5 Reasons a Calvinism Discussion Doesn’t Matter

Earlier today I explained why this discussion on Calvinism matters. Now I’m going to explain in what way this discussion doesn’t matter and why I wish we’d spend our efforts elsewhere. Apparently 5 points are really helpful for discussion…so in honor of all the problems those five points have caused…here are 5 reasons why this Calvinism discussion doesn’t matter.

Truth is the Spirit’s job

I don’t need to be the truth police. I cannot change someone’s heart and make them embrace the truth. All I can do is present the truth as I see it in Scripture and leave it up to the work of the Spirit. It’s not my job to beat truth into someone’s head. Besides there is a decent chance that I’m wrong myself. There are likely doctrines of which I hold (yes even important ones) of which I’ll need to repent of no more than 5 minutes after entering into heaven.

If I really believe that leading brothers and sisters into all truth is the Spirit’s job it changes the way that I interact with them. John Newton is instructive here. When explaining his position on election and perseverance he said, “If you should accede to my opinions upon my persuasion only, you would be little benefited by the exchange”. Newton knew that what really mattered was the Spirit’s work upon the man to whom he was speaking. And it made him humbly present his position, love the man, and leave the results of the discussion up to the Lord.

Unity and love are more important

I love doctrine as much as the next guy. But I’m becoming increasingly convinced that love and unity are more important. Yes I believe that the fuel for love is doctrine. But I also believe that when Jesus was praying for us his central concern was that we be united and show love for one another. And this not merely in talk but in actually loving sinners like ourselves.

These discussions serve as a great barometer of our hearts. I agree with Newton that there is a “principle of self, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a becoming zeal in the cause of God”. If in the midst of our differences love and unity flow out, then we know that gospel is gaining ground over self.

Lengthy debates are seldom helpful

Seldom do lengthy debates lead to the fruit that we desire. Even if a few people are won to a right position a good number of people are slain in the crossfire. I do see Jesus and Paul reasoning with people and even engaging in debate. Yet I never see them drawn out. (Perhaps because they entrusted the work to the Spirit).

Again I turn to Newton:

We may become wise in notions, and so far masters of a system, or scheme of doctrine, as to be able to argue, object, and fight, in favor of our own hypothesis, by dint of application, and natural abilities; but we rightly understand what we say, and whereof we affirm, no farther than we have a spiritual perception of it wrought in our hearts by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is not, therefore, by noisy disputation, but by humble waiting upon God in prayer, and a careful persual of his holy word, that we are to expect a satisfactory, experimental, and efficacious knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus.

I like to share my position from Scripture and maybe stick around for a few questions. But I’ve never found great fruit come from lengthy debates on an issue. If it gets overly heated I can’t just chalk it up to a “I’m just really passionate about this”. I know that it’s the flesh that’s warring (no matter what side of the aisle) and I know that this zeal isn’t from the Lord.

Implications matter but aren’t central

I like what Charles Simeon said to John Wesley. After outlining the things of which they agreed Simeon said this to Wesley:

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.

Yes, Calvinism will have certain implications for ministry and living the Christian life that those of a different persuasion will not approve of. The same is true vice versa. These matter. See my post on why Calvinism discussions matter. Yet at the end of the day the implications are not central.

Usually after a couple salient points these conversations degenerate into ridiculous but/if scenarios. Most of the discussion is on implications. “If we embrace this, then…” While some of these might even be true they aren’t central nor is it helpful to any sort of discussion.

Points of which we contend aren’t what the church needs

As I see it the major points of contention are not central to the gospel. Yes there are HUGE implications that come from what you believe on these issues. But they aren’t central and in many instances they aren’t even secondary matters.

Here are some of the major issues that I see:

• Can I tell a lost person that Jesus died for them? While I understand this question and what is behind it, I don’t see why it matters. The scriptural accounts of someone sharing the good news of the risen Christ are pretty simple. They share the claims of Jesus and then say therefore, repent and believe the gospel. “For whom did Christ die?” doesn’t matter when it comes to sharing the gospel.
• What did we inherit from Adam? Again this has quite a few implications. But allow me to ask a couple of questions. Are all men guilty now? So why does it matter so much to debate this? What about babies? Let’s be honest at the end of the day anything that we construct is exegetically flimsy. The best we have is that the judge of the earth will do what is right. That leaves a ton of comfort for me because I know that God is good. 
• Which came first regeneration or faith? Once again several implications from this. But does it really matter? Are there scores of people walking out there that aren’t regenerate but who have faith? Nope. Are there scores of people that don’t have faith but might be regenerate? Even if a Calvinist says yes, won’t this person then have faith? So, why does it matter? Aren’t these really inseparable graces? Are we really going to divide or debate over which inseparable grace came first?
• Are people saved because God foreknew them or because God foreknew they would choose God? Several implications to this one. But at the end of the day do you say that God saves sinners? If you do then perhaps we’re just debating about an eternal decree.

Even if we solved each of these issues and came to an agreement on them I’m not certain that all of our churches would be transformed. What we really need are passionate worshippers of Jesus that obediently live out the truth that they do know. By and large we have an obedience problem far more than we have a doctrinal unity problem. And I believe the sinful way that this discussion is often carried out is evidence of that.

What will transform our churches is a robust gospel of a holy God that is wholly other that has purposed to save sinners. Obedience to that gospel will revolutionize our churches. Falling in love with this Jesus will cause us to boldly proclaim the gospel in the dark places of our world. This same thing will create in believers a heart that treasures Christ more than the lures of the world. And we’ll be about the business of making disciples as the Great Commission compels us AND loving God and others as the Great Commandment exhorts us. 

This is what we need. Not another lengthy argument.

Why the Calvinism Discussion Matters

Last week Dave Miller posted a great article with the hopes of outlining what a productive discussion of Calvinism would require. For the most part I’m in agreement with David Rogers who said in a comment, “Calvinism schmalvinism. I never have understood why we get so hung on this one…I like your suggestions, Dave, but I will probably check out of any new round of Calvinism debate marathons.”

Entering into another season of Calvinism discussions is about as appealing as repeatedly whacking myself in the head with a hammer.

I’m fatigued by unhelpful debates about all things Calvinism/Traditionalism etc. I’m not clear of guilt myself. Though I hit “cancel reply” far more than I actually post a comment, even still I’m not immune to leaving a comment I wish I hadn’t. I’d say that my fatigue has even shown in some posts that I’ve written.

A good part of me wants to only write an article that shows why this Calvinism discussion doesn’t matter and we all ought to just move on. (That article will be posted later today). Yet I do believe that Calvinism matters. I don’t think it’s just some tertiary issue that has no bearing on the Christian life.

I don’t want to surrender the truth of Calvinism. I say that not for the sake of some “ism” but because I believe that it best describes how God saves sinners. You can call it Billy-Bobism for all I care. The name means little. What matters to me is a theology that unblushingly proclaims that God saves sinners. At its core I believe that God revealing how He has saved us is for our joy and comfort and His glory.

