Between The Times

Editor’s Note: This series of posts deals with the global context in its historical, social, cultural, political, economic, demographic, and religious dimensions. We will provide book notices, book reviews, and brief essays on these topics. We hope that you will find this series helpful as you live and bear witness in an increasingly complex and hyper-connected world.

Book: Freedom at Midnight
Region: South Asia
Countries: India & Pakistan
Length: 572 pages
Difficulty: Intermediate

At the stroke of midnight on August 15, 1947, India was set free from British rule and at the same time was partitioned into the two autonomous nations of India and Pakistan. In Freedom at Midnight, Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre deliver a fast-paced and intimate account of these events, focused on India’s last British viceroy Louis Mountbatten and India’s spiritual leader Mahatma Ghandi, but laced with stories about the Muslim leader Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Hindu statesman Jawaharlal Nehru, and other major players.

The authors view this series of events as the greatest and most complex “divorce” in history. In the first chapter, the authors write, What should have been Britain’s finest hour in India seemed destined to become a nightmare of unsurpassed horror. She had conquered and ruled India with what was, by the colonial standard, relatively little bloodshed. Her leaving threatened to produce an explosion of violence that would dwarf in scale and magnitude anything she had experienced in three and a half centuries there.

This divorce, and the ensuing bloodbath, would center on the ages-old rivalry between India’s Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. The leaders of India’s 100 million Moslems now demanded that Britain destroy the unity she had so painstakingly created and give them an Islamic state of their own. The cost of denying them their state, they warned, would be the bloodiest civil war in Asian history. Just as determined to resist their demands were the leaders of the Congress Party, representing most of India’s 300 million Hindus. To them, the division of the subcontinent would be a mutilation of their historic homeland, an act almost sacrilegious in its nature. Britain was trapped between these two apparently irreconcilable demands.

In response to the demands of Jinnah and the Muslim league, Britain decided to partition India so that Muslims would have their own country. However, this concession did not allow them to circumvent a bloody civil war. When the clock struck midnight on August 15, the people of India celebrated independence, but their euphoria was shattered when Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs killed one another until the streets ran red with their blood. In the face of some of the most appalling massacres in human history (leaving several hundred thousand dead), the authors show the efforts of Gandhi, the Mountbattens, Nehru, and others, to restore some semblance of peace and order. Gandhi, in the last great act of his life before being assassinated by a group of Hindu radicals, embarked upon “fasts to death,” and was able to bring some peace to the isolated spots where he could be present personally. But ironically, it was the British, Indian, and Pakistani armies that had to be brought in to maintain order.

The authors manage to leaven the gruesome historical account with lively and sometimes humorous character portraits of the major characters. For example, early in the third chapter, we learn of Gandhi’s half-naked visit to the King of England: He had walked off his steamer in his loincloth and carrying his bamboo stave. Behind him there were no aides-de-camp, no servants, only a handful of disciples and a goat, who tottered down the gangplank right after Gandhi….To the awe and astonishment of a watching British nation, Mahatma Ghandi walked into Buckingham Palace to take tea with the King-Emperor dressed in a loincloth and sandals….Later, when questioned on the appropriateness of his apparel, Ghandi replied with a smile, ‘The King was wearing enough for both of us.’ We learn of Gandhi’s daily life—of his vow to observe one day of silence each week to preserve vocal cords, of his daily prayer meetings and reading of the Bhagavad Gita, of his “fasts unto death” as a means of nonviolent resistance, of his habit of having a saltwater enema once a day, and so forth.

This brings us to the major flaw in the authors’ account. From early on in the story, it is clear that Gandhi is the hero of Collins’ and Lapierre’s account, while “religious antagonism” is the adversary. The authors see Gandhi, with his prayer meetings, fasting, and non-violent protests, as the Messiah of India, the solution to India’s (and perhaps the world’s) problems. Indeed, the final chapter, chronicling Gandhi’s death, is entitled, “The Second Crucifixion.”

The authors certainly are correct that religious antagonism is a bad thing, and they are right that Gandhi lived a more peaceful life and is a better character, than the other characters in this narrative. However, they fail to see the more central problem—the evil lurking in the souls of all humanity, and a man like Gandhi cannot himself be the remedy for such evil. Such an evil is deep and powerful and can be broken only by God Himself. While the authors speak of India’s partitioning as the great divorce, we know that the greater divorce happened at the Fall, that the Adversary of adversaries is Satan himself, and the true Messiah is Jesus Christ, who came to take away the sins of the world and who will one day bring a new heavens and a new earth, where there will be no more war. It is through Him, and through Him alone, that our world will see peace.

Further, Freedom at Midnight is not accurate at all points and the authors sometimes make novel or unique assertions without providing references. Nonetheless the book is very helpful. The reader receives a broad-brush overview of one of the most important years in world history as well as a picture of South Asia’s (1) mind-boggling diversity, including 15 official languages and 845 dialects; (2) the pervasive folk spirituality of its people; (3) the deep and abiding inter-religious conflict; (4) the abiding effects of colonial rule; and (5) intimate and illuminating portraits of several of South Asia’s most influential and enduring heroes.

Tags: Hinduism, India, Islam, Pakistan

“The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.” 

–St. Augustine of Hippo

Many Christians, especially evangelicals, try to read through the entire Bible over thecourse of a year. Many of us who hold to a high view of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture see this as a very beneficial spiritual discipline. There are a number of plans to help you read through the Bible in a year, several of which are mentioned in this post by Justin Taylor.

I have developed my own Bible reading plan for those who are interested in reading through the entire Bible, in canonical order, but with the Old Testament arranged according to the Tanakh (Law, Prophets, Writings). Unlