In the Town of New Orleans, Part 3

The ghosts of blogging past made some appearances at the SBC Annual Meeting this year:

1. Dave Miller is the first blogger (to my knowledge) to be elected to SBC national office. That's an interesting and significant development, I think. I don't know that it represents a major change in the way that Southern Baptists view bloggers, since factors specific to this year may have played a significant role. Then again, maybe it does represent a change, since…

2. Marty Duren was present at the convention as a paid employee of Lifeway. The outsider blogger has now been assimilated. :-) Maybe a history of blogging doesn't really amount to a roadblock for anything you want to do in the SBC.

3. The (in)famous "Garner motion" made an appearance at the convention, as well. Back in 2007, SBC blogging erupted in interpretive warfare over whether the BF&M was a "maximal" or "minimal" doctrinal statement for Southern Baptists. The "Garner motion" was like a Rorschach test. Some people suggested that it reinforced the "maximal" viewpoint—that the convention was saying thereby that our entities could expect people to adhere to the BF&M, but to no more than the BF&M. Others (including myself) maintained that the motion actually backed up the "minimal" viewpoint—that the convention was saying that our entities must expect their employees to adhere AT LEAST to the BF&M and could have additional doctrinal requirements beyond that minimal standard.

   This year's resolution "ON COOPERATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION" made specific reference to the Garner motion:

   WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention in 2007 affirmed The Baptist Faith and Message as a consensus confession, but not a comprehensive confession, seeking to unify Southern Baptists, local churches, and other Baptist bodies that may also hold other confessions of faith. (emphasis mine)

   And so, now the messengers of the SBC are on record affirming the interpretation of the Garner Motion that I supported all along. The BF&M is our "minimal" "consensus confession" upon which we all agree. Our churches and our entities "may also hold other [additional] confessions of faith." Some of our churches or entities may be more Calvinistic and may affirm the Abstract of Principles or the Second London Confession. Other churches or individuals might affirm something like the "Traditional Statement" as an alternative soteriology to Calvinism. I suppose, if an entity can affirm the Abstract of Principles, an entity could also affirm the "Traditional Statement" and make affirmation of it a requirement for employment, although no entity is going to do that. The point is that, the individual variations of our churches and entities notwithstanding, we are unified by the fact that we all affirm the common core of doctrine that is the Baptist Faith & Message and then we have freedom to go beyond that.

   Well, that was precisely what I and others were saying all along about the Garner motion. It was nice to see Southern Baptists owning that view of the Garner motion as their own through the adoption of this resolution.

In the Town of New Orleans, Part 2

At 8:30 am on June 19, 2012, most of the people attending the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in New Orleans had never heard of R. Richard Tribble. By 9:00 am, everyone attending knew who he was. Mr. Tribble, in the intervening thirty minutes, made four motions from the floor of the convention and successfully overturned a parliamentary ruling by Parliamentarian Barry McCarty.

And a great many of the rest of us SBC messengers descended into snarkiness. Richard Tribble's name became a byword and a punchline among Southern Baptists in the span of a half-hour. And I joined in.

I'm writing this post to repent of that.

Tribble didn't, that I could tell, make any motions that were utterly ridiculous. None of his actions from the floor were self-serving, that I know of. He made no motion that was hateful or dripping with scorn or disdain. Any of his motions, had they come from some duly elected blue-ribbon panel of the convention, would likely have passed and been heralded as important steps forward.

I didn't favor any of his motions and I voted against them all, but they weren't unreasonable. Nor was he.

During the nickname debate, I happened to sit behind and make the acquaintance of two people who knew Tribble (or at least who purported to know more about him than I did). They told me that he was a parliamentarian himself, and that he had been studying the nickname proposal for nine months in order to defeat it. Alas, Tribble doomed his own efforts in a few critical ways.

First, he failed to appreciate the differing roles of parliamentary law and public persuasion in our Southern Baptist system. He needed to have chosen one item as the focus of his efforts. His offering of four motions in the first business session was a political mistake: By the time he got the chance to argue any of his points, people had categorized him and were no longer prepared to take him seriously. If you want to do anything at the SBC, realistically you get one chance every few years to step up to the microphone and actually be heard.

Second, he failed to appreciate the role of history in our decision-making. Wiley Drake has defined a stereotype in Southern Baptist thinking of this era. Many Southern Baptists do not believe that Drake's second-vice-presidency reflected well upon our convention. Tribble's flooding of the first business session with motions put him into the same category as Drake in the minds of many Southern Baptists. Generally speaking, that was not advantageous to him in gaining a hearing for his motions.

I was with a group of fellow Southern Baptists who spotted Tribble on Wednesday and began to discuss him. I got up from the group and walked over to introduce myself to him and meet him. He seemed a reasonable enough fellow, although the strain of his warfare and repeated defeat at microphone 6 had obviously taken its toll on his demeanor a bit. He was a serious man, and I think he meant nothing but good for our convention.

I needed to look into my own heart and consider why I reacted to Tribble the way that I did. He brought no more proposals to us for our consideration, after all, than did the GCR committee two years ago. Could it be that most of us Southern Baptists have descended into a subtle elitism? Could it be that we have in our minds a list of the true leaders of our convention, and that we'll take seriously only their ideas and their motions? When a simple rank-and-file Southern Baptist comes to the microphone with lots of ideas about how our convention might work better, are we annoyed that hoi polloi are stepping out of their place?

