Baptist Faith and Message. Nowhere close. (For starters, we don’t affirm infant baptism). So to call Baptists non-Reformed would be like calling them non-Martian or non-charismatic. It is true that Baptists are not that, but the point is really irrelevant. It’s not what defines us. We are Baptist because we affirm Baptist doctrine.
Brilliant article. Your immediately preceding comment is one of the most profound statements in this regard.
Dr. Lemke,
It seems to me that you and Dr. Whitt seem to go ‘beyond’ the 2000 BF&M as to determine who is a bona fide Southern Baptist. Is that the case?
Shouldn’t the 2000 BF&M be the grand tool for measuring who is or isn’t a bona fide Southern Baptist?
Should one go beyond the 2000 BF&M to determine a ‘majoritarian’ Southern Baptist?
Cordially,
–chadwick
Chadwick,
Thanks for your note. I think you might be mixing categories a little, or not understanding what I was trying to say. First of all, I haven’t advocated anything yet. I am just trying to articulate the distinction that I understood Brad Whitt to be making.
Secondly, you mentioned the BF&M as a guideline for determining whether someone is a “bona fide Southern Baptist.” Yes, affirmation of the BF&M (plus the requisite financial contribution to Baptist causes) would make you a cooperating Southern Baptist theologically and financially, and your church could get to vote at an SBC convention.
The concern that I understand Whitt to be raising, though, is a different issue altogether. As I tried to communicate, Whitt is pointing to a different and “fuzzier” distinction, which though it has some theological/ecclesiological/ethical associations, may be as much about ethos as theology — whether a more traditional Baptist ethos, or a less traditional Baptist ethos (“traditional” not referring just to worship style).
Third, you mentioned “majoritarian Southern Baptists” and the BF&M. Yes, I do think most Baptists believe in the BF&M. The only reference to “majority” in my note was contrasting the “majority Baptist theology” from “Reformed theology.” I guess you could say that the term “majority” is just an empirical judgment based on LifeWay Research statistics, that 90 percent of Southern Baptists are not 5 point Calvinists. So that is just an empirical fact.
Most Baptists do not understand the BF&M to affirm Reformed theology, while many Reformed theologians do. Nonetheless, it is interesting how many Reformed pastors eschew the BF&M on their church website, and instead post either the Philadelphia Confession or the Abstract of Principles, in lieu of the BF&M, as their doctrinal confession. That would seem to be a fairly clear sign that they do not understand the BF&M to affirm their theology. If that is not the case, Reformed Baptists should proudly affirm the BF&M.
So, the “majority” Baptist view has nothing to do with “going beyond” the BF&M. It is affirming a traditional Baptist theology held by the majority of Baptists, as expressed in the BF&M.
I hope you hear me just trying to clarify, and not arguing. Thanks for providing the opportunity to clarify these issues.
Pingback: SBC’s New Calvinism & Patriotic Worship: Part 1 | From Law to Grace
I sincerely hope the leaders of the SBC stand strong in not letting differences divide. This will be the true test of whether we have the right leadership or not. The emphasis getting back to missions. We need to stand strong against going three steps back to where we were and continue to go forward as we are. The next few years will be interesting. If we don’t, or if leaders allow themselves to be railroaded in a power struggle(which face it that is what this is)then the SBC will continue to go downward, if we unify and quit this nonsense we will thrive and accomplish much. But stuff like this needs to stop.
If the BFM is read correctly, both Calvinist Baptists and non-Calvinists can agree with it. Again this is not a us vs. them, but it seems there are those who would make it so. Something I and others predicted would happen 5 years ago. I agree with Chadwick who has said it all quite well.
Bryan –
At the heart of reformed theology is a view that Christ’s death on the cross was “limited” atonement for a predestined, chosen elect who have no will of their own in the matter (a central tenet of Calvinism). The majority of Southern Baptists accept that Christ’s sacrifice was given for all and that there is an “unlimited” entrance His way for those who exercise their free will to believe. While not all those who have a reformed leaning hold such a “hyper” view of the work of the cross, many do. The co-existence of these two views in a single denomination is a paradox to me.
