This post is part of my series Life as a Calvinist in the SBC.

The Bard once wrote, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.” His point was that labels are less important than reality. A rose is a rose whether you call it a rose or a turtle or the moon. Nonetheless, labels have their uses. When used right, labels neither determine nor distort reality but depict reality in abbreviated form. There is a word called ‘rose’ which corresponds to the idea of an actual rose, so when I want you to think of a rose, I don’t have to describe all the characteristics of a rose. I can say the word ‘rose’ and the proper object comes to mind.

Read the rest of this entry »

This post is part of my series Life as a Calvinist in the SBC.

In many ways, this is probably the least worthwhile of the posts in this series. It is little more than an excuse for me to talk about myself. But my history with Calvinism differs in a number of ways from most Calvinist Southern Baptists. I was born a Presbyterian, convinced of Calvinism for many years, eventually joined the SBC and later turned from and grew quite hostile to Calvinism, only to turn again and embrace Calvinism. If the summary is all you want, you’re done. For the juicy details, keep reading!

Read the rest of this entry »

This post is part of my series Life as a Calvinist in the SBC.

When I started this series (one whole post ago) I had the goal of writing a long series of short posts addressing Calvinism in the SBC. One problem with that goal is I don’t know how to do anything short. As such, this is likely to be a long series of long posts, as this first substantive post demonstrates. In these posts, I will try to add headers to help those who may be curious yet not want to read the whole thing.

Unity?

When I was in college, I decided to circumvent my dorm’s anti-pet rules by raising fish. While my time as an ichthyologist was short-lived, I did manage to learn a few things. One of my early lessons was that you don’t mix betta fish with, well, any other kind of fish. There is a reason they are nicknamed Siamese Fighting Fish. Bettas need to be kept to themselves, they don’t get along with others.

There are some who feel the same way about Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC, that we don’t get along and shouldn’t try. Are they right? Should we try to keep our theological fish separated for the sake of peace? Or should we perhaps put costumes on all the fish, erasing distinctions for the sake of unity?

Read the rest of this entry »

From time to time I get a hankerin’ to write a book on Calvinism. I’ve even made two attempts at the book and have incomplete drafts to prove it. But while the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak and this desire has always been left incomplete.

Despite the many volumes that have been and continue to be written on Calvinism, I believe there are a few things left to say, particularly for Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. Since it appears my book will never be written (not to mention published!), I will instead make use of the one medium that gives a voice to every small-time crackpot with an opinion: the blogosphere. (Disclaimer: I’m still working to elevate my reputation to big-time crackpot with an opinion.)

Over the next few weeks, I will be writing a series of posts on Calvinism in the SBC. I hope these posts will serve as a means of facilitating thinking and discussion about Calvinism. There needs to be robust discussion of these issues and I believe it is possible to discuss passionately, disagree vigorously, yet walk together with unity. Too often these discussions dissolve to little more than hurling accusations at each other. May that not be the case with these posts.

Below is my planned series of posts. This will likely change some as I progress. As each post is written, I will link to it in the list below so this post can serve as a kind of index.

1. Pursuing Unity as a Calvinist in the SBC
2. My Journey with Calvinism and the SBC
3. Calvin vs the Bible: Labels for a Calvinist in the SBC
4. Reformed vs Calvinist: Labels for a Calvinist in the SBC
5. The Three Point Calvinists: Labels for a Calvinist in the SBC
6. Calvinist, Arminian, or Baptist: Labels for a Calvinist in the SBC
7. TULIP: Doing Theology as a Calvinist in the SBC
8. Total Depravity: Doing Theology as a Calvinist in the SBC
9. Unconditional Election: Doing Theology as a Calvinist in the SBC
10. Limited Atonement: Doing Theology as a Calvinist in the SBC
11. Irresistible Grace: Doing Theology as a Calvinist in the SBC
12. Perseverance of the Saints: Doing Theology as a Calvinist in the SBC
13. Reaching the Lost as a Calvinist in the SBC
14. The End of Calvinism in the SBC
15. A Word to Both Sides of Calvinism in the SBC

This year’s Southern Baptist Convention concluded yesterday, wrapping up one of the tamest – and least attended – convention meetings that has been held in some time.

That said, this year’s convention still held some surprises. The biggest one for me was the resolution dealing with the 2011 NIV from Zondervan. Without going into a lot of detail (plenty of detail can be found all over the web), the 2011 revision of the NIV has imported a lot of the gender neutral problems present in Zondervan’s previous TNIV. The TNIV is being discontinued, but much of its carcass has endured in the new NIV. Because the new revision is being sold as the NIV, people will not realize that what they are getting is the gender neutral version rather than the NIV they have always known. Lifeway, the publishing and bookstore arm of the SBC, sells the new NIV and seemed likely to continue doing so. But that may change.

At the 2011 SBC, a messenger rose from the floor to propose the following resolution (source):

WHEREAS, Many Southern Baptist pastors and laypeople have trusted and used the 1984 New International Version (NIV) translation to the great benefit of the Kingdom; and

WHEREAS, Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House are publishing an updated version of the New International Version (NIV) which incorporates gender neutral methods of translation; and

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-16) and, in 1997, urged every Bible publisher and translation group to resist “gender-neutral” translation of Scripture; and

WHEREAS, This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language; and

WHEREAS, Although it is possible for Bible scholars to disagree about translation methods or which English words best translate the original languages, the 2011 NIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards; and

WHEREAS, Seventy-five percent of the inaccurate gender language found in the TNIV is retained in the 2011 NIV; and

WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention has passed a similar resolution concerning the TNIV in 2002; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011 express profound disappointment with Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage pastors to make their congregations aware of the translation errors found in the 2011 NIV; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.