If God has revealed Himself to us in this fashion for our comfort far be it from me to say that it doesn’t matter. So in one sense Calvinism does matter. I believe it leads to greater joy and comfort for us and greater glory for the Lord. I believe it is the truth of Scripture and as such it needs to be embraced.

But at the end of the day you can’t make someone swallow it. God can change affections, I cannot. God can mold us to truth, I cannot. Therefore, I want to pursue this balance that John Newton spoke of:

I allow that every branch of gospel truth is precious, that errors are abounding, and that it is our duty to bear an honest testimony to what the Lord has enabled us to find comfort in, and to instruct with meekness such as are willing to be instructed; but I cannot set it my duty, nay, I believe it would be my sin, to attempt to beat notions into other people’s heads.

Later today I’ll show in what way this discussion doesn’t matter…

--

If you dig this article you may also like this one: What Should a Newtonian Calvinist Say in a Pastoral Interview?

Why I Wouldn’t Want to Attend the John 3:16 Conference Even If I Weren’t Reformed

On March 21-22 the second John 3:16 Conference will be held. The purpose of this conference will be to inform local churches of the viewpoints of New Calvinism. It is to be part of the continued discussion on the Calvinist Resurgence within the SBC and broader evangelicalism. Those speaking will defend a non-Calvinistic (or a self-dubbed Tradiontalist viewpoint).

They will be discussing topics like limited atonement, inherited guilt, regeneration and faith, historical views of salvation, election, and the sinners prayer among other things. It looks like it could be an interesting conference. And I appreciate that Jerry Vines’ intention is that all the speakers be “irenic in tone, theologically well versed and evangelistic and missions minded.” Yet…

I have no desire to attend

And that has nothing to do with the fact that I am Calvinistic. I’m not up in arms that these men will be promoting a theology that is not my own. In fact if this were a conference led by Calvinists that had the same topics I would also not have a burning desire to attend. Why? I’m very similar to John Newton in that I like my Calvinism as I do my sugar:

‘I am more of a Calvinist than anything else; but I use my Calvinism in my writings and my preaching as I use this sugar’—taking a lump, and putting it into his tea-cup, and stirring it, adding, ‘I do not give it alone, and whole; but mixed and diluted.’

Conferences like this hold very little appeal to me because I think they are largely distracting. And if I had any counsel to give to the non-Calvinists among us I would say that it would be to their benefit to make their non-Calvinism like their sugar.

If your position is true then proclaim it as truth and stop spending so much time battling this New Calvinism. If it’s of the Lord then you’re battling Him. If it’s not of the Lord then it’ll eventually die and fizzle. Just keep proclaiming the truth as faithfully as you can. God’s is faithful to His gospel and He’ll lead His church into all truth.

Honestly I think this is part of the reason why Calvinism has seen a resurgence…

T4G

Fundamentally, I would argue that Calvinism is surging for God-ordained reasons. But even if you don’t care to agree with that, consider with me the practical reasons. You have to admit that there is a great movement among younger generations to focus on Christ and His gospel and not be tied down by a ton of controversy. I believe that is part of the appeal of Together for the Gospel for my generation.

Look at the 2006 conference. Yes, all the speakers were Calvinists. But that’s not the driving force in the conference. That year it was preaching. Their Calvinism was used like sugar; mixed and diluted. In 2008 the only message that was overtly Calvinistic was John MacArthur’s on the doctrine of absolute inability.

2010 and 2012 were the two that I have been able to attend. And I left those conferences without one thought about Calvinism. I left those conferences reinvigorated with a love for Jesus and a new drive to engage in Christ-honoring ministry. Why? Because though all the speakers are Calvinists and their Calvinism shapes everything it is “mixed and diluted”**.

And this is the way it ought to be. That’s why when I hear conferences like T4G being advertised I get excited and hope that I can attend. Sure it makes me comfortable knowing that these guys largely have the same theological leanings that I do. But at the end of the day what really drives me is a passion to see Jesus Christ the only boast of this generation.

This is also why I wouldn’t attend the John 3:16 Conference even if I weren’t Reformed. I’d likely stay away from a John 6:44 Conference as well. For me it depends on what the driving force is behind the conference. If it’s a get together to discuss theology and you hope that everybody leaves being informed about New Calvinism, Old Calvinism, Good Calvinism, Bad Calvinism, Ugly Calvinism, or anything of the sort I’ll stay home. As much as I like to discuss theology, I’ll save my limited conference money to go to some place where I’m going to walk away enthralled by the risen Savior.

I want to attend a conference whose aim is in some fashion to enjoy God and extend His glory.

----

**Now those with an idea that we Calvinists are involved in some sort of vast conspiracy will turn that “mixed and diluted” phrase and say that they are hiding their Calvinism and that people are swallowing errant theology without even knowing it. I guess theoretically that could be what is happening. But as one being shaped by the Spirit’s use of this movement I believe it is something much different. These men aren’t obsessed with Calvinism. They are Calvinists and yes it impacts the way they see everything, but it’s not the driving force behind these conferences.

Church Planters Need Curmudgeons

Last Thursday, Dave Miller asked a provocative question to his SBC Voices audience; namely, are we entering a post-cooperative program era in SBC life? It is an interesting piece that is worth reading. In the comment section Matt Svoboda asks a question that I have heard quite a few times. It is also a question that I share a good amount of agreement with:

When the older generation in the SBC wants to spend all of our time dealing with Driscoll books in Lifeway, keeping an anti-alcohol stance, crying about the growth of Calvinism and how its hurting the SBC, and has no desire to even have the missional conversation the rest of the country is having- why in the world would the younger generation want to have a strong identity in the SBC?

Matt goes on to note that “the SBC has a whole lot of unnecessary baggage that a lot of young pastors don’t want to have to deal with”. I responded to Matt, but honestly this article (and even my response to Matt at Voices) is not directed towards Matt.

Before I make my point allow me to explain how you could misread my point. If you think this is a defense of the SBC or the Cooperative Program you have missed it. If you think this is a response to Matt’s comment, you’ve missed it. If you develop the impression that I am against church planting then perhaps my point has not been clear enough. It is not my desire to paint with a broad brush or even to give an opinion about the SBC, the CP, and church plants. My aim is singular. I want to address the pastor’s heart. I want to humbly say, “Pastor, check your heart is it possible that what I am saying here is true.” If it not then move on.

Buzzwords

I am excited about the Jesus-centered/gospel-centered movement within the church. I am happy that many are giving themselves to planting churches and communicating the gospel in places where it seldom is communicated. I am thankful for the faithful gospel proclamation that is happening all throughout our cities, thanks to the renewed emphasis that NAMB is placing on church planting in our major metropolitan areas. It is wonderful that gospel advancement is being heralded as far more important than petty bickering. That is a good thing.

When guys say things like “what do we gain from being in the SBC” with all of the “baggage” that comes with it, I hear what they are saying. Believe me. As young pastor that happens to be a Calvinist I have dealt with my fair share of “baggage”. So I hear you. And I understand the pull to say, “why stay in the SBC when it is only slowing us down missionally”?  Why put up the fight any more? I have asked that question myself.