-Max
Dr. Lemke,
Thanks for taking the time to correspond with me on this issue.
I am taking Dr. Whitt’s words (contained in his original article) at face value.
Dr. Whitt stated (in the article that you referenced):
” . . . this new in-charge minority . . . Their theology is different from that which I read in the Bible, and their methodology about how best to reach the world for Jesus is foreign to me as well.”
Whitt has publicly accused some SBC leaders of not having Southern Baptist Theology (i.e. they are not Southern Baptists). He is basically saying that the ‘new in-charge minority’ leaders do not adhere to the 2000 BF&M. THIS IS A SERIOUS ACCUSATION.
-Do you think that Whitt’s accusation is valid?
Cordially,
–chadwick
Dr. Lemke,
I appreciate your efforts to analyze this issue. I do believe you are correct in your assertion that there is a major divide between (at least) two groups. However, I think your nomenclature is (hopefully unintentionally) inflammatory and certainly off-base. In describing those of the more Reformed perspective, you seek to label them as “low to moderate Baptist identity.” Maybe we define “Baptist identity” differently, but I think you are making the practice of exclusive loyalty to the SBC co-terminus with “high Baptist identity,” when such a link is both artificial and untrue. As we both know, the SBC is but a part of the larger family of Baptists, from which we draw on our shared “Baptist distinctives.” You seem to equate “low to moderate Baptist identity” people as Baptists not necessarily beholden to Lifeway/RA’s/CP giving/Guidestone/etc. By no means (and I hope you would agree) does lack of participation with any of these SBC affiliated programs/businesses make one more or less a proponent of “Baptist identity.” To claim someone is a “low Baptist identity” person, I would propose that one would be ambivalent towards specific aspects of what makes us uniquely Baptists, such as the Lordship of Christ, believer’s baptism by immersion, a free church, congregational polity, etc. However, I am unaware of any of these “low to moderate Baptist identity” people you reference as actually rejecting or being ambivalent towards such distinctives. In my opinion, at best you could label the Reformed contingent inside our convention as (possibly) being “low to moderate SBC-only” (this is not a term I am saying best describes this group, but I believe it is certainly more accurate than your term), but I find the label “low to moderate Baptist identity” as wholly unfair and inaccurate descriptor of their position(s). I am wondering if you affirm my critique of your use of this label or if you could offer reasoned justification for equating the term “Baptist identity” solely with the SBC. Thanks for your consideration.
I think anyone who has ever had to mediate church conflict is probably aware of the phenomenon whereby several (potentially dozens) of unrelated or marginally-related issues become interconnected and intertwined as individuals start to “take sides”. People who don’t necessarily have “issues” with all of the issues, tend to take them up until eventually two “camps” emerge. At the height of conflict, if asked, people even within the same “camp” would give divergent lists of reasons for the conflict. They may clearly know which camp they’re identified with, even though they may not be able to articulate why.
That’s a picture of what seems to be happening in convention life and why, Dr. Lemke, your metaphor of parallel and intersecting “fault lines” has the potential of being quite helpful. I’m looking forward to installment number two.
I’m still not sure, though, that I even understand what, ultimately, the original article was about, other than that Whitt feels marginalized–a stranger in his own (Southern Baptist) hometown. He used a handful of examples in his original article and comment stream, all of which illustrate various points of disagreement between different groups of Southern Baptists, but they aren’t necessarily interrelated, and surely don’t identify a single line in the sand over which to form camps. Stetzer interpreted Whitt’s concerns in terms of “traditonal” vs. “contemorary” methods. Commentor Max sees Whitt’s concern as the growth of Calivinism in SBC life. Other bloggers have jumped on the piece as revealing a pro-GCR and anti-GCR divide. I’m sure many state convention leaders were thrilled to read Whitt’s “pro-CP” article. Dr. Lemke reads it as an identity and ethos question. Strange how so many people who read the same article came away with such disparate understandings of the author’s overarching concern.
We would all do well not to circle the wagons around an article that doesn’t clearly articulate any specific thing other than the author’s feelings of marginalization.