Notice the third Resolved: That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores

Baptist Press had this to say about the vote:

In a surprising and dramatic move moments ago, messengers voted first to consider a resolution highly critical of the TNIV (sic) 2011 and then passed the resolution nearly unanimously. The resolution came from the floor — introduced by messenger Tim Overton — and not from the Resolutions Committee. Overturn’s appeal for messengers to consider the resolution passed by at least a 2-to-1 margin, and the resolution itself got only a handful of opposing votes. The Resolutions Committee had asked messengers not to consider the resolution.

So despite the fact that the resolution was offered from the floor and despite the fact that the Resolutions Committee asked messengers not to consider it, it was considered and passed nearly unanimously.

In Southern Baptist polity, churches are said to run the show. In reality, however, churches do not directly run the show so much as have a say in who gets to say who runs the show. Messengers from churches vote for the officers of the SBC, including the SBC president. The president of the SBC is then in a position to nominate trustees for the various entities of the SBC. It is the trustees who call the shots for the entities (entities being groups like IMB, NAMB, the seminaries, and Lifeway, to name a few). During the Conservative Resurgence, the approach was to elect conservative presidents who would nominate conservative trustees for the various entities. (Note: there is a little more to it than that, but I’m trying to keep this short). Because of this, messengers to the SBC do not have the authority to directly instruct entities on what they should do. We can make recommendations, we cannot dictate policy.

In the case of the NIV and Lifeway, a resolution was passed requesting that Lifeway stop selling the new NIV. It is now up to the trustees of Lifeway to decide whether or not to respect the clearly expressed will of the SBC.

At one point during the GCR debate last year, I asked a pastor with more convention experience if the GCR would ever be enacted. Some of the trustees of the entities addressed by the GCR recommendations were clearly in disagreement with those recommendations. Since the recommendations are non-binding, the trustees would not have to execute them. The pastor responded that such a thing is possible, but it would be very unusual for an entity to defy the will of the SBC as expressed at an annual meeting.

I asked James Smith of the Florida Baptist Witness if he had heard anything about Lifeway’s response. He replied that “staff will consult with trustees on how to react to resolution.” Here is hoping that Lifeway’s trustees will respect the clearly stated will of the SBC regarding the 2011 NIV.

I had originally planned to put this online in a series of posts, but I already have a notion of how many people will read through this monster, so I might as well put it all up at once. It can also be downloaded as a PDF:

GCR-Comments.pdf

The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force was organized to examine denominational entities and make recommendations on how we as a denomination can be more effective in missionary work. Formation of the task force was approved during the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Louisville, Kentucky and the task force will present its final proposal at the 2010 SBC meeting in Orlando, Florida.

The final proposal was released to the public on May 3rd and is available at http://www.pray4gcr.com/. The document is 27 pages long and consists of four sections:

• Introduction
• Proposal, presented in seven components
• Summary of the recommendation to the SBC
• Concluding challenges to individuals, churches, and entities of the SBC

In my comments on the GCR proposal I’m going to try hard not to nitpick. There were a number of statements that jumped out as really good, and a number of statements that jumped out as really bad. Many of the bad statements point to deeper problems within the SBC. I discuss one of those bad statements in a previous blog post. But for the purpose of this post, I want to remain focused on what the GCR proposal is intended to bring about, what specific recommendations are being proposed, and whether or not I think the recommendations are good.

Several months ago, the GCR Task Force released a rough draft of their proposal. At that time the document had little more than the opening introduction/sermon and the proposal itself. Now, however, the final report includes a section of challenges to Southern Baptists. I think the challenges are the best part of the document and am thrilled to see them in the final report. Read the rest of this entry »

After reading about biblical illiteracy it occurs to me that the theological diversity within the SBC is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing as it encourages our people to unify around the essentials without dividing over non-essentials. There do remain some matters not essential to salvation that nonetheless divide us from other denominations: ecclesiology, baptism, the ordination of women, etc. But there is also remarkable diversity allowed within SBC life. Calvinists work alongside non-Calvinists. Dispensationalists and amillennialists go to church together (okay, not often). The Baptist Faith and Message establishes what is considered the minimum level of acceptable belief. It presents the least common denominator of Baptist faith. And as it stands the BF&M is a good document. Everything it affirms is right and true. But many topics are left unaddressed, providing freedom for individual Baptists to follow diverse convictions on these issues.

The curse of our diversity is that we also try to over establish uniformity. From a least-common-denominator confession of faith we also have a least-common-denominator body of teaching material through Lifeway, once known as the Baptist Sunday School Board. Lifeway’s approach follows that of the Baptist Faith and Message: teach things held in common by all Southern Baptists without crossing into areas of disagreement. This is not an altogether bad approach. As a Calvinist, I would not be happy knowing my money to Lifeway helped pay for material specifically opposing Calvinism. I imagine my non-Calvinist brothers and sisters would be equally appalled if Lifeway started promoting Calvinism.

The problem is with the end result. We wind up with a denomination full of people who have never been trained to go beyond the basics, never trained to dive into Scripture and emerge with rich jewels of truth.

The Lifeway material is fine for what it does, but what it does is not sufficient for the week-in-week-out growth and edification of the people of God. Our people need to be led deeper and further into biblical truth, not dancing around issues where Southern Baptists disagree but confronting those issues head on and emerging with strong convictions about what the Bible says on every subject that it addresses. For Lifeway, the solution might be to offer a variety of material coming from different theological persuasions. Not really a good solution, but I’m not sure what else they could do. In the meantime, individual churches using Lifeway material will need to go places the material will not go, augmenting the weekly lesson with more time spent in the Bible and less time spent in the Sunday school book. In the end this is the best approach anyway, no matter what material is used.