Are we really congregationalists? Do we really believe that it all starts at the local church? Do we truly affirm the right of any messenger from any congregation to come to the microphone and make his case? Are we sincere in stating that the headquarters for our mission is in the local congregations and that our denominational grandees are the servants of all?

Our treatment of R. Richard Tribble might give us pause on these matters. I know it did for me.

In the Town of New Orleans, Part 1

I'll react to our SBC 2012 Annual Meeting in New Orleans in several parts. For the first installment, I'll deal with the most significant thing that happened at the meeting: The election of Fred Luter as our President. Below are some random, barely organized thoughts about what we've just seen.

1. Southern Baptists are JUBILANT about this. Fred Luter received a lengthy standing ovation upon his election. This wasn't—not at all—done begrudgingly. The SBC didn't elect Fred Luter as a part of kowtowing to any hostile pressure from any activist group. Southern Baptists have not had to compromise doctrinally in order to take a bold step forward racially. Nobody made Southern Baptists do this; Southern Baptists did this of their own accord.

   And friends, that's the way it ought to happen. If we'd elected a black president a decade ago, but had done so in a half-hearted fashion or under pressure, that would have been progress, but it wouldn't have been as much of an accomplishment as this year was. I'd rather change hearts a decade later than force an insincere change in actions a decade earlier. Southern Baptists have elected a black president, and we have done so in a manner that truly bespeaks our character and that leaves us with a taste for more, I predict.

2. Once again, SBC life and secular politics are moving on parallel tracks. I've argued before that, for much of our history, the Southern Baptist Convention has been in sync with major movements in broader American society. For example, our Conservative Resurgence occurred roughly simultaneously with the "Reagan Revolution" in American secular politics.

   It may strike my readers as strange, considering the (historically bad) nature of President Obama's presidency and the low level of support that President Obama has within the SBC, to encounter a suggestion that Fred Luter's election has anything to do with Barack Obama's election. And yet, I think this is a strange coincidence indeed if it is merely coincidence. Before the 2008 Obama election, I heard people suggesting that they personally were not opposed to having a black president, but that they weren't sure that the country was "ready" to elect one. Was anyone saying the same thing about the SBC presidency? I don't know.

   But I do know this: Nobody could make that argument credibly after the Obama election. I think that President Obama's election was an historic turning-point that changed even the people who don't support his radical left-wing statist politics.

3. The most important audience for this action isn't CNN. I know that a lot of us are secretly hoping somewhere in our inmost being that this action will win us some love and respect from mainstream media and cultural elites. Well, you can forget that. Liberal America hates the Southern Baptist Convention and will do so unless and until we abandon biblical Christianity.

   If the folks at CNN aren't the most important audience, then who needs to know that Southern Baptists have elected Fred Luter? The kids in your youth group, pastor—they need to know. They're going to hear the argument that churches are racist, and those kids absolutely are not racists and will need to know how to respond. They need to know that Southern Baptists are not racists. You need to report back to your congregation with a Powerpoint slideshow and you need to make certain that the people in your congregation see a photograph of the new SBC President. The black children and children of other ethnicities in my congregation need to see that they're not attending somebody else's church but are instead a part of a family that includes them.

   Along those lines, I want to encourage Fred Luter to continue Bryant Wright's tradition of recording video messages addressed to Southern Baptists. In contrast to what happened with Wright's messages, we SBC pastors need to look for opportunities to put Fred Luter's videos in front of our church members with some regularity (email newsletters, show them on the big screen, perhaps?) Especially if we serve in churches where everyone on the platform is white, we need to seize this opportunity to put someone of another color "on the platform" where we can.

4. Where do we go from here, as it concerns racial diversity? The long-term future for Southern Baptists, I hope, does not consist of the recruitment of more black churches into our convention. That's not where we need to be going, long-term. Black churches are welcome in the SBC, but we need a higher vision than that. There ought not to be such a thing as a black church or a white church. In the long run, the black church and the white church alike are dead ends, destined to extinction. We need to find racial unity on Sunday morning by worshipping and witnessing and covenanting together within congregations. When we do that (and the transformation is already underway!) then the makeup of our Southern Baptist institutions will necessarily follow all the more.

Traditionalist Troublemakers? The Truth

On May 30, 2012, Dr. Eric Hankins introduced what he called "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation" in this post. In response, the dormant Southern Baptist blogging world shook itself awake. Hundreds of Southern Baptists signed the document. I did not. I gave my own reasons here.

In conversations online and offline with people from many segments of SBC life, I've heard so many people say, "This timing isn't an accident. They're going to do something at the convention. These people are up to no good. You know they're planning to take some divisive action against Calvinists at the SBC."

Well, the convention is now halfway over, and we've had a chance to see who's being divisive. The proponents and signatories of the "Traditional Statement" have, to my knowledge, done NOTHING with the statement at this convention. They haven't made motions related to it. They haven't submitted resolutions related to it. They haven't made speeches about it from the convention floor. They haven't hosted after-parties to debate it or discuss it or rally support for it.

NOTHING.