Jason,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. As I mentioned in the article, there might be better nomenclature than that which was mentioned, and those who would end up in the “low to moderate Baptist identity” group might not resonate with it, so I’m agreeing with you somewhat. However, again, I was trying to articulate what I understood Whitt to be saying, and I do think that is what he was saying.
I do think your suggestion about “SBC only” is quite revealing, however. It illustrates precisely the kind of concern that Whitt is raising. Yes, it would be characteristic of “high Baptist identity” people that they would focus on SBC only. However, you might have helped point out a further “fuzziness” in the nomenclature, that is, as members of the largest Protestant denomination in North America, we SBCers tend to think of “Baptist” as essentially equated with “SBC.” It’s not, of course, and we all know there are other varieties of Baptists. It is a common substitute, however, just as we typically say “America” when speaking of our country, rather than the more precise answer, “the United States of America.”
So, when you said that we would not necessarily be “beholden to Lifeway/RA’s/CP giving/Guidestone/etc.” to be a “high identity Baptist,” and expressed the hope that “the lack of participation with any of these SBC affiliated programs/businesses make one more or less a proponent of ‘Baptist identity,’” I guess I would have to disagree with you somewhat. I wouldn’t say “beholden” to them, of course, but I would say loyal to them.
Every Baptist (i.e., SBC) church is free to participate as they choose, of course, and it is quite common for churches to opt out of some of these venues—say, choose the Baptist version of Awana over RAs). But yes, we would tend to question whether a church has a high Baptist (i.e., SBC) identity that does not use SBC literature, does not have SBC missions organizations, does not use GuideStone, does not support the IMB or NAMB, does not go to associational, state, and national Baptist (i.e., SBC) meetings, etc. They might be Baptist (i.e., SBC or more broadly Baptist) in doctrinal beliefs, of course, but their ethos does not have a strong Baptist (i.e., SBC) identity.
Furthermore, it is my experience that churches who use other sources for their materials and networking, etc. do not get them from Free Will Baptists or General Baptists or Primitive Baptists, etc., but from other non-Baptist, often non-denominational groups. So I DO think that the engagement that churches have with programmatic aspects of the SBC does reflect something about the intensity of their Baptist identity, or the lack of it. I say this not as some kind of litmus test, but as a general guideline.
Perhaps an analogy is in order. I say I’m a really devoted Houston Astros fan. You ask if I’ve gone to a game this year and I say no. You ask if I went last year, and I say no. You ask if I’ve been in the last three years, and I say, “No, actually, I’ve been to a Rangers game and a Pirates game, but I just haven’t gone over to see a game in Houston.” You ask if I have any Astros T-shirts or pennants, and I say no. You ask if I have an Astros flag posted in my yard, or an Astros bumper sticker on my car, and I say, “No, but we do have a Rangers banner, and I have a Yankees cap.” You ask if I listen to the Astros radio or TV broadcasts regularly, and I say no.
So, in frustration, you say, “Well, then, in what sense are you a devoted Astros fan, if you never do things that strong Astros fans do?” I reply, “Well, I’m an Astro in my heart. I never go to the games or buy their stuff, but I really love them.” As you walk away, assuming you believe the genuineness of my profession of Astros fandom, you’re likely to think to yourself, “Well, he might be an Astros fan, but he’s not a really devoted Astros fan. I would say at best that he is a ‘low to moderate’ Astros fan.” Similarly, that’s what I think Whitt is saying about “low to moderate Baptist identity” churches.
Dr. Lemke,
Thanks for the response. I understand the concept of “Baptist identity” as flowing from my academic study of Baptist theology/history. In that sense, I never wed the concept of “Baptist identity” with the SBC. It’s simply shortsighted and inaccurate. I understand your example of America instead of United States of America, but I would insist that to have a meaningful conversation (which is what I suspect Whitt, you, and others wish to have), we cannot and should not mix these terms. To align oneself as a Baptist, affirming doctrinal distinctives that comprise Baptists, does not necessitate the person affiliate with the SBC. Those churches who comprise the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America are (I speculate) just as committed to historic Baptist principles of doctrine as is the SBC, Freewill Baptists, etc. If Whitt (or others) wish to make the case that (to use your term) “low to moderate Baptist identity” people aren’t loyal to the SBC, they cannot say they have abandoned Baptist distinctives because they do not walk lock-step with the SBC.