And that is a fair question for you to ask. And at the end of the day you may find that your church does not benefit from being affiliated with the SBC. That’s not my concern. What I am concerned about is the pastor’s heart. I know my own delusional heart and I know that sometimes I can use gospely sounding buzzwords to mask a love of comfort and a fear of conflict.

Saying, “I want to be free to advance the gospel and not have to deal with all of the SBC baggage” might be code for, “I haven’t the stomach or the faith to faithfully plod through conflict. It’s easier to plant a church because I can set things up the way that I want—the way I believe the Bible teaches—from the beginning, and I do not have to be bothered with all of the baggage of people that disagree with me theologically. So we can get on with gospel advancement much sooner”. (By the way I’m not saying this is what Matt is saying in his comments—remember the part about missing the point if you think it’s about Matt’s comment).

Ten Years from Now

Fair enough. But it seems to me that pastors are often crafted in the kiln of suffering and conflict. I have to wonder what a church and this pastor will look like in twenty years if this pastor’s heart continues to build his kingdom without baggage. Because the truth is, these believers—even the ones prone to being curmudgeonly—are God’s grace to us pastors. We need them.

Is it possible that our passion for gospel advancement extends to applying the gospel to the curmudgeon? Isn’t that one of the things that we say in the gospel-centered movement, “The gospel is not the ABC’s of salvation it is the A-Z”. “We need the gospel for the whole of the Christian life”.  Isn’t this true even if the chap in the pew thinks he doesn’t need the gospel from A-Z and he wishes those young whippersnappers would just join the Axe29 network with all their free body spray? Might gospel advancement make this “unnecessary baggage” necessary?

Pastor, your heart is prone to being deceived, just like mine. You have enough theological learning to make shameful fear sound holy and wise. “Good stewardship” can be a great mask for greed and fear. If you are striking out to make a difference and become a church planter, I just ask you to check your heart. Is it possible that you’re just wanting to start a new church because you love comfort and don’t want to do the hard thing of being used by God to revitalize a dying church? Or to be “boring” and faithful plod and proclaim the gospel in an average setting for twenty plus years? Is it possible that in your pride you think you have ecclesiology all figured out (of course, you and all the dudes you hang with) and don’t want to have to be chiseled by different opinions?

If that is the case and you get what you want, I feel for you. It will be to your peril to pastor a church that looks just like you. You needed sharpening even by those that might be theologically wrong. I can’t help but wonder what will happen when the perfect church that you built (with the sovereign Lord’s help of course) starts going a way that you did not envision. Will you leave? Will you plant another church—referring to yourself as “just a pioneer”? Will you continue spiritualizing your love for comfort and fear of conflict? Or will you finally stay and be chiseled?

Don’t leave because of fear or comfort. But don’t stay for those reasons either. 

SBC CP Giving Curmudgeons (Part 2)

Yesterday afternoon I reflected on a sad picture that Jon Acuff posted.  I closed by promising to answer this question:

If an entity no longer serves the local church should they continue giving to that entity? 

That is admittedly, a sticky question, and one that I believe hinges on the meaning of the word “serves”.  It seems to me that the chief purpose of the entities is to serve the kingdom of Christ through serving and strengthening the local church.  We give to the CP to build the kingdom.  The beneficiaries of that giving then go about doing the work of the kingdom through this partnership with local churches.  

We continue to give even when a slice of that kingdom might play the drums a bit too loudly.  Let’s be honest here.  Every one of us could probably point to something within the SBC that we would like to see change.  We could all put our own “drums too loud” on the bottom of our voided CP checks.  But we don’t do that because we have decided that the mission of the kingdom is much bigger than those petty squabbles. 

I am a Calvinist.  I believe that the kingdom is better served and built through embracing the doctrines of grace because I believe that is what the Scriptures teach.  I also know that the entity head of SWBTS opposes Calvinism.  Yet, I have never, nor will I ever, because of this issue seek to divert money away from SWBTS.  As long as they are affirm the BF&M, actively promote the gospel, and train ministers to proclaim Christ then I will gladly partner with them even if we disagree on the doctrine of election. 

Refusing to give money over this issue is about as petty as a curmudgeon voiding a $75 check because the drums were too loud.  I understand that one is a matter of doctrine and one is a matter of personal preference.  But they are both third tier issues, which are differences that can be held between two people and still worship together in the same local assembly.  Therefore, refusing to give for such differences is petty. 

Being “served” by an SBC entity does not mean that they are doing things the way that you want to.  It does not even mean that you are directly influenced or impacted by these entities.  What it does mean is that you share a mutual concern for advancing the kingdom of God. They serve you by doing the same work that you are tasked with doing.  They don’t serve you by putting on a show that you like.  And you don’t give to the CP to advance the kingdom as you want it to look.  You give money to the CP to advance the kingdom as the Lord sees fit at this present time using the broken vessels that He is at present deciding to use. 

When would it be okay to shifts funds away from an SBC entity?

When they abandon the gospel or Baptist distinctives.  Anything else is as petty as a middle school boy taking his ball and going home because the game isn’t going quite the way that he wants it to. 

Pastor, if you are encouraging your people to divert money because of personal preferences and tertiary doctrinal matters then you are training them to do the same under your ministry.  Do not be surprised when carpet color become more important than community.  Model for your people how to partner even while you disagree. 

SBC CP Giving Curmudgeons (Part 1)

Recently Jon Acuff, of Stuff Christians Like, posted this sad picture on his site:

That is a photo of a voided check for $75.00.  It looks as if this curmudgeon was going to give 75 bucks to the church but decided that he’d void the check and keep his money because the drums were way too loud. 

This might be a reasonable response at a movie theater or some other form of entertainment, but this is absolutely unacceptable for a church.  You do not give money to your church to reward them for entertaining you, helping you, or pleasing you.  You give money to your church so that as a collective group you can accomplish the work of the kingdom of God. 

If this chap wants to complain about the loud drums then he should find some other means to do it.  Yes, sadly this is an excellent way to be heard.  This a tremendous way to make a point because churches depend on faithful givers to not only keep their doors open but to further the mission of the church.  But this guy has it backwards.  He thinks that the church is there to serve him; by that I mean that he believes that everyone gathers each week to watch the show and they pool their resources so that they can watch an even bigger show next week.  (Sadly, in some churches maybe this guy doesn’t have it so backwards after all). 

I think about every pastor would be appalled by such a thing…but what about on a denominational level? 

CP Curmudgeons

Part of the beauty of the Southern Baptist Convention is the Cooperative Program (CP).  The CP is a way that all SBC churches can pool together their resources for the sake of furthering the kingdom of Christ.  Whenever you give to an SBC church a good chunk of that money will go to the CP.  From there it will be used for international missions, state missions, local missions, seminaries, children’s homes, and a host of other SBC agencies. 