That's not to say that the statement hasn't come up. There has been at least one motion AGAINST the statement. It has been mentioned multiple times from the convention platform in philippics decrying division among the brethren. Every side has had its say about the statement—directly or indirectly—except for the people who are actually behind the statement.

I just thought that these facts ought to be entered formally into evidence. Maybe some people owe an apology to Dr. Eric Hankins and a host of other signatories to the statement. They said that they were just putting out a statement to articulate their views. As it turns out, they have been true to their word and will leave New Orleans with their integrity intact.

James MacDonald, Convictional Baptist?

James MacDonald just delivered what I thought was a very good sermon in the SBC 2012 Pastors Conference. In general, I would say that the program has been superb, and I'm very thankful for Grant Ethridge and the entire Pastors Conference team.

MacDonald said that he is a "Baptist by conviction," and immediately after the sermon, Ethridge asked that Kevin Ezell go back to the Green Room and sign MacDonald up into the SBC. I couldn't help but recall, as that conversation was transpiring, MacDonald's declaration last year that "Congregational Government is from Satan." I want to be a man who passes over opportunities to tear down a brother, but I also want to be a man who takes opportunities to teach. In the latter interest, and not in the former, I contribute the following:

1. Being a Congregationalist is a condicio sine qua non of being a "Baptist by Conviction." The Baptist movement is an ecclesiological movement. Congregationalism comes in bewildering variety, but Congregationalism in the broad sense is part of what it means to be a Baptist. Congregationalism is one of the things about which we feel a Bible certainty. That's why the Baptist Faith & Message is direct and clear on the matter.

   It's important to say so, not to hate on James MacDonald, but because we Southern Baptists are great at forgetting what makes us who we are. This episode in his life is a chance to remind all of my Southern Baptist readers that we are congregationalists, and that those who are not congregationalists are not us, even though we may love and appreciate those outside our fold.

2. Although I disagree with MacDonald's argument against Congregationalism, I am actually sympathetic toward it. MacDonald's major motivation throughout the article, it seems to me, is the statement that he made as his fourth reason, "Congregationalism Crushes Pastors."

   Who can argue with that?

   Last week I spent several hours with a young man who claims to be a Christian but is not in church. He began to tell me that he had had some bad experiences in churches. I love it when people tell me that, as though I could not possibly relate, since I'm a pastor. Nobody knows about bad experiences in churches better than pastors do. I sympathize with MacDonald, because I too have seen men who wanted and tried to be a good pastor who have been crushed in congregationalist church processes.

   But maybe churches weren't created primarily for the comfort of pastors. Maybe Jesus' intention was not to put a big red "Easy" button on the desks of pastors. Maybe, as men like Stan Norman have been declaring for years, the congregationalist system has biblical advantages for the task of discipleship, which I think IS the Great Commission purpose of the church.

   If you conclude that congregations exist at the pleasure of pastors, then congregationalism is not going to be your preferred form of church polity. If, however, you believe that pastors exist at the pleasure of Christ's body, then I think that much of MacDonald's argument will be unpersuasive to you. But it is unescapable that all of us who love the Lord and who love His church will mourn over the ways that Satan has wounded pastors (who are disciples, too, after all) and scandalized them. Some of them, perhaps, needed to be pruned out of a ministerial role in which they had no business to begin with, but some of them have been driven out by wicked men, and that's an unavoidable truth. My heart, just like MacDonald's, is grieved over that, and although I think that he has drawn wrongful conclusions about the matter, I am thankful for his sympathetic heart toward struggling pastors.

3. Pastors need accountability. Episcopal and Presbyterial government is used by Satan, as well, and others have already made this point well, so I need not belabor it. Ecclesial dictatorships are not biblical.

By the way, I have not undertaken to rebut MacDonald's unsupported claim that congregationalism is unbiblical, but I will happily direct you to Jonathan Leeman's well-written article, which addresses that question toward the end.

Perhaps MacDonald has changed his mind about congregational church government. If so, then welcome to the SBC, Pastor MacDonald! But I do think it is important that we—as cordially as is possible—remember and reiterate that we are congregationalists.

Developments in the Race for Second Vice President

Since I posted my endorsements previously, two new candidates have entered the race for Second Vice President.

Dave Miller, Iowa blogger and principal at SBC Voices, will be nominated by blogger Alan Cross. Brad Atkins, president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention, will be nominated by Johnny Touchet.

I'll still be voting for Dr. Eric Hankins, for the reasons that I have already mentioned in prior posts.

John Nance Garner would likely be surprised to see what a coveted office the Second Vice Presidency of the SBC has become this year. It's not possible for the Second Vice Presidency to overshadow our historic presidential election this year, but it appears likely that Nathan Lino's election as First Vice President will not attract the attention that the contested 2VP race will draw.

What may be shaping up is an election that is more a referendum on various ongoing questions in the SBC than it is a decision among the men involved. Atkins's candidacy will likely be evaluated in the light of his unprecedented appearance at February's SBC Executive Board meeting in an attempt to take money away from SBC seminaries and give it to the IMB. That this motion was unpopular among seminaries is perhaps unsurprising, but even the IMB recognized this as a bad idea, formally requesting that it not be adopted.