You mentioned (my paraphrase of your position) the expectation that SBC churches demonstrate a high level of loyalty to the SBC and her entities/programs. However, such an expectation did not appear to be the case when electing the majority of SBC presidents during the CR. As research has shown, most of the presidents from 1980-2004 (somewhat arbitrary dates but close for proximation) pastored churches that gave paltry percentages to the CP. Many will argue that those presidents were not in agreement with where the convention was at the time, and therefore could not give (much) in good conscience to the CP. However, I do not think the topic is whether we agree with the direction of the convention or her entities, but simply are we ‘loyal’ to the entirety of the SBC. If you (or Whitt) wish to say the Y/R/R group is demonstrating a lack of loyalty, then so have many of our past presidents. But I don’t recall they were ever accused of having a “low Baptist identity.” It appears to me that some wish to have their cake and eat it too.
Max-
I am not sure it is best to describe a view you personally disagree with by describing extreme positions held by some in that system of thought as normative for the whole system of thought. Were that the case, I could describe your position as being best described by universalism or inclusivism, which I’m willing to bet does not accurately describe your beliefs.
I will absolutely agree with you that there are some who hold to Reformed theology who represent that extreme view, but most who are Reformed theologically do not hold to such extreme views.
Limited atonement is a misnomer. A better description is particular atonement. Now, I could argue with you until my face is blue over Reformed theology. But how would that profit either of us? What I would encourage you to do, however, is stop caricaturing views you disagree with. If you disagree with Reformed theology, I understand. But you should correctly and fairly describe the position you disagree with. As a person who would describe themselves as Reformed, I have much I’m sure we disagree about. But we also agree on many things theologically, particularly on things that are of first importance.
I wouldn’t suggest you are a universalist or inclusivist unless you gave me explicit reasons to do so. Please brother, extend such charity to others.
Dr. Lemke,
Thanks for your enlightening article. I look foward to how you will flesh out your argument regarding the fault lines within the SBC. I think you have hit upon something that Brad and I and others have tried to articulate, but you have added yet another nuance. What I have labeled “nominal” Southern Baptists you have called “low to modrate Baptist identity.” What I have labeled “cooperating” Southern Baptists you have called “high Baptist identity.”
While your terms are perhaps not as direct as mine, they nicely capture what the Convention is facing. What some folks do not seem to understand is that there is a large portion of the SBC (perhaps the majority) that would be considered “high Baptist identity.” However, I’m not sure that those folks are on the ascendancy nor are they perhaps as represented on our entity boards and leadership positions, even in a few of our seminaries (NOBTS notwithstanding).
Your analogy of the Houston Atros fan is spot on. I know exactly what you are trying to say. Unfortunately, I believe that in addition to the fault lines, we are speaking at least two different languages in the SBC, with no short-term prospects of bridging that language barrier. Thanks again and God bless,
Howell
Jason,
I agree that electing key officers of the convention who give (in your words) “paltry” percentages to the Cooperative Program is a valid concern. There are other mitigating factors at times (and I intend to mention a few of them in my next post), and thus it does not automatically disqualify them, but it does raise questions. For example, if a new President at NAMB in his last pastorate did not give consistently to the Annie Armstrong offering, which is crucial for NAMB funding, then there will be questions about whether he is in a strong position to exhort others to give sacrificially to AA. Likewise, all things being equal, one might question the appropriateness of an SBC President or officer who gives a small percentage through CP to play such a major role in determining where this money is spent. Again, this is not an automatic disqualifier, and there may be some other mollifying or overriding factors that make him the best person for this position at this time, but it is a cause for concern.