The SBC is structured in such a way that every church is locally autonomous.  That means that seminaries, state officers, national officers, etc. do not have any authority in the local church.  The President of the SBC cannot tell any SBC church what to do.  It is quite frequently, and rightly, said that the SBC entities are in position to serve us—the local church. 

What happens, then, when an SBC entity (that CP dollars go towards) “plays the drums too loud”? 

If a local church, usually through the leadership of her pastor, believes that an entity is no longer serving them they can allot their giving in such a way that money will not be given to those entities.  This happened many times during the days of the Conservative Resurgence when local churches believed that some of the entities were promoting liberalism instead of the gospel.  Churches can become like the curmudgeon in the photo above and refuse to give money because they do not like the direction of the entity.

Of course within the SBC any church is free to give however they desire.  They can do whatever they want.  The question I am concerned with is whether or not they should.  Come back tomorrow morning and I will attempt to answer this question:

If an entity no longer serves the local church should they continue giving to that entity? 

5 Great Things About The #GospelProject

The leaders of The Gospel Project decided to engage the world in a Twitter chat today using the hashtag #GospelProject.  It quickly began trending on Twitter.  A few folks came into the chat wondering about this Gospel Project thing. 

I do not have any vested interest in The Gospel Project other than my respect for the people behind the project and my love for the gospel.  I’m not a Lifeway employee or anything of the sort.  I’m simply an associate pastor in Indiana that has decided to get on board with The Gospel Project curriculum. 

Before I give you my five great things I want to share a little of my story.  I have been doing student ministry for over ten years.  In the beginning I used a good amount of the curriculum that was pushed my way.  I tried all of the latest and hippest material to get our students engaged in the Word.  Most of it stunk.  So, frustrated with the moralistic therapeutic deism that was passed off as Christian curriculum I gave up on curriculum.  When I opened the pages of The Gospel Project and began teaching our students I was using curriculum for the first time in over 5 years.  And I love it.  Here are 5 reasons why (in no particular order):

1. Every week the teacher is encouraged to pursue additional resources.  These are great resources that will expand the teachers knowledge of the gospel and the topics covered. 
2. Everything is tied back to Christ. This is not just a cute little saying but in reality they just give Jesus a few props at the end of the lesson.  You can tell that the entire point of the lesson is Christ and His accomplishments.
3. My son loves it.  Isaiah is a growing little boy.  He’s loving Bible stories and he’s beginning to slowly understand the gospel.  Previous curriculum taught him how to be a good little boy.  This curriculum is teaching him every week of his need for Jesus.  I love that my son can tell me each week why Jesus was the hero of the story.  He’s a bright little boy (4) so I’m not surprised that he is able to following along really well.  But he can usually tell me the story, he loves the cards, and he gets that Jesus is the main point. 
4. It tells the Bible’s story.  Most other curriculum feels rootless.  What I mean is that you’ll hear the story of David and Goliath 10 times over a 5 year span.  You’ll talk about the day to day problems that we all face over and over again.  Yet, seldom are these grounded in the Bible’s big picture story.  The Gospel Project tells the Bible’s story and I love it.
5. God’s mission is always explicit.  We are never left with simply thinking about how this applies to my day to day life.  That is good and that is addressed.  But the thing that I love about The Gospel Project is it always expands my view of God’s work.  It draws me out of my own little world and helps me to see that God has a much bigger mission than making sure I get a good parking spot at Wal-Mart.  God’s mission of redeeming lost sinners is always explicit in every lesson. 

I could have given you a few more reasons but if you are looking for a curriculum to use for your Sunday school, your small group, or your mid-week Bible studies, then look no further than The Gospel Project.  It is a Christ-centered curriculum that tells the Bible’s story in an engaging way and always encourages the reader to a gospel-centered response of mission and life change. 

Check it out.

Blogging and Water Torture

…a wife’s quarreling is a continual dripping of rain

I’ve never had to endure water torture, nor have I had to experience life with a quarreling wife.  I am blessed to have a tremendous and godly woman for a wife.  I’ve found something far more valuable than a mine of rubies.  But I have vaguely experienced the annoyance of a steady drip of water, or a rebellious and seemingly invisible cricket in the basement. 

Those might seem like minor annoyances but they are really symptoms of a much greater problem.  A steady dripping of water through your roof means that your going to be replacing your roof eventually.  Such a thing could even destroy the entire household.  Not to mention drive everyone completely insane with the noise of a constant drip. 

I well remember an episode of Mythbusters were they tested whether or not it really was torturous to endure the constant dripping of water:

Sometimes scrolling through my Google Reader and the SBC Voices aggregator feels like that.  Quarrels and contentions about some of the dumbest and most asinine things. 

Actually I should say that it used to feel like that.  I seldom check the aggregator (only occasionally am I drawn into a train wreck) and I’ve unsubscribed to almost all of the blogs that deal with negatives, controversies, and other articles that feel more like the constant drip of water torture than a steady stream from the fountain of grace.  I’d suggest you do the same.

The husband of a contentious wife is called to endure the quarreling.  To love her.  To nurture her.  To pray for her.  To find refuge in Christ alone.  And to hope for her finding abiding joy in Christ.  (As the same would be of a wife with a goober of a husband). 

But you don’t have to endure the constant dripping of annoying blogs.  Just unsubscribe.  Don’t concern yourself with holding a bucket under their spew or trying to fix the leak.  Eventually the house will flood itself.  No sense in standing by to watch.   

You probably know what blogs I’m talking about.  Just walk away.  “But they have influence and I want to help those that are being influenced”.  Fair enough.  But the people that enjoy the constant dripping of rain are pretty much insane anyways.  I’m not saying give up on them but they’ll only come out of such insanity through prayers and fasting not through your awesomely true and witty arguments.  Just let them live in the deluge and pray that they wake up to rescue. 

Meanwhile build up your own house and make sure it nurtured in such a way with the precious gospel that it doesn’t develop leaks.  Just as a husband wants to soak his wife in the water of the Word so a blog author needs to continually bathe his/her writing with the gospel. 

Blogging doesn’t have to be like water torture. 

The ABC’s Need a Story

If you have spent any time in Southern Baptist churches (and probably those of other denominations from our shared family tree) and especially VBS, you have undoubtedly heard the ABC’s of salvation.  With every VBS there is usually a little ditty that tells children how they can become followers of Jesus. 

Part of me deeply rejoices in the simplicity of this gospel presentation.  It can be very helpful when the Lord is working on the heart of someone, they understand the gospel for the most part, but they are kind of tripping up on the “what must I do to be saved” part. 

The ABC’s are a fair and biblical response to the question, “Brothers, what must I do to be saved”.  But, in my opinion, it is inadequate as a whole gospel presentation.  It attempts to explain through each of the letters why “admitting” is necessary and who we are “believing” in, which is good, but it seems really forced and minimalistic. 