Hankins is a rising young voice in the SBC whose candidacy will probably be taken as a referendum on his very excellent Resolution on the "Sinner's Prayer" and the "Statement on Traditional Southern Baptist Soteriology." The statement has garnered hundreds of signatures from across the SBC but has also raised the hackles of many Calvinists within the convention.

Miller has characterized his candidacy as being representative of Southern Baptists outside the stronger states in the SBC. Also, he has a long tenure of blogging and has built many relationships in that venue.

While we're speaking about elections, I'm pleased to announce that Parliamentarian Barry McCarty has crafted some maneuver within Roberts Rules of Order by which we will all be able to vote or otherwise participate in the election of Fred Luter. Since Luter is unopposed, normal procedure would be for the Recording Secretary simply to cast the convention's ballot without the messengers being able to vote. I'm delighted that I'll be given the chance to affirm Luter's election.

Endorsements, Part 3

Resolution on the Sinner's Prayer

I support Eric Hankins's "Resolution on the 'Sinner's Prayer'" and encourage you to vote for it.

• The text of the resolution
• My previous post "Sacred Vows and the Sinner's Prayer".

Endorsements, Part 2

Dwight McKissic's Resolution on Mormon Racism

I'm giving an entire post just to this resolution. We need to support this resolution. Here's why.

1. It puts secular politics into its proper place.

   It took me a few years to escape the Democrat upbringing that I received in Northeast Arkansas, but since the Democrats succeeded in convincing me that they were making no place for a pro-life Christian in their party (during the Bill Clinton administration), I have never voted for any kind of presidential candidates other than Republican presidential candidates. I want Mitt Romney to win Barack Obama to lose in November. That really needs to happen.

   But, doggone it, if we won't say something negative about Mormonism just because the Republican presidential hopeful is a Mormon, then we've sold our souls and God help us! This resolution will not affect the electoral outcome in November one tenth of a percentage point. We need to speak the critical truth about this lethal cult right now—precisely when it is embarrassing to a GOP candidate—just to prove to ourselves, to the watching world, and to the GOP that we're committed enough to the truth over politics to do so.

2. It puts denominational politics into its proper place.

   Dwight McKissic and I have squared off against one another in denominational politics. More than once. But, brothers and sisters, Dwight McKissic is not my enemy. He's just wrong in public more than his fair share. ;-) But I manage to wind up in the same situation with some frequency, so I suppose I'm the pot calling the kettle black here.

   And so, it's important to note it, folks, that even if you've generally fallen on the other side of things from Dwight McKissic with some regularity, an idea is not bad just because Dwight McKissic was its originator. Whatever feelings of denominational politics Dwight's resolution might engender in you, his resolution about Mormonism is a good idea. The committee should expand it, I think, and make it a full-fledged resolution against the many offenses and errors of Mormonism. Certainly there is no denominational dust-up we've ever had that is as important as telling the truth about this insidious, damning heresy called Mormonism.

3. McKissic has his facts straight and the resolution is historically solid.

4. Playing kissy-kissy, nice-nice with Mormonism is idiotic as an evangelistic and apologetic strategy. The Mormon strategy is to try to build respectability and to try to keep people from knowing about Mormon racism and Kolob and the fact that Mormonism is built upon a fraudulent book telling tales about a fictional civilization that obviously never inhabited this hemisphere. If one would advance the idea that our apologetic strategy should center around being sure not to be so unkind as to get in the way of the Mormon proselytization strategy, then everybody associated with drafting and implementing that strategy needs to be demoted to some department where the most harm they can do is in the area of teaching children what crayon to use to color Moses' hair.

So, if Dwight's resolution doesn't come out of committee either pretty much intact or strengthened, then I hope that he'll try to bring it out from the floor. Either way, we need to be sure to vote to adopt it or something like it.