A family was “chewing up” the pastor’s sermon one Sunday at lunch until their younger daughter upbraided them by saying, “What did you expect for 25 cents?” (that they put in the offering plate). It seems like we may have a lot of people in the SBC with a log of opinions about how other people’s money should be spent, but they’re expecting a lot for just contributing 25 cents.
I am not a historian, but from what I’ve read, there have always been Particular (Calvinist) and General (non Calvinist) Baptists. Even in the history of the SBC there have been both types. Why do we feel something is different now? Is any one group saying “my way or the highway”? As I remember, during the CR it turned out that way for the most part, with moderates moving elsewhere, but does anyone feel this is happening now?
Brother John,
I do not believe that anyone is saying it is my way or the highway. However, one can only observed the majority of leadership in the SBC and a concession would have to be made that the newer leadership in place would fall into the neo-Calvinist stripe. Does that mean that we are moving toward Calvinism for our soteriology? For example many of the newer leadership would not be able to affirm this resolution As I have heard one wise leader from the CR state; ‘Southern Baptist have always had a stream of Calvinist and Charismatics, but the SBC has never been Calvinistic nor Charismatic.’ I believe you must agree that it certainly appears we are leaning more into the former in the recent past.
Blessings,
Tim
John,
You mention that you are not an historian; could I suggest that you find a copy of Ernest C. Reisinger’s book entitled… A Quiet Revolution:A Chronicle of Beginnings of Reformation in The Southern Baptist Convention.
He is the founder of … Founder’s Ministries – a ministry that began in 1982 with the purpose of reforming the Southern Baptist Convention.
What changed in the Calvinist & non-Calvinist co-existence [SBC life] is a group that rode the coat tails of the conservative resurgence and once certain men got into places of power … they proceeded with the “Quiet Revolution” of reforming the SBC. I respect them for their dedication to their strategy and ability to network together to accomplish their goals.
Yet, I disagree with their theology and chronicle of SBC history.
On page 34 of Reisinger’s book, he laments the confusion that E.Y. Mullins brought to Southern Baptist life and then states …”What is interesting is that both liberal/moderate Baptists and (for lack of a better phrase) conservative, non-Calvinistic Baptists reflect that theological confusion. For all their differences (which we do not minimize), the two perspectives are alike in that their theologies are inherently unstable. Liberalism runs by nature to an intellectual abandonment of the doctrinal content of the faith.” He predicts that non-Calvinist conservatives will lead Southern Baptists back to liberal theology.
Chapter three of the book is a manual (how to book) for a Calvinistic pastor to follow in reforming a local Southern Baptist Church.
You ask …”Why do we feel something is different now?”
Are you getting a clearer picture?
Blessings!
Tim,
With all due respect, the quote you listed from a “CR leader” is historically and patently wrong. The SBC was thoroughly Calvinistic for at least the first 50 years of her existence. For instance, Landmarkers such as J. R. Graves were thoroughgoing 5 pointers as well as the first president of SWBTS, B. H. Carroll. Of course, this doesn’t mean there were no non-Reformed persons within the convention during the first 50 years. But to say that the SBC ‘has never been Calvinistic’ is simply ignorant of our history. It seems to me that the 90% is afraid that the 10% might swing the convention back to its historical roots. I find it funny that (those formerly monikered as) “BI” guys want the SBC to return to its ecclesiological roots, but not its soteriological ones.
Tim: Look at this comment thread alone. It certainly appears to be a “my way or the highway” message. It has been the message for at least 5 years I’ve been involved.
Dr. Lemke,
If my understanding of SBC polity serves me correctly, the only qualifications for membership within the convention is to give money to the CP ($250/year) and reject any affirmation of homosexuality. If a church meets those two qualifications (regardless of whether they are members of a local associational or state convention), they are welcomed with open arms. After they are in, taking on roles in leadership seems to be either a “who you know” or a “popularity” contest. So, in that sense, the convention can elect whomever they wish. With the election (say of president of the convention or of an entity) comes responsibilities (as you laid out, to guide the appropriation of CP $, encouraging churches to give to various other offerings, etc). It’s not (to use your quasi-hypothetical example) the fault of the president of NAMB that one of his responsibilities is to promote AA even if we know his church didn’t give much to it. He’s simply doing the job he was hired to do. I remember reading somewhere that when Charles Stanley was elected as president in 1984, he stated it may be the first time in the history of the convention that the elected president was a first time attender to the convention. What does that say about choosing ‘high (Southern) Baptist identity’ persons to leadership positions? It seems to have been this way for the past 30 years. Why is it wrong/troublesome only now?
