Advisory team seeks to avert SBC split on Calvinism

PDF of document attached

These are wonderful days to be a Calvinist and a Southern Baptist. The conservative renewal has also brought a strong wave of historic Baptist Calvinism to the SBC.

These are tough days to be a Calvinist and a Southern Baptist. The anti-calvinistic backlash is strong. Many of the “old guard” conservative Southern Baptists resent and fear the new wave of Calvinism.

This is one of those times when I’m glad I’m not in the SBC. As independent Baptists, our church can chart our own course without having to play the “co-operation” game. Of course there is a similar situation among IFB‘ers, but at least we’re not tied to the anti-calvinists with mandatory co-operative missions. We are free to support missionaries who represent our doctrinal understanding, and let those who embrace a more arminian theology enlist support from like-minded churches. It’s a more peaceful arrangement.

I’m completely with you on that one Pastor Barkman. Well said.

You both are right about the advantage for local assemblies who are independent, conservative, etc - that is being able to choose which ministry partners we will have based on the theological and philosophical “belief’s” for our independent ministries. I would agree with both of you on that. A quick follow-up - straight up question - no tricks here -

I wonder though if the SBC brothers are not doing something that we “Independents” could learn from - uh - they’re talking to each other - nicely.

Notice - these guys are sitting down and actually working through the disagreements they have with Calvinism/Not-Calvinism.

Take this flap over the Northland deal. Why couldn’t the three or four different major sides to the NIU do the same kind of thing? When was the last time you heard of “Independents” who slice and dice unity - separation - cooperation - not cooperating - etc…….differently try to do this kind of thing? With the same commitment to unity? (I remember back in the 90’s when Lansdale did some of this in their leadership conferences - which were fantastic by the way).

No - it’s easier just to stay comfortable in our own office/world/camp/orb/etc…….and throw stones at each other. So again - I agree with you both on the front side - however, I’d love to see “us” try to do this sort of thing.

A thought.

Straight Ahead!

jt

ps - I can already hear the first question, “Joel…..who is ‘us’?!”

It could be that sometimes “we” find it easier to separate from a brother than to undertake the work it takes to get along with members of The Body that are different than we are.

Uniformity is easier than unity.

[G. N. Barkman]

These are tough days to be a Calvinist and a Southern Baptist. The anti-calvinistic backlash is strong. Many of the “old guard” conservative Southern Baptists resent and fear the new wave of Calvinism.

Resent and fear? Is it possible they just really believe Calvinism is wrong?

Joel,

I think it is a false analogy to compare this document to the situation at NIU. A better analogy would be to compare what has happened at Louisiana College. There is a difference between a theological discussion in abstract and conflict over the control and direction of an institution.

I am not trying to minimize the effort to work for unity in the SBC over these issues—I think there can and should be fellowship across this doctrinal difference. It is important to recognize, though, that there is a lot of unrest on the ground level, particularly when it comes to control of SBC entities.

To draw a comparison, even if we could somehow put together a group of representatives from the various circles of fundamentalists to forge a document on how 21st century believers should accept one another while allowing room for differing personal convictions, it would not mean that fights like the NIU one would not happen. The SBC is proof of that.

Just to clarify my earlier agreement, I would extend my concern to a whole range of ministry philosophy issues. IOW, there are a lot of things happening under the sponsorship of the CP that are not just inconsistent with, but contrary to, what our church believes doctrinally and ministerially. This is the part of the CP that it seems that folks seldom consider.

Dave,

That was helpful to hear you say “there is a difference between a theological discussion in abstract vs. control and direction of an institution.” Great point. I also get your last point about disagreements with the sponsorship of CP on grounds that go beyond just doctrinal - but rather philosophical. Again, that’s fair. My underlining thought was you are right - the SBC will continue to wrestle over the “Calvinism - Not Calvinism” issue but at least they are trying to forge a workable consensus on how they continue while still having those differences. Frankly I love the scenario you painted - I know it was a theoretical concept but that is my point exactly. Conservative independents (Be they what I call Type A, B or C or others for those who don’t care for the scale) have fought and wrestled so much with the issues that have framed much of the discussions around the situation at NIU that I think such a document and process (and the recording/documentation of that process) would have a helpful benefit. BTW, my suggestion wasn’t so much limited to the NIU situation as much as using the NIU deal as a catalyst/opportunity to bring respected thinkers together. It would do us well in my view to bring three or four approaches together and have an honest and rigorous discussion as to what the Scriptures say on unity/separation and the implications of those texts….in light of the ecclesiastical context of the day. Some of this was done at Lansdale when you and Kevin met with Dever. I’d like to see more of that and more conceptual interaction based on again the Scriptures that deal with the concepts here. I understand my desire on this may be more idealistic than realistic. Thanks for your involvement in the discussion.

Straight Ahead!

jt

This is an excellent document. I wholeheartedly agree with Joel that this document should help fundamentalists realize that there is time for conversation, not stone throwing. There certainly are times where hard decisions need to be made, but these decisions should always follow discussion. No, I’m not talking about NIU here.

I especially appreciated how the document highlighted the common ground in doctrine between both camps, while highlighting the tension in how the two camps understand the outworking of this doctrine.

Joel,

I think, in addition to the difference between an abstract discussion and institutional control, that another difference here touches on the topic being debated. For short-hand purposes, the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate has been happening for centuries, not decades, and the debate centers on the interpretation of Scripture.

In contrast, how American churches relate to the culture around it is a much younger debate and it more often than not isn’t about the interpretation, but the application of Scripture.

For example, debating what Ephesians 1:3 means widely recognized controls—most importantly the very words of the text itself. Sure there are probably loads of interpretations, but the consensus regarding possible valid ones gets narrowed down quickly and the discussion can move forward between reasonable people.

Even when two people agree on biblical teaching regarding worship, for example, there comes the tricky matter of making choices and applications. Sadly, many people seem unable to grasp the distinction between principle and their applications, so the debate gets that much more complicated.

I guess my point is that it is a lot easier to discussion a topic which has historical boundaries (e.g., 5 major points at which the sides disagree), an objective baseline for debate (e.g., biblical texts), and discussion participants who have been trained, at least to some degree, for discussing the text.

This is why, I think, we are better leaving the issue to local assemblies to decide for themselves not only how they will handle the issue internally, but also how they will relate to the choices of other assemblies. In other words, if Harding wants to rock, that’s their choice. If you remain stuck in your Bach mode, fine. We will just keep doing the biblical, balanced, right thing.

So Dave what I hear you saying is in addition to the abstract vs. institutional difference you are raising another difference - namely that the items related to the NIU “happenings” are largely application or implication oriented. In other words we are in agreement “in the main” on various “doctrine” or “teaching” but we differ on application. Added to that point, you seem to mix in the aid of historical theology - and considering there isn’t much of a historical record (especially in comparison to the Calvinism - Arminianism discussion) for the issues impacting the NIU “situation,” in the end we simply allow each congregation/ministry/leaders to decide for itself where it stands.

So that’s a Tetreau re-cap of a Doran post….I hope I did that justice.

So - on the surface that sounds right.

Where it may be harder in reality is when guys like Harding and Tetreau are sitting next to each other on the same board - and the ministries they represent both have “skin in the game.” At a time like that - I don’t think you can just say “well to each his own.” In that kind of a case the diversity means we are going to have to work through the various views and come to some kind of consensus. When consensus is needed I still think that this approach the SBC guys have taken on the Calvinism issue is a good template.

Dave - thanks for taking the time to interact on this. My best to the Alma Mater (doesn’t that mean something like “nourishing mother” in Latin?)

Straight Ahead!

jt