SBC 2012 Endorsements, Part 1

President: Fred Luter Fred Luter would be well qualified to serve as SBC President even if he were white. The fact that his election will be historic make it all the more thrilling for me. I hope that he will run unopposed. Indeed, if you, dear reader, are someone who is considering running against Fred Luter, then you're making a horrible mistake. Luter's conservative credentials; his track-record of faithfulness in his pastorate in New Orleans, even in the face of tragic and difficult circumstances; and his strong leadership skills demonstrated across decades of denominational service all commend him as the right choice to lead our convention this year.
First Vice-President: Nathan Lino Fellow Texan Nathan Lino is an exemplary candidate. Warm and gregarious, devout and prayerful, passionate about the gospel and encouraging toward people, Nathan represents what I hope to be when I grow up. His service on the International Mission Board has been valuable to the Southern Baptist Convention, particularly as he served on the search committee who brought Tom Elliff to the helm of the IMB. Nathan serves at Northeast Houston Baptist Church reaching the Humble, Texas, area. The church is, in so many ways, a model for the future of the Southern Baptist Convention. As a bonus, since Nathan is an expatriate of South Africa, when we elect him and Dr. Luter, both of those offices would be occupied by "African-Americans," after a manner of speaking. ;-)
Second Vice-President: Eric Hankins I was thrilled to learn that Clint Pressley will nominate Dr. Eric Hankins for the office of Second Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Hankins and I were classmates in an Eschatology seminar at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Every student in that seminary was exemplary, but Eric distinguished himself early in the year as a brilliant thinker and a strong young leader. Since that time, I have followed Eric's ministry, first here in Texas and then in Oxford, Mississippi. I have some dear friends who are fervent, lifelong Mississippi State University Bulldog fans. Just on principle, they would have to be suspicious about a church in Oxford. But if you're not one of them, I see a lot for us all to admire about what Eric is doing in Oxford. This is a historic established church in a university town, but they're aggressive and innovative in missions, leading the way in a church-planting network and adopting an international people group. They give 12% through the Cooperative Program—Twelve! Percent! That was a lot even back when churches still gave a lot through the CP. For me, it comes down to this: I think the brightest possible future for the SBC combines a passionate love for Christ, an earnest heart to go with Christ after the lost, a strong re-commitment to CP Missions, a knack for innovation and creativity within the theological framework of our Southern Baptist heritage, and substantive thoughtfulness about the issues of the day. Eric Hankins represents all of those things. A vote for him is a vote for our best future together. If you join me in that sentiment, I hope you'll lift your ballot in New Orleans in favor of his election. Since I first endorsed Eric, he has been prominently associated with "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation." If you are a Calvinist, then it is possible that you are reluctant to vote for Eric because of his association with that statement. If that's you, then I want to challenge you on that a bit. Dr. Mohler is in affirmation of the "Abstract of Principles," a document much more Calvinistic than our "Baptist Faith & Message." As we all know well, Dr. Mohler is a five-point Calvinist. You probably know that I am not. And yet, I forcefully defended Dr. Mohler in his ill-fated candidacy for the presidency of the SBC a few years ago, as did some people who are signatories to the recent statement. In 2008, many non-Calvinists were big enough to throw their support behind a Calvinistic candidate because he was a good man and the right choice. I think that SBC Calvinists will be put to the test somewhat in this year's 2VP race. Eric Hankins has never done anything to restrict the rights of Calvinists in the SBC. He has merely articulated his own beliefs about soteriology, just as Calvinists in the SBC have done a hundred times over. I hope to see next week that Calvinists are oriented enough toward cooperation to be willing to support a candidate who vocally is not a Calvinist.

Why I Have Not Signed "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation"

A person or two has noted the absence of my signature on "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation" and has contacted me to learn my thinking. I am planning to produce something more substantive in the days to come as a collaborative effort with several of my peers, but in the interim, I thought it might be beneficial for me to give some of the reasons why I am not among the signatories

1. I take the signing of documents very seriously. Among the greater evils of the pre-CR Southern Baptist Convention was the flippant or downright disingenuous affirmation of statements of faith. Although, if I were to sign the statement, it would not be as any condition of employment or denominational service, I still have come to regard the placement of my signature upon a statement of faith as a matter of personal integrity.

2. I'm trying to know the limits of my own knowledge and intelligence. Tom Clancy once said that the most difficult sentence for a Ph.D. in anything to utter is "I don't know." I think that Clancy has an insight there into human nature, and I concur with the timeless wisdom of Harry Callahan that "A man's got to know his limitations." It's embarrassing for me to admit this. Somebody will doubtless use my words against me. So be it.

   In some elements of the debate over Calvinism I feel some sense of certainty from my own study of the Bible and of Church History. At points I agree with certainty with the Calvinists, and at other points I disagree with certainty with the Calvinists. A third category of doctrinal elements are those for which I am not certain in one way or the other. I may have leanings, but leanings alone will not bring about my signature on a doctrinal statement.

   I freely confess that the certainty of other people in areas where I am uncertain may very well indicate that those people are more intelligent and more informed than I am. When I read debates over the philosophical grounding of truth claims related to middle knowledge in Molinism, my head hurts. Other people consider this to be light reading.

   And so, upon reading the statement, I encountered statements that I felt went beyond my own level of certainty and comfort. I'm not smart enough to be a participant in some of these discussions. For this reason, among others, I have not signed the statement.

3. Although I do not believe that Calvinism has adequately comprehended the relationship between election and God's foreknowledge, I do believe that election is personal. The statement seems to me to emphasize the plan of salvation and the person of Christ as that which was elected. I acknowledge this as a mainstream option held by people whom I respect who are precious and valuable to me. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the usage of "the elect" as a noun in the New Testament seems to point toward the conglomeration of individuals who have been redeemed. And so, although my view of election is not Calvinistic, I do not know that this particular statement articulates it well. Or perhaps it does, and I misunderstand it (see the previous point).

4. Although Article Two has received the most criticism, that article does not pose a difficulty for me. Allow me to elaborate. First of all, as prophesied in Jeremiah 31, I believe that it is a feature of the New Covenant that people face condemnation for their own actions and not for the actions of any others (explicitly not because of their ancestry). This same principle is reiterated by Christ Himself in John 3:18-21, where Jesus identified the grounds of judgment for condemned humanity as their rejection of the Light, the only begotten Son of God. The rejection of Christ is something that each person does for himself, and in the New Covenant, I do not believe that anyone's teeth are set on edge by the sour grapes of his or her father.

   What about Romans 5? Well, I do believe that all die in Adam. The consequences of the Fall are ubiquitous. Death itself, the very thing mentioned in Romans 5, is among them. Romans 5:12 does seem to say that death spread to all men because all men sinned. It seems explicitly to contradict those who deny that "we are all sinners because we all sin." Romans 5:12 tells us that death has spread to us all because we all have sinned.