I look forward to reading your second article, as I believe you will lay out specific thoughts and our conversation can be more substantive on those issues.
Blessings,
Jason
Tim,
Your resolution argument baffles me. According to your logic, this resolution defines bona fide Southern Baptists: http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=13
This resolution promotes (gasp) abortion! :shock:
Resolutions do not define bona fide Southern Baptists. The Baptist Faith & Message (along with CP giving, as defined by the by-laws)defines bona fide Southern Baptists.
What can’t the
Baptist Identity Police‘high Baptist Identity’ Group just allow the BF&M & by-laws define who is or isn’t a bona fide Southern Baptist?Cordially,
–chadwick
Pingback: The Shot Heard ‘Round the SBC (Part B) :: SBC Today
Pingback: The Shot Heard ‘Round the SBC (Part C) :: SBC Today
Repentance precedes faith? Really? It doesn’t surprise me that Calvinists don’t believe that. What surprises me is that anyone believes it.
Pingback: The Shot Heard ‘Round the SBC (Part D) :: SBC Today
“Trey, people wih a Baptist identity don’t define their theology in terms of Arminius or Calvin.”
I agree with this statement to an extent, but as a young and thoroughly baptist layman, I do identify my soteriology as consistent with Calvinism, and use the label for the sake of discussion and reference, just like “baptist”. Calvinism could not accurately describe any baptist’s theological compendium, but serves as a label for our views concerning election and predestination. I will not post baptist forefather quotes utilizing the term exactly as I do because Im sure a self proclaimed authority on baptist identity, such as yourself, has read material by broadus, boyce, spurgeon, Strong, graves, robertson, judson, chambers, and scores of others who use the term as a general soteriological reference. Your statement above was a response to Trey’s question. I would like to ask you a similar, hopefully more probing, question and provide my assumption in case you dont have time to respond. Why didnt you contrast “majoritarian” baptist theology with “minoritarian” baptist theology? It seems only fair to use like, relative terms. The problem, however, is that people would have no idea what in the world you were talking about and this inherently propagandistic phrase, “majoritarian baptist”, would then be exposed for its paucity of common sense!
“Im so baptist” by David Campbell
Im so baptist… I wonder if my marriage is valid sense it wasnt performed under the auspices of a genuine NT baptist church!!!
Im so baptist… You can probably forget about EVER taking the Lords supper with me!!!
Im so baptist… I wish the Briders were right!!!
Im so baptist… The body of Christ is the local new testament church!!!
Im so baptist… Though a historically majoritarian Southern Baptist, I would rather read B.H. Carrolls “ecclesia” than Calvin’s institutes on Providence!!!
Bust most of all….
Im so baptist… I believe faith in His virgin birth, His sinless life, His substitutionary sacrifice, His death, burial and bodily resurrection. Yes, faith in this gospel and none other, followed by scriptural baptism, in the order of John, into a biblically organized church of God in Christ submitting to Him and Him alone as its Head… Yes, Im so distinctively baptist that I LOVE my brothers with whom I share these doctrines, and regardless of soteriological persuasion!!!
Christ died for sinners my brothers!!! Lets go tell the world!!!
Brother David,
“Christ died for sinners my brothers!!” We agree, but not completely. The basis of Baptist theology is that Christ died for all sinners!!!! Lets go tell the world!!! As the old hymn of the faith says; “Make the message clear and plain; Christ receiveth sinful man.”