When I share the gospel with people I try to front load it with the gospel proclamation (i.e. God-Man-Christ or Creation-Fall-Redemption).  In fact the gospel is not our response to the gospel.  Admit, believe, and confess is not the gospel.  It is the only fitting response to the gospel but is not the gospel itself.  When people understand the gospel and are then asking “what do I do to be saved” that is when I would share with them something like the ABC’s. 

I think it is assumed in much of this material that the gospel story will be presented in full throughout the week in the teaching segments.  And that is true.  However, what is emphasized is the response.  The ABC’s is what stands out as the gospel presentation in much of the VBS material. 

That’s backwards. 

Explaining to people the necessary response to the gospel isn’t the gospel and doesn’t have the promises of gospel power attached to it.  So instead of emphasizing the ABC’s as presentation emphasize the gospel story and train the leaders how to use the ABC’s to answer the response question. 

The ABC’s need the gospel story.

One Reason You Don’t Agree With Me

In reading a letter of John Newton I came across this gem:

…he could remove every prejudice, and give equal degrees of light to all his people, so that there should be no difference among them either about doctrine or discipline.  But were this the case, their uniformity would not afford them such opportunities of approving their obedience to him, and their love to each other, as they may draw from lesser differences.  But alas! remaining corruptions, and the subtlety of Satan, operate so strongly, that the sheep of Christ think they do Him service, by worrying and tearing one another. 

In other words, while we are still living on this side of a Redeemed Eden one of the reasons that the Lord continues to allow differences amongst us is to give us an opportunity for love and obedience to Him. 

Newton then gives a horribly wonderful example of our tearing at one another in the name of defending the cause of God.

Alas, when self fights in holy armour, and the cause of our own unsanctified passions is honoured with the specious name of the cause of God and truth, then religious zeal is seen in all the sense the original bears but the good sense, and breathes forth indignation, envy, and wrath.  Then Satan is transformed into an angel of light, and men suppose themselves to be men abounding in duty, in proportion as they depart from the spirit of love, which is the chief criterion and characteristic of the religion of Jesus.

And now the illustration:

I remember a passage somewhere in ancient history, of a battle fought in the night; both parties were resolute, many were the slain and wounded on both sides, both congratulated themselves on the mischief they had done to their opponents—at length the day broke, and turned their joy into sorrow.  They then found to their confusion that their animosity had been wholly owing to fighting in the dark before they had made proper inquiry, for though they had mistaken each other for enemies, they were friends and allies, engaged in the same cause, and had been weakening each other for the advantage of the common enemy.

May we not bruise one another and strike the heel of our common Master whilst thinking that we are in the business of crushing the head of the Serpent. 

My Biggest Problem With the SBCToday Critique of The Gospel Project

It could easily be argued that the Conservative Resurgence was a battle for the Bible.  We fought hard to ensure that Southern Baptists would continue to be a “people of the book”. Through those tumultuous years Baptists displayed that we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture. 

Fast forward to the year 2012. 

Calvinism and Traditionalism is all the talk within the SBC.  The Gospel Project curriculum from Lifeway has been one prominent locale for this battle to wage.  And that is my biggest problem with the SBCToday critiques, thus far, concerning The Gospel Project; it’s more about whether or not it’s written by those with Calvinistic convictions than if its biblical. 

As noted in an article yesterday the first substantive critique from Pastor Ralph Green is filled with logical fallacies.  What bothers me most about that is not the existence of logical fallacies but the prominence of the genetic fallacy.  The genetic fallacy is “committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.” 

The center of the argument so far has been that more non-Southern Baptist theologians (often Reformed) have been quoted instead of Southern Baptist theologians that are not Reformed.  Therefore, the material is Calvinistic and ought to be rejected by Southern Baptists that are not Calvinist. 

It has yet to be considered whether or not what John Piper says in a quote is biblically correct.  Or whether Matt Chandler is proclaiming the gospel and biblical truth.  Or if at this point Francis Schaeffer absolutely nails it.  No, what has been considered is whether or not they are Reformed.  And that bothers  me because it means that we are no longer “a people of the book” because our criteria for accepting or rejecting an argument appears to no longer be the Scriptures but a particular theological leaning.

If you go through the Gospel Project and honestly find that it is not biblically accurate or biblically dangerous then by all means lets reject it.  But if it proclaims biblical truth, exalts Christ, and promotes a solid biblical theology let us embrace it even if we don’t agree with every jot and tittle of the theology of every contributor and person quoted. 

Are we a “people of the book” or a people that are more concerned about someone being Baptist than biblical?   

Unity and Our Ultimate Goal

And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk.
(Mark 12:13 ESV)

That’s like saying, “And they sent to him a group of Red Sox fans and Yankees fans”.  Or if your the more political type, “they sent to him a group of Tea Party Conservatives and liberal Democrats.”  You don’t normally see these two parties together.  Yet two groups of people can surprisingly get along if they have a common goal or passion that outweighs the passion by which they are in disagreement.  (Consider Simon the Zealot and Levi the tax collector). 

But is this true unity? 

Allow me to ask this question a different way.  Let’s imagine that Red Sox fans and Yankee fans gather together for the noble cause of raising 1 billion dollars to preserve the duck-billed platypus.It is amazing to see these two communities come together for all the charity events.  The hate and vitriol between these two lengthy rivals is toned down.  They have a much greater end in mind; namely, preserving that cute little platypus. 

Months go by and finally they have raised their 1 billion dollars.  What happens, though, when baseball season rolls around and they no longer have this platypus thing to worry about?  Are they now friends?  Of course not.  They are no longer united because the goal that had united them was only a temporary goal and not an eternal goal. 

How this relates to the church (particularly the SBC)

That begs a question for the church—and more specifically for the SBC.  What is our uniting factor?  Is it something that is eternal or is it merely temporary?  Do we have an eternal end or a temporary end?

The ultimate goal for the church (SBC) relates to the overarching mission and story of God.  He is, as Piper as so aptly said, “filling the earth with his glory by rooting out of his kingdom all sin and unbelief, and filling it with [passionate] worshipers from every people, tongue, tribe, and nation.”  Our church tweaks that a little by saying “we are a church united to enjoy God’s grace and to extend His glory”. 

If we are united around this, which is eternal, then our experience of unity will not be as fragile. 

I would like to encourage you to do something either here in the comments or in your own time on your own sheets of paper.  Make a list of the things that “unite” your church and/or the SBC.  Perhaps even consider things in our history (the issue of slavery, the Conservative Resurgence, etc.)  Which of these are eternal?  Which of these are temporary? 

Tomorrow I want to look at muddying the waters with a-theological unity. 

The Source and Importance of Unity

In Philippians 1:27 Paul exhorts them to “only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ”.  It would make little sense for him to be saying “live in such a way that you earn what Christ has purchased”.  Instead what he is saying is “live in such a way that you accurately display the worth of the gospel of Christ”. 

It’s interesting then how he expounds on that exhortation.  What he mostly speaks of in the next 3 verses is unity around the gospel and suffering for the sake of Christ.  If you really think about it though it’s not all that surprising that unity and suffering would display the worth of the gospel of Christ.