   Frankly, I've never heard or read an explanation of Romans 5 that made sense to me. Consider, for example, the way that Romans 5:15 seems clearly to indicate that the spread from one to many of the death in Adam is inferior to—less abundant than—the spread of the free gift from the one to many. And yet the spread of death from Adam is ubiquitous, while the spread of the gospel is not…is lesser than the spread of death in extent. There are portions of Romans 5 that read much like universalism, and yet universalism is clearly not the teaching of the New Testament. If you wanted to make a Calvinist of me, I think a great starting place would be for somebody to give me a coherent, convincing analysis of Romans 5, but I've certainly not seen one yet that wasn't more convoluted than a half-hour game of Twister (and that goes for non-Calvinist analyses, as well). There's no clear statement in Romans 5 that eternal damnation comes to infants because of the sin of Adam. Death? Yes, and that certainly because of Adam's sin. Eternal damnation to Hell? Romans 5 doesn't say so explicitly, and in light of Romans 7:9, I think we have reason to believe that Paul held a view of moral accountability similar to my own. I don't think that Romans 5 necessitates the eternal damnation of infants. If it says anything like that, it doesn't say it very clearly.

   Jeremiah 31:29-30, on the other hand, couldn't be clearer, neither in its frame of reference (the New Covenant) nor it its declaration about it (that people will not longer die for the sins of their fathers). I do not deny that we are born dying in the physical sense. I do not deny that we are born with a sin nature. I do not deny that we are born into a sinful, fallen world. I do not deny that, because of these factors, it is a safely foregone conclusion that all of us who live long enough to do so commit actual transgression. All of these truths I affirm. I do, however, deny that there is a single soul in Hell who was not first on Earth an active transgressor against God. Many forms of Calvinism, of course, assert a Hell filled with infants who have never transgressed personally, and the explicit justification for this belief is the notion that Jeremiah 31 somehow does not apply to them and that they die for the sin of Adam and Eve. Since Jeremiah 31:30 is clearly a declaration about those who will perish for sin, I do not see how it can refer only to the elect. I believe that it applies to all people. Those who die, die for their own iniquity. I believe this because I believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

   As far as the freedom of the will goes, I do believe that it has been impaired by the Fall for all people. This is at least part of what it means to have a sin nature. I do not, however, believe that it has been totally incapacitated forever. This is at least part of what it means not to be a Calvinist. With Augustine I would urge us all to "put [our] faith in the meanwhile in the inspired word of God, and believe both that man’s will is free, and that there is also God’s grace." I am happy to affirm that man can only choose to respond favorably to the gospel when he is the beneficiary of the prevenient grace of God, even if I believe that he can also choose not to respond favorably to that grace. No one can come to Christ apart from Holy Spirit conviction, for even with free will, "without [God's] help man’s free will can neither be turned towards God, nor make any progress in God."

   I believe that the viewpoint that I have articulated here is biblical and is compatible with Article Two of the statement. I know that some of you differ with me on this point. I love you anyway.

5. Although I do harbor some concerns about the "New Calvinism," I would articulate those concerns differently than this statement does. Indeed, I would articulate them in a way, I think, that would win the affirmation of many Calvinists who are Calvinists of a different sort (viz., those who have managed, while finding Puritan soteriology, to find the Puritan doctrine of sanctification along with it).

6. Finally, this statement raises some trust issues in me. I was reluctant to sign because I didn't trust what some virulent anti-Calvinists might try to do with it. Dr. Hankins is not of that ilk, but such creatures exist in our convention. I was also reluctant to sign because I didn't trust (I don't know how else to say it) the maturity of some Calvinists in the convention to permit anyone who is not a Calvinist to dare to articulate a soteriological viewpoint. For this very reason (the latter one), there is probably a need for people to dare to make statements like this one and to teach our Calvinistic brethren to get over it, but some of my best friends signed this statement, and some of my best friends despise it, and I feared that this would be a big mess, and I wasn't sure that I wanted to be a part of it. Call me a coward. Perhaps that's what I am.

None of these are major areas of disagreement. Some of them are perhaps hardly worth mentioning. Certainly none of them prevent me from maintaining a spirit of cordiality toward the statement and its signatories. But, cumulatively considered, they are enough to prevent me from signing the statement. I hope that answers the questions of anyone who cared in the first place.

Because of the indisputable truth of the second point, it is possible that you, my readers, will come into this comment stream and show the pure foolishness of every other point listed. But it will take more than your showing me that I'm wrong to get me either to sign the statement or to condemn it. You're going to have to show me why you're right, and to do so in a manner that convinces me so thoroughly as to get me over the hurdle of the first point.

Q&A with Paul Chitwood on the Kentucky Calvinism Conference

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a conference on Calvinism in August. Dr. Paul Chitwood, Executive Director of the KBC, has graciously agreed to participate in a Q&A over the upcoming conference. I have shown you the questions in advance. Here are Chitwood's answers.

1. Barber: Calvinism, Arminianism, and other options are all around four hundred years old. At least some of the key ideas go back fifteen hundred years to the time of Augustine and Pelagius. Calvinism and Arminianism have affected Baptist life for the entirety of the modern Baptist period. Several conferences in the past decade have addressed the question of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. What will this conference address or contribute that hasn't already been addressed or contributed?