Now, if you can affirm the all (1 John 2:2) we completely agree. If not, then it seems your theology appears to be based more on man’s systematized understanding of God’s Word than on God’s Word.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Chad,
Sorry, I missed your comment. No, my resolution clearly expresses what the BF&M 2k study committee took into account as they updated the 1925 & 1963 BF&M. Thus, it would be proper to understand the committee had the ’31 resolution at their disposal to enable them as they arrived at Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I respect you a great deal and have enjoyed reading many things you have offered. If you only desire uniting for missions with modified 4-point arminians like yourself, thats completely fine by me. I believe the basis of baptist theology is so much more than the extent of the atonement, however, history proves the founders of our great convention were decidely Calvinist. Arguments against this truth have the same weight as JM Carrolls trail of blood. I would engage your misguided and logically redundant interpretation of “all” in I John 2:2 if that word were actually in the verse. I hold an authentic baptist identity with a healthy understanding of Gods electing grace. You on the other hand, have a watered down 2nd half of the twentieth century “buddy Jesus” baptist identity that is only one point away from full blown arminianism. Many young baptist bible students are embracing our original majoritarian southern baptist roots, our Sovereign Grace roots, and not the spikey bleach haired pansy ones either. Im afraid you better learn to work with us… We are the borg..resistance is futile.
Tim,
The ’31 resolution contradicts the BF&M. It states:
“and that in the plan of salvation repentance, philosophically and scripturally, uniformly precedes faith.”
According to the resolution, repentance precedes faith. :???:
Where in the BF&M do you get that repentance precedes faith? :shock:
Cordially,
–chadwick
Brother David,
If you want to deny all means whole that is ok, I will use the term whole. John says the death of Jesus on the cross was to satisfy the wrath of God toward sin and not just for “our”…but for the “whole”. Now, any interpretation of whole as anything but whole is a man centered systematized theology forced on Scripture.
Brother Chad,
to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. The position you are trying to catch me on, thus your little emoticon, is that regeneration precedes faith. Now your are calling me on repentance and faith. I never said that repentance was separate from faith, I said regeneration and faith are simultaneous events. Regeneration does not happen until repentance has taken place.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
You stated:
“Regeneration does not happen until repentance has taken place.”
WOW! What a claim! :shock:
–chadwick
Chad,
Ok, you got me. 8)
Blessings,
Tim
Chadwick,
I’m surprised that you would marvel that repentance precedes regeneration. I would commend for your reading the proclamation of the early church. I.e., “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins…”
Sorry Steve, your proof text reply to Chadwick has nothing to do with the question of precedence. Unless you are equating regeneration with baptism, which I KNOW you aren’t.
Repent and be baptized or, repent and believe; neither influence the ordus salutis.
I finally came to the conclusion that given the fallen and dead nature, regeneration MUST precede repentance and faith because dead men can’t save them selves.
I don’t expect to change your mind, just giving a little glimpse into what changed mine.
Tim,
I understand your position clearly and wish to apologize for my haught and prideful post in regards to you, and also Dr. Lemke. I just dont think what makes “the heart of a baptist” significantly involves one’s view of election or the extent of the atonement. These discussions involving Calvinism et al serve in deflecting fruitful discussion about how to best remedy the decline in baptist distinctives within the convention, regarding the twenty somethings my age. I really hope this writers of the blog will use it as a vehicle to accomplish the mission statement of the blog. I thought the purpose was to “restore” baptists back to being baptist, or at least explicate what it means to be baptist. I felt God leading me to a sbc church, but was hesitant, believing the SBC wasnt distinctively baptist and had forsaken the ways of our forefathers. That was until He led me to follow you guys on SBCToday. I realized there was at least a remnant of baptists by conviction, and recognized there was a movement. I was saddened that you engaged me after I attempted to unite on the grounds of being Baptist, but I notice that I fired first. Forgive me. I pray that those who are baptist by conviction within the SBC, would stop quibling over Calvinism and join forces before my generation turns the SBC into something unrecognizable. As long as we are busy going tit for tat about soteriology, our ecclesiology will go by the wayside, and I think ecclesiology is the right atrium of a baptist. Enough rambling, I just wish that guys like you would dp more to accomadate Calvinists, that way they wouldnt run to inauthentic baptists like John Piper and Ed Stetzer, and non-baptists such as CJ Mahaney.
