A statement was issued recently, and endorsed by some key SBC leaders, claiming to be a statement on a traditional Southern Baptist understanding of the way God saves sinners. This statement was issued as a response to the “new Calvinism.”
Let me state a few items upfront. I do not consider myself a member of the “New Calvinism,” so I don’t feel like this is a personal attack against me. Baptist21 is made up of young ministers all along the soteriological spectrum (some Calvinists and others non-Calvinist), so we do not feel this is an attack against Baptist 21. Also, I agree with much (almost all) of what is written in this statement (though I suspect that would probably be true of most of the “new Calvinists” as well).
However, I do take issue with this statement, and will not sign it. There are several reasons I find this document unhelpful, unnecessary, and divisive.
1. This statement is fighting multiple straw men.
Honestly, I do not know to whom this statement is intended to respond because I don’t know any Calvinist who is arguing for what this statement says they are (and I’m a three-time graduate of SBTS and know plenty of Calvinists!). Several points of note:
Again, to whom is the document responding? There is no one arguing for a Calvinism that looks like what the document claims. I find it problematic to mis-represent what brothers and sisters actually believe.
2. The word “Traditional” is mis-leading.
Apparently, by the word “traditional” the authors actually mean the “majority” view. Much space could be take up debating historically what a traditional view is. I think brothers and sisters like Boyce, Broadus, Moon, Robertson, Mullins, Carroll and others would find problems with this statement.
The authors claim this document is “consistent with what the Bible teaches and what Southern Baptists have generally believed about the nature of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.” Again, that is mis-leading because one of our earliest confessions, “The Abstract of Principles” would take issue with some of what is written here. And, men who signed this new statement have also signed the Abstract. Further, any fair reading of the BFM2000 recognizes it is Calvinistic in its orientation.
3. Romans 8
I find the statement that the effectual call is the general call biblically untenable. I am curious to hear the architects of this document explain how this statement is consistent with Romans 8:29-30. The text says that those whom “God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son…and those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” This text seems to clearly argue that there is a calling from God on all who are saved that is different from the general call that we are to give to all peoples to repent and believe the gospel. This calling is given to those who are justified and glorified, and since this is not true for every person on the planet, there must be a distinction between God’s call to salvation and the general call.
4. The statement is divisive.
This statement is divisive not because a group of Baptists want to make their soteriological position clear because I think people have the right to do that. The statement is divisive for three reasons:
Here is my hope for where we go from here:
1. I pray that “New Calvinists” will not be offended by this statement since it does not describe what they actually believe.
My heart is heavy for good brothers and sisters in the SBC who affirm the BFM 2000 without reservation, and yet are continually maligned for what they believe the Bible teaches. I know many of them increasingly are being told that they have no place in the SBC, or at least that is being implied. My prayer is that they won’t believe that or listen to it. Since this statement mischaracterizes their position, I hope that they don’t take offense to it and respond in grace.
I pray that all Southern Baptists will accurately describe people’s theological positions without feeling the need to build straw men.
2. I pray that the SBC can stop in-fighting over minor theological differences, embrace our common theology in the BFM2000, and reach the BILLIONS of UNREACHED together with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Adrian Rogers told my father before his death that the current fights in the SBC were a result of soldiers being off the battlefield and in the barracks. He said that when we were shoulder-to-shoulder fighting Liberalism, there was great unity, but now we are in the barracks standing face-to-face, fighting each other, instead of on the battlefield fighting Satan, sin, and evil.
As has been said many times before, the SBC is big enough to include Calvinists and non-Calvinists. We agree on far more than we disagree on, so let’s unite and fight a common enemy.
Let’s unite, and if we run into a Southern Baptist who argues that repentance and faith are unnecessary, or who argues that we shouldn’t “preach the good news of salvation to all people to the ends of the earth,” or a Southern Baptist regardless of theological position who isn’t fervently engaged in evangelism and missions, then let’s lovingly rebuke them and try to bring them back into the fold, instead of trying to divide brothers and sisters who agree on all these things and are making their best efforts to reach the nations in cooperation.
We must pray that God would raise up a new generation, many generations, of Careys, Judsons, Whitefields, Wesleys, Spurgeons, Carrolls, Truetts, Lees, Criswells, Rogers, Pattersons, Mohlers, Gaines, Hunts, Merritts, Platts, and Greears who charge the gates of Hell with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
B21 Panel: Our B21 panel in NOLA at this year’s SBC will have men on either side of this issue speaking, and it will provide a great opportunity to engage in an open discussion about these matters. You can find the details by clicking here or you can register for this event here.