   Chitwood: This conference is intended to provide a learning opportunity for local church leaders and members on these age-old debates. The presentation will help interpret the issues for the churches of our day. The goals are clarity, charity, and unity.

2. Barber: Southern Baptists have separated from other denominations over issues ranging from the authority of the pope to the proper day of worship. Is Calvinism an issue worthy of denominational division? If not, what is the difference between Calvinistic soteriology and, for example, the mode or meaning of baptism that makes one a rightful cause of division and the other not?

   Chitwood: Calvinism in the SBC is absolutely not an issue worthy of denominational division. The primary difference between this issue and others that Baptists have, with conviction, declared as “hills to die on” is the clarity Scripture gives to those issues. With regard to the issues at stake in the Calvinism debate, Scripture seems to hold these matters in tension. I believe that to be intentional.

3. Barber: Among the denominations from which Southern Baptists are divided are at least some denominations for which the cause of division is Calvinism (I'm thinking in particular of the Free Will Baptists). One of the five points of Calvinism—Perseverance—has been a part of our Southern Baptist statement of faith for as long as we've had statements of faith. Is Perseverance the most important of the five points of Calvinism? If not, why should we divide over this point of Calvinism but over none of the other four? If Southern Baptists should cooperate despite differences over Calvinism, then should we seek union with Free Will Baptists?

   Chitwood: As Baptists read Scripture, we have concluded that perseverance is a matter of sufficient clarity to draw the proverbial line in the sand. The other traditional points of Calvinism seem, at least to me, to be matters held in enough tension in Scripture that we can continue to draw a circle in the sand around those who hold differing positions.

4. Barber: How has the conversation about Calvinism come to have such generational overtones in the Southern Baptist Convention?

   Chitwood: That history can be traced back to the Conservative Resurgence. When a generation of Southern Baptist rose up to say, “We take biblical authority and biblical theology very seriously,” rigorous theological debate was sure to come. That members of the rising generation come down on varying sides of the debate on soteriology should come as no surprise.

5. Barber: Sometimes shriller voices attempt either to dismiss as inconceivable or to lament as inevitable the risk that rising Calvinism in the SBC will inflict the convention with either hyper-Calvinism or Antinomianism. How would you assess these risks? Should conferences like this one include material to ward off these dangers?

   Chitwood: I assess these risks as very minimal. More than a decade into what some have termed a resurgence of interest in Calvinism within the SBC, I see no evidence that hyper-Calvinism or Antinomianism are running amuck. Nevertheless, we need always remind ourselves of the dangerous extremes of any theological stance.

6. Barber: Perhaps the most influential Kentucky Southern Baptist of all times, Edgar Young Mullins, once wrote, "We are learning to discard both [the labels "Calvinism" and "Arminianism"] and to adhere more closely than either to the Scriptures, while retaining the truth in both systems." What is the historical significance of Mullins's position on Calvinism and his dissemination of statements like this one? Can the "Biblicist" perspective be regarded as a contribution that Kentucky made to the broader Southern Baptist Convention in the twentieth century, and is it a peacemaking strategy for today? How do conferences like this one contribute?

   Chitwood: More than anything else, the lack of theological understanding, the inaccurate caricatures of Calvinism, and the difficulty of defining a theological system that is neither strictly Reformed nor fully Arminian, create the need for discerning Southern Baptists to define their position as a “biblical theology” and avoid labels, regardless of where they stand. The many straw men and inaccurate caricatures that abound should cause any Southern Baptist to be very cautious about allowing himself or herself to be labeled. We have more than one dictionary. Prayerfully, our conference will help Kentucky Baptists and the broader family of Southern Baptists appreciate the complexity of these issues and gain respect for those who hold differing, yet logical, positions, and still fit comfortably within the boundaries of the Baptist Faith and Message.

7. Barber: Southern Seminary is obviously based in Louisville, Kentucky, and has a strong Calvinistic flavor. One might, if Southern were the extent of one's exposure to Kentucky Baptists, presume that the state is overwhelmingly Calvinistic. Yet a number of historic educational institutions relate to or have related to the Kentucky Baptist Convention. Considering the entire universe of Kentucky Baptist life, how would you characterize the convention with regard to soteriology?

   Chitwood: The Kentucky Baptist Convention is every bit as diverse as the Southern Baptist Convention regarding matters of soteriology. Moreover, the faculty and student body of Southern Seminary represent the diversity of the Southern Baptist Convention. Any assumption that the KBC or SBTS are strictly Calvinist entities is a mistaken assumption.

8. Barber: Are you a theology wonk? What attracts you, personally, to the idea of conducting this kind of conference?

   Chitwood: The primary reason I am attracted to conducting to this type of conference is that I have witnessed the lack of understanding of biblical and historical theology and am grieved by what I consider needless division over this issue. Parties on both sides have been guilty of attempts to marginalize those who hold differing viewpoints. The tone of the debate has often become unchristian and even uncivil. When that happens, we stand in danger of dividing our resources and fellowship to the detriment of the Great Commission. Many Southern Baptists seem to be totally unaware of the real issues in the ongoing debate. I would not consider myself a theology wonk. My undergraduate and graduate degrees were lacking in any exposure to biblical theology. My doctoral studies provided my first real introduction. Yet, 18 years in the pastorate and 10 years as a professor taught me the importance of theology and I am hopeful that those who attend the conference will whet their appetites and begin to drink from deeper wells, even as we recommit ourselves to working together.