David Campbell
P.S. When will SBCToday develop a strategy to organize the mission boards in a way that allows more direct local church influence and accountability? Guess that is just the Graves in me
coming out, but I really wish there was a group with influence dedicated to that cause.
When you read all of the comments this comes to mind, “How can two walk together unless they be agreed?” The answer, “They can not.” The differences in doctrine will eventually play out in your church and friction will occur as in my previous church when a reformed teacher told Bible school age children some of them would probably not be chosen to go to heaven. This happened because the pastor had decided to give calvinism a platform in the church and the calvinists became bold in their teaching. This church is now on the decline. I
I appreciate this article and look forward to reading the rest of this series.
I find myself firmly planted in both High and moderate-to-low, camps. Uneqivocating in my division. (humor) I pastor a traditional church with traditional worship. I support and encourage support of the IMB, NAMB, and state and locat affiliations. We RARELY buy Lifeway VBS matterial but use exclusively Lifeway SS material.
I am a Calvinistic Baptist.
[And Bryan, let me say a hearty THANK YOU for engaging Max so graciously. He means well, I'm sure, but maybe he doesn't know that there have been two streams in SBC life since its beginning: Calvinistic and moderately Calvinistic. (Arminianism sould be a stretch for most of the non-calvinistic leaders of old.)]
So where do I fall in? (or fall-out) Why does Whitt feel irrelevant? The original discussion of relevance had to do with our impact on the society around us as I understand it. I suggest we be more concerned about being relevant as we impact our communities for Christ than relevant in the denomination. Just a thought.
Charles, I highly doubt that any Reformed teacher told some children that some of them would not be chosen to go to Heaven.
Dr. Lemke, what you mean “majority Baptist theology” is Dispensational, 4-point Arminianism. The theological terms are set and unavoidable. You may not like to use the terms, because it causes you to face and examine your traditions and their origin. Reformed Baptists are aware of our own traditions, and thus we can examine them critically. Those who refuse to examine or even recognize their own traditions are enslaved to them. I ask, can you affirm the 1689 London Baptist Confession? Or how about the 1646 London Baptist Confession? Historically, they represent the majority Baptist viewpoint.
By the way, the Baptist Faith and Message says that regeneration and repentance are simultaneous. I’m surprised that you are saying that repentance precedes regeneration.
I didn’t mean to sound too argumentative here. I just wanted to respond to the use of the term “majority Baptist theology”. It is true, though, that Dispensational 4-point Arminianism is the majority theological viewpoint in the SBC.
Nicholas -
Why do you highly doubt Charles’ assertion about what a reformed teacher taught children in his church? Were you there?
I also was a member of a reformed church at one time. Here is a list of things we were taught from the pulpit by our *reformed* pastor:
1. Never sing “Jesus Loves Me” to your Children. Some of them may be non elect, and
Jesus does not love the non elect.
2. Never sing “Jesus Loves the little Children” to your kids. Jesus hates some children
because they are the non elect.
3. Never tell a woman who has miscarried that her baby is in heaven. The baby may
be part of the non elect, and so may have gone straight to Hell.
4. Jesus died only for the elect, which are pre chosen by God.
5. At a “children’s church” meeting, the children were ACTUALLY told that some of
them had been pre chosen for Hell, and others pre chosen for Heaven. And that
there was nothing they could do about it, and nothing there parents could do about
it. And if you don’t like that theology, you are a rebellious person with a man centered theology who is most likely not elect. But, hey kids, let’s just all praise the Lord now.
6. We were taught that we ONLY pray because we are told to in the Bible. But, since
everything in life is already determined (God is the prime mover behind ALL acts
on earth), prayer is basically meaningless, and is a simple act of obedience, nothing
more.
So, having experienced all this in my own ex church, I have no doubt about the veracity of Charles’ experiences. And no, I do not agree that we can all just get along regardless of our stance with regard to Calvinism. If any one ever looks at any of my kids again, and tells them that God may not love them because they may not be part of the elect, I can assure you that I will not just be “getting along” with them.