Before jumping into this post, I would like to thank Richard Land for the humility he displayed in his 5 part apology he made on May 9th. It was always our desire to speak the truth in love while giving Dr. Land the space to begin restoring broken fellowship. Land’s recent remarks show his desire to listen to those he offended and own the consequences. Now those who were hurt by Land’s remarks must respond to our brother with humility and accept this genuine apology. With the testimony of Christ as my example, I accept Dr. Land’s apology. Let’s learn from the recent past and move forward together for the Gospel’s sake.
The Trayvon Martin incident seemed to be clothed with the issue of race from the beginning, and once again awaked a sleeping giant in the American subconscious. The complexity of the race in America is paralyzing and the consequences are profound. On the one hand, African-Americans (myself included) are constantly frustrated with the non-inclusion of appropriate racial matters in cultural and public discourse. On the other hand, whites feel as though they are walking on eggshells whenever race is introduced into a conversation. I am convinced that both sentiments are justified, and are often intensified by careless interaction with the issue from both sides. This challenge has historically caused a stalemate, but at this juncture a clarion call must be issued to move forward with careful thinking and bold conclusions that are tempered with Christ-like compassion.
Over and under racializing, as well as tactless interaction with racial issues have contributed to the rifts in our cultural landscape. The aftermath of Treyvon Martin’s death is an example of both tactless interaction (see my blog Richard Land, Treyvon Martin and the SBC), and over-racializing an event (I will deal with the problem of under-racializing and the importance of diversity in the next installment).
The introduction of race into the Martin scenario is in no small part due to the contribution of nationally recognized Christian leaders. Soon after Martin’s death, leaders of every stripe should have heralded a cry for justice, no matter where the verdict fell. Instead, we immediately heard that “blacks are under attack!” Upon the publication of these words our nation was led to believe that this killing was, at its core, a matter of race. Onlookers never had the chance to grapple with the demands of justice, but were immediately forced to relive the racial history and progress (or lack thereof) in our country.
This is a subtle yet significant shift away from the motivation of Martin Luther King. MLK and his contemporaries incited public demonstrations and made speeches due to a passion for social justice that was deeply rooted in biblical convictions such as human dignity and the understanding that every human is made in God’s image.
At present, some Christian leaders over-racialize situations, not because of the healthy biblical vision, but because they operate from a posture of victimology. John McWhorter explains victimology as “an adaptation to victimhood as the core of one’s identity.” With racial victimhood as a starting point, actions by “outsiders” can only be understood as having a negative and racist motivation. Furthermore, due to the effects of victimology, the self-perception of the African-American will always be a socially constructed reality from America’s turbulent racial past, never graduating to a biblical self-image.
I am not dismissing the realities of systemic and individual racism. Rather, I am merely noting that there is an important difference between offering a solution that accurately accounts for victimization, as opposed to using victimization as a starting point. The former allows Scripture to act as the starting point, which provided real solutions. The latter will never lead to a solution, since the system constantly focuses on the problem.
Reclaiming the biblical centrality that fueled the ministry of MLK will provide the foundation that is necessary to move forward. The grand narrative of scripture (that can be summarized as creation, fall, redemption & new creation) is essential in describing the significance of ethnic race and the importance of race relations in the context of Christ’s redemption of all things.
The biblical story uniquely describes the restoration of the four-fold relationship that was broken at the fall of Genesis 3: The relationship between man and God, man and fellow man, man and self, and man and the created order. The restoration of these relationships through Christ is essential to progress in Christian thought on race. Moving forward, I will attempt to sketch a framework for a Christian engagement with race from the foundation of the grand narrative of scripture, highlighting the importance of unity and diversity rooted in the triune God.
In part 3 of our interview with Dr. Danny Akin, he answers the question “What do you think the future of the SBC looks like?” You can find the details of the Baptist21 Panel at the Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans by clicking here or you can register for this event here.
This is the second part of our interview with Dr. Danny Akin concerning the Conservative Resurgence, the Great Commission Resurgence, and the Future of the SBC. You can find the details of the Baptist21 Panel at the Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans by clicking here or you can register for this event here.
Recently, we announced we would once again host a panel discussion at the 2012 Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans, Louisiana. This panel will take place on Tuesday, June 19th during the lunch break of the annual meeting at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center. You can find the details of this event by clicking here or you can register for this event here.
One of the panelists is Dr. Danny Akin. His influence and involvement in our convention is far reaching. Benjamin Quinn, was able to sit down and talk with Dr. Akin about the Conservative Resurgence, the Great Commission Resurgence, and the Future of the SBC. We will release this interview in different parts over the next few days. We are grateful for Dr. Akin and his involvement in this event.
Once again, you can register here.