9. Barber: Arminianism is often the sparring partner chosen for Calvinism, but how does Calvinism relate to pragmatism? Pardon my hyperbolic flourish, but not too long ago, conferences sponsored by state Baptist conventions were predominantly "how-to" meetings or promotional campaigns for cooperative initiatives, while doctrinal symposia consisted of four doctoral students in the corner basement room of a campus student center. What has changed to make deep theological conversation the new spectator sport in the SBC?

   Chitwood: Again, I think the change is rooted in the Conservative Resurgence. While I celebrate the deepening of our theological conversation, I feel a sense of urgency to call for an overarching commitment to unity and partnership so that our new spectator sport does not become a bloodbath. Furthermore, there is still a place for theologically informed “how-to” meetings and promotional campaigns for cooperative initiatives.

10. Barber: Southern Baptist Calvinists are not monolithic, are they? If you had to identify different flavors of Calvinism within the SBC, how would you do so?

    Chitwood: Southern Baptist Calvinists are no more monolithic than Southern Baptists are monolithic. Nor are Southern Baptists who reject any or most of the tenets of Calvinism monolithic. Debates and disagreements abound in SBC life on a myriad of issues and will continue to do so until Christ’s return. Speaking of which, now there’s a matter that has caused significant debate!

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 9 (Final Part)

This is the ninth post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

10. Southern Baptist Calvinists are not monolithic, are they? If you had to identify different flavors of Calvinism within the SBC, how would you do so?

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 8

This is the eighth post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

Someone will perhaps notice that part eight actually contains question nine. The eighth question to Dr. Chitwood was worded too personally for me to be able to apply it in any general sense. He can answer it in his post, but I'm not including it in this series. You'll find out what it is when he replies.

9. Arminiansim is often the sparring partner chosen for Calvinism, but how does Calvinism relate to pragmatism? Pardon my hyperbolic flourish, but not too long ago, conferences sponsored by state Baptist conventions were predominantly "how-to" meetings or promotional campaigns for cooperative initiatives, while doctrinal symposia consisted of four doctoral students in the corner basement room of a campus student center. What has changed to make deep theological conversation the new spectator sport in the SBC?

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 7

This is the seventh post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

7. Southern Seminary is obviously based in Louisville, Kentucky, and has a strong Calvinistic flavor. One might, if Southern were the extent of one's exposure to Kentucky Baptists, presume that the state is overwhelmingly Calvinistic. Yet a number of historic educational institutions relate to or have related to the Kentucky Baptist Convention. Considering the entire universe of Kentucky Baptist life, how would you characterize the convention with regard to soteriology?

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 6

This is the sixth post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

6. Perhaps the most influential Kentucky Southern Baptist of all times, Edgar Young Mullins, once wrote, "We are learning to discard both [the labels "Calvinism" and "Arminianism"] and to adhere more closely than either to the Scriptures, while retaining the truth in both systems." What is the historical significance of Mullins's position on Calvinism and his dissemination of statements like this one? Can the "Biblicist" perspective be regarded as a contribution that Kentucky made to the broader Southern Baptist Convention in the twentieth century, and is it a peacemaking strategy for today? How do conferences like this one contribute?

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 5

This is the fifth post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

5. Sometimes shriller voices attempt either to dismiss as inconceivable or to lament as inevitable the risk that rising Calvinism in the SBC will inflict the convention with either hyper-Calvinism or Antinomianism. How would you assess these risks? Should conferences like this one include material to ward off these dangers?

The Mike Goes Silent

Baptist Press is reporting today that the board of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention has reprimanded Dr. Richard Land and has terminated the Richard Land Live! radio program. I know some of the ERLC trustees, I know and love Dr. Richard Piles who is the new chair of that board, and I know and love Dr. Richard Land. Clearly, the board has not succumbed to enormous pressure to terminate Dr. Land, instead of just terminating his radio program, and for that I am thankful. Also, one can understand why, in this situation, the trustees might conclude that the radio program, which is not a core task of the ERLC, has generated controversy in a way that might imperil the commission's ability to accomplish those things which are its core tasks.

I write tonight to express a hope. I hope that this move does not represent yet another retreat by Southern Baptists from electronic media in our long line of such retreats. It is not the mission of the ERLC to use electronic media to advance the gospel causes of the SBC, but unfortunately, it's not anybody else's mission, either. We mothballed our Radio & TV Commission years ago. Religious radio and television is absolutely dominated by faith-healing charlatans and their ilk. For two decades, after having fumbled our opportunity to take advantage of the emerging media of radio and television, Southern Baptists have been beating a hasty retreat from the airwaves.

I hope that Richard Land Live! will not, by its departure, merely leave an empty hole. I hope that Southern Baptists will endeavor to replace it and to multiply the strategic use of electronic media as an avenue for the gospel. Media is powerful. It needs to be redeemed, not ignored.

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 4

This is the fourth post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

4. How has the conversation about Calvinism come to have such generational overtones in the Southern Baptist Convention?