Consider Jesus’ early disciples. 

One follower of Jesus was Simon the Zealot.  A Zealot was a member of a Jewish sect that refused to pay tribute to those dirty Romans.  Zealots abhorred the fact that many of their people were selling out to Rome.  Eventually this led to an assassination attempt against not only Roman leaders but also any Jews that cooperated with these pagans. 

Another follower of Jesus was Matthew/Levi the tax collector.  A tax collector was the definition of a sell out to Rome.  They not only paid taxes to Rome they actually partnered with them in collecting the taxes.  And most, of course, took opportunities to pocket a little of theses taxes for themselves.  Tax collectors stole from their own people. 

Before Christ if you would have ran into Simon the Zealot and Levi the tax collector on the streets you probably would have had to break up a fist fight—or maybe worse.  These dudes would not have gotten along.  For one man what drove him was Jewish nationality.  For the other man what drove him was a dollar and if that meant getting it from Rome then so be it. 

But look at what the gospel does.

Simon the Zealot (who probably still carried a deep flame of patriotism) is now eating meals with the once sell-out Levi (who probably still felt a little sympathy for Rome).  What happened that made Simon and Levi ministry partners?  The gospel of Christ became more valuable to Simon than his nationalism and more important to Levi than his money. 

We communicate the value of the gospel by not only our response to suffering but by our unity with one another.  When issues like Calvinism/Traditionalism, shag/berber carpet, premillenial/amillenial/postmillenial, Democrat/Republican, Yankees fan/having a soul, dominate our time, conversations, and ministry we are communicating that these issues are more valuable than the gospel. 

Disunity that comes from non-essential (gospel-centered) things proves that something higher than Jesus has hold of our affections.  That also means that the way out of disunity is not to continuously cry, “Unity, unity, unity” but instead it is to raise our affections for Christ.  It’s as A.W. Tozer rightly said years ago:

“Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So one hundred worshipers [meeting] together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be, were they to become 'unity' conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship.

What does your unity/disunity say about your affections for Christ and His gospel?  Are you accurately displaying the worth of the gospel of Christ by the way that you interact with brothers and sisters in Christ?  Or are you displaying that something else is more valuable and has a hold on your heart?

The Proverbial Elephant in the SBC

There has been quite a bit of talk lately about the proverbial elephant in the SBC.  I figured perhaps we should finally give him a listen:

There you have it folks.  Wise words: People that live in glass houses should change clothes in the basement.  May this proverbial elephant forever instruct us. 

Why I Will Not Be Voting For Dave Miller for 2nd VP

Yesterday it was announced that the editor for SBC Voices, Dave Miller, will be nominated for the 2nd VP of the SBC.  Though I greatly respect Dave and am honored to be able to write for SBC Voices, I will not be voting for him.  And there is one, and only one, huge reason why…

I can’t be in attendance.

That is my only reservation for voting for Dave.  (My apologies if I am supposed to call him something other than simply Dave, now). 

Alan Cross has written a very nice piece on the esteemed Mr. Miller.  I would echo Alan’s reasons for voting for Dave.  If I could be in attendance I would vote for Dave with my right hand as well with the ballot that I tricked them into giving me with a fake mustache. 

So, if you do not have the same problem as me in voting for the Iowan Wonder then I urge you to cast your vote for Dave Miller for 2nd VP of the SBC.  Do it for me.  Do it for America.  Do it for world peace. 

No word on whether Dave, if elected, will be challenging messengers to Feats of Strength.  Though I do hope he’ll accept his nomination wearing the above suit. 

THE Statement and My Solution

Yesterday, I promised a solution to the entire fiasco over Calvinism in the SBC. 

Here it is… 

One word…

Festivus. 

In case you are unfamiliar with Festivus it is a made-up holiday from Seinfeld* that is celebrated around the time of Christmas.  During Festivus family members sit around a table and “air their grievances”.  According to Frank Costanza, “at the Festivus dinner, you gather your family around, and tell them all the ways they have disappointed you over the past year!” 

That may be what the SBC needs. 

At this years family get-together (the SBC Annual Meeting) let’s block out about 4 hours and have our own little Festivus.  We will have the Tradionalists take to the mic and let us Calvinists know exactly what their grievances are.  Is it our theology?  Tell us.  Is it some hybrid form called New Calvinism and the real problem isn’t theology but it’s an attitude?  Tell us. 

During this “Airing of Grievances” Calvinists must remain silent, stroke their beards and listen.  (If any Calvinists is not bearded or any Traditionalist is, then that can be covered during the “airing of grievances”).  No blogging.  No tweeting.  No coughing.  No reading the Institutes.  No putting together a ready defense.  Just listen.

Then the Calvinists get a turn.  Do you feel that a few straw-men have been erected and then torched?  Tell them.  Do you want to discuss what appears to you to be Semi-Pelagian?  Tell them. 

And just as it was for the Calvinists, during this “Airing of Grievances” the Traditionalists must remain silent and use their Libertarian free wills to simply listen.  No blogging.  No tweeting.  No giving of altar calls.  No cutting up the Institutes.  No putting together a ready defense.  Just listen. 

Once we have aired our grievances and we know what we are really dealing with and we know areas that need to be repented of, perhaps we can forge ahead and then decide whether we want to amicably part ways or whether or not we want to use some sort of document (like maybe the BF&M) as our guideline for cooperation. 

Is Festivus the Only Option?

At this point Festivus seems like our only answer…

That is apart from humility, repentance, and a painful gaze at our own soteriological camp.  But I think the airing of grievances may actually be more fun to watch.  Perhaps we could sell tickets and support local missions.  We may need another Festivus to decide how the money should be spent, but it could be wise to schedule these every year from here on out. 

In all seriousness, I do believe that it would be helpful for us to actually agree about what we are disagreeing about.  Perhaps some sort of “Airing of Grievances” would be beneficial.  But until we are in a spot to suspect ourselves more than our soteriological counter-parts I doubt it’d do more than generate blog traffic.  It may be better to save the more pointed critiques for your own camp and leave playing defense up to the Lord.  

That’s my solution.  Do with it what you will, SBC. 

P.S. Those of you that get to attend NOLA can decide whether or not you want to challenge the newly elected President to a “Feats of Strength” in order to adjourn. 

---

*By the way “The Statement” would make a great name for this particular Seinfeld episode we seem to be living through in the SBC.

If you like Seinfeld here you go:

THE Statement and My Confusion

On May 30th a shot was fired across the SBC Blogosphere in the form of a document entitled A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.  (Actually prior to its hitting the blog world, Tom Ascol had posted an article alerting some that such a statement was forthcoming). 

Since that initial article there have been numerous statements for and against.  SBC Today has put forth several articles defending the document and there have been a few at SBC Voices defending it as well.  There have been over 500 signatures to the document.  A good number of Southern Baptists appear to be supportive and generally backing this statement. 

Yet, it is not without its controversy.  There are several that have responded negatively to the statement.  The charge of semi-Pelagianism (or at least appearing to be Semi-Pelagian) has been leveled; and this even by those outside of the SBC.  Dr. Mohler has weighed in.  Dr. Jerry Vines has responded.  It’s a big deal and will certainly spill over into the SBC’s Annual Meeting next week. 

My Take

You probably know that my soteriological leanings tend towards being Calvinistic.  Or to put that another way I prefer TULIP’s over ROSES.  But you also know that I’m like John Newton:

‘I am more of a Calvinist than anything else; but I use my Calvinism in my writings and my preaching as I use this sugar’—taking a lump, and putting it into his tea-cup, and stirring it, adding, ‘I do not give it alone, and whole; but mixed and diluted.’

As such I am, honestly, a tad disappointed at the way some of responded to the statement.  That’s not to say that I’m not equally befuddled by some of the responses to those responses.  For the most part I think that there are significant theological differences but for the most part we are just talking past one another. 

Without getting into any of the theological issues at this point, my major contention with “The Statement” deals with the way the entire discussion has been framed.  And I believe that this is really why we are doing nothing more than talking past one another, arguing about terms, and really only looking like a dumb dog chasing it’s tail for every passerby to laugh at. 

Confusion

“What is the issue?”  That is the foundational question that I want to ask to those that framed and signed the document. 

If the issue is doctrine then let’s respond with statements of belief and disagreement.  Let’s discuss the issues, determine if it’s a second-tier or third tier issue, and decide how to either cooperate or sadly decide how to amicably part ways.  If the theology of Calvinism is the issue and we are discussing whether or not we need to rid the SBC of Calvinists then let’s discuss that. 

However, from the document itself it seems like they are saying something different.  It sounds as if they are saying something similar to this, “While, we disagree with Calvinist theology it is not the theology itself that has really caused us to write this statement.  What has necessitated this document is the rise of a new form of militant and aggressive Calvinists that are wreaking havoc on our beloved SBC”. 

And that just confuses me.  It confuses me because whenever I deal with any angry and aggressive Calvinist, Arminian, Semi-Pelagian, Steeler-fan, or country music fan I don’t typically engage them with a confessional statement.  It may do us a little good to argue about the merits of hating country music--and I would be sure to win that argument--but at the end of the day you aren’t going to “win” a battle with an angry and aggressive adherent to any doctrine (heresy or orthodox).  Anger and militancy is a heart issue that won’t be changed by a confessional statement.  Such a statement will only make angry and aggressive types foam at the mouth quicker than a seeker-sensitive youth group popping Alka Seltzers. 

So, if the Statement was meant to get a group of people together to stop militant and aggressive Calvinists then sign me up.  They won’t get them to sign the confessional statement but I bet they could get a whole host of SBC Calvinist to put an end to an angry and aggressive posture.  Again, I’m not sure who they are, specifically, but if I find ‘em I’ll do my best to calm them down.

As it stands you have a group of people saying we believe Calvinists and non-Calvinists have worked together for centuries (so the theology itself is not the biggest problem) but we Traditionalists have to fight against this “new Calvinism”, and here is a document showing why Calvinism is in error.  Meanwhile we are left to debate terms, the growing influence of nameless people, and somewhere along the way ask what the Bible says about how we come to faith in Christ. 

Tomorrow I’ll give my idea for a way forward…

Interacting with @AlbertMohler’s Response to the “Traditional” Statement of Faith

If you have not yet had the chance to read Dr. Mohler’s response to A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation then take go here and take peek and then come back.

As I read through this response I was nodding my head in agreement.  I appreciate his posture of not wanting to shut down dialogue but continue this discussion.  I further appreciate his reminder that lost people and future generations are observing not only what we discuss but how we discuss it. 

I appreciate Dr. Mohler’s response and I am in agreement with him.  That probably does not come as a surprise to any of my readers that know me.  I’m not a Mohler-bot but I do appreciate the man and his ministry and I’m probably going to read things with less suspicion than others. 

Having said that there are two things in this document that I believe those that read Dr. Mohler with suspicion will latch on to. 

First, will be this statement:

The more Calvinistic Southern Baptists, and here I include myself, are deeply theological and passionately concerned to get the Gospel right. The Calvinists I know are transforming their beliefs into an absolute renaissance of missionary commissionings and Gospel church planting. At times, however, Calvinists can be tribal and elitist, more concerned with counting points of doctrine and less concerned with pointing us all to the mission of the Gospel. Such a tribalism is inconsistent with the very beliefs we cherish. This goes to show that we, too, can be inconsistent in faith and practice. Of such tribalism we must all repent.

Perhaps because of feeling burned by Dr. Mohler’s prior statements some will read this as if he is saying that “Calvinistic Southern Baptists are more theological and passionate than non-Calvinists”.  Yet a careful reading will show that he is merely comparing Calvinistic passion and missions with it’s opposite of tribalism.  Non-Calvinists are not even on his mind here.

He is saying something similar to this.  I love giraffes.  I love watching them eat with their huge necks.  I am amazed that a single kick from a giraffe could decapitate a lion.  I could sit and watch them for hours.  Unfortunately, because I love giraffes so much I can be prone to neglect some of the other exhibits at the zoo.  Monkeys are pretty cool too but sometimes I’m too busy watching the giraffes to notice what the monkeys do. 

There is nothing in the above that should imply that the reader does not love giraffes as much as he does.  Your passion for giraffes or monkeys is not the issue.  The point being made here is that a passion for giraffes can lead to a neglect of monkeys.  The former is brought up to give emphasis to the latter.  And that is all Dr. Mohler is doing in his statement about Calvinistic passion for missions.  It is no statement about non-Calvinists.

Second, will be Mohler’s statement directly after stating that it “appear(s) to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings of sin, human nature, and the human will — understandings that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied.”  Mohler then qualifies his statement by saying:

I do not believe that those most problematic statements truly reflect the beliefs of many who signed this document. I know many of these men very well, and I know them to be doctrinally careful and theologically discerning. Some of these very men have served most boldly in the defense of the faith, and they have taught me much. We should be honored by the privilege of a serious theological conversation with one another, and we will all speak more carefully when we are respectfully questioned by those with whom we disagree.

Some will read that and be offended because Dr. Mohler is charging those that signed it as not being careful nor discerning in this particular statement.  As a whole he believes that they are those things—but this document (whether writing it or signing it) betrays what normally describes them.  Once pressed he believes they will back down from this statement and hopefully clarify it’s meaning because as it sounds it appears Semi-Pelagian. 

Now, some will accuse Mohler of arrogance here.  But I want to consider his options.  If after reading the document he believes that Article 2 “appears semi-Pelagian” he has two options.  1) To believe that the signers and writers knew that it was semi-Pelagian.  Didn’t care that it was semi-Pelagian and continued down that path.  2) To believe that the signers and writers of the document were simply mistaken or were not careful in the way that it was worded.  Perhaps they are meaning something different by terms that are usually used by semi-Pelagians.  In this case with further discussion they will show that they are in fact NOT semi-Pelagians. 

Given those two options I am glad that he chose the second one.  Article 2 appears very semi-Pelagian.  There is no way around that.  What has to happen now is an explanation of the article.  Are you semi-Pelagian and okay with that?  Do you deny semi-Pelagianism but need to perhaps reword it for the sake of clarity? 

Conclusion:

I appreciate Dr. Mohler’s response and stand with him and many others that believe the Baptist Faith and Message is a sufficient document for us to partner together for the sake of taking the gospel to the nations.  While going out to reach the lost we can debate in the car how God works behind the scenes to bring about salvation.  But when our feet hit the pavement we will stand shoulder to shoulder declaring Jesus Christ the only hope of the nations. 

Magic Always Comes with a Price: The Conservative Resurgence and Calvinism

I’ll need to know where to go to forfeit my man card once I reveal this confession.  Last winter my wife introduced me to a new series on ABC called Once Upon a Time.  I don’t merely endure this show.  I actually look forward to it coming on and my wife and I have made it a Sunday evening tradition.  Fellas, as soon as your laughter and disdain dies down a little try to stomach this video:

I would have liked to have gotten a little better quality video without editing but this was the best that I could find.  The main thing for you to take away from this is what Rumpelstiltskin about magic.  “Magic always comes with a price”.  In each case the person desiring to use “magic” gets what they want for a season but inevitably pays a price much steeper than they desired to pay. 

My Experience with the CR

In the late 70’s and early 80’s the Southern Baptist Convention found itself embroiled in a controversy between liberals and conservatives.  By mentioning the Conservative Resurgence (CR) I just opened up a big emotional can of worms for everyone that lived through it.  Opinions abound on every side. 

Personally, I did not live through it.  Well, I technically did live through some of the CR but I was more concerned with greater things like controlling bowel movements and making sure that I got to watch ALF.  In others words I was but a wee lad that new about as much concerning SBC life as Al Mohler knows about the KC Royals starting lineup. 

However, for one of my classes I read through A Hill On Which To Die and write a review.  Not only did I read through that book but there were various others with snippets about the CR that I needed to know for my class on Baptist History.  All of this to say that I know about the CR only from a distance and what I have read as an interested historical observer.  I didn’t have front row seats. 

Yet I do remain a beneficiary of the Conservative Resurgence.  I am very conservative in theology and I thank God for the conservative resurgence. I am ecstatic that I can attend the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and know that it is a bastion for truth and is dedicated to the glory of God. One could not have said that for many years prior to the Conservative Resurgence.  So I remain indebted to the CR.  Yet I’m not sure it wasn’t without it’s price…

“Magic” Comes with a Price

What happened in the CR is that a majority of the SBC were not liberals.  Yet, they were being increasingly led by liberals.  The seminaries were churning out students and staffed by those far more liberal than most SBC churches were comfortable with.  Yet, the Cooperative Program dollars that each church sent into the SBC was being used—it seemed—to further the cause of liberalism. 

In the Conservative Resurgence a group of people gathered together to “take back the Convention”.  By mastering the political structure of the SBC these leaders discovered how to slowly but surely elect conservatives to outweigh liberals on every vital board.  They came to realize that the Convention President held the key that would eventually trickle down to a conservative leaning Board of Trustees for all entities that would then elect conservative seminary presidents (like Albert Mohler) as well as literature, missions, and seminary professors. 

For the next several years a battle within the SBC for control and power was lived out at every annual convention.  Again, I am thankful in many regards for this battle.  I am happy that a powerful liberal minority did not win the day (especially given the trajectory of some of those now outside the Convention).  I am glad that the conservatives won the battle.  Yet, I am left to wonder what was the cost of the battle.  You don’t engage in war without having a few battle wounds.

The Calvinism Question

As I somewhat reluctantly scan through the recent articles and discussions about the place of Calvinism within the SBC I cannot help but hear some of same verbiage that took place in the CR.  It appears—at least to me—that one of the battle wounds coming from the CR is that conservatives have become jaded and some seem to have one eye open for any that might again try to take over the convention.  In part that is good and I am thankful for this. 

Yet, Calvinism is not liberalism.  There is no need for a Calvinist “takeover” or “taking back the convention” from Calvinists because we are largely on the exact same team.  Calvinists and Non-Calvinists happily linked arms to fight against liberalism.  And now we seem to be fighting one another.

It appears to me that the “magic” that was used was a firm understanding of how to “have power” within the SBC.  And now it seems that some are weary that Calvinists might be using this “magic” to wrest control of the SBC.  I cannot help but wonder if there is not a movement similar to what took place at the Cafe du Monde to put in place a plan to take back the convention from any Calvinistic leaders. 

Could there be a Calvinistic Conspiracy to gain control of the SBC.  I assume so.  But it could also be possible that the resurgence of Reformed theology is not some sinister plot to take back the SBC.  In fact I think by the somewhat ecumenical nature of the movement such a thing could be easily disproven.  Together for the Gospel may benefit the SBC but at the end of the day it has little do with it politically.  The same thing goes for the The Gospel Coalition and John Piper. 

I guess it is possible that some within the SBC are using Piper, TGC, T4G, and Acts 29 as pawns in their scheme of SBC world dominance.  But Piper, TGC, Acts 29 and many within T4G seem to have little concern about the SBC.  Can I be really honest with you for a second?  As a young pastor within the SBC I have to confess that when I dream about things very seldom is it the expansion of of the SBC.  My dreams are centered around the gospel.  I love the SBC.  I believe it is a wonderfully useful tool for missions and for the most part a great fellowship of mostly like-minded believers.  But I, and many of those like me, have very little concern about controlling the SBC.  We just want to see the gospel thrive. 

My point in all of this is to say that just as magic comes with a price so did the CR.  And one of those things is looking at one another with an heir of suspicion as well as a real or perceived battle to see who is pulling the magical strings that were unlocked by the CR. 

It is my prayer that our greatest concern is not of what stripe the leaders in the SBC are when it comes to Calvinism or whatever, but that our greatest concern is whether or not we as a whole are promoting the gospel, exalting the name of Jesus, and taking His powerful gospel to the ends of the earth.  Are we discipling people within our local churches to love Jesus more and to live our live sin such a way as to express the greatness of His worth?  If those “pulling the strings” in the SBC are doing these things then I don’t care if they have pictures of John Calvin above their bed-frame or Adrian Rogers. 

I fear that we may have bought some magic that carries a price a little steeper than we wanted to pay.  Thankfully, my fear is overcome by the truth that Christ is greater and deeper.  He can unite what others divide.  May He heal not only the SBC but also continue to use her to further His kingdom. 

One Reason Tom Schreiner is My Favorite Professor @SBTS

Not only is Tom Schreiner a faithful pastor he is also one of the best scholars of our day. Yet, perhaps his best quality is that he models grace and humility in his teaching and preaching. I am happy to have Dr. Schreiner as one of my professors. But his preaching, teaching, and writing skills are no match for his awesome rapping skills.

(HT: Denny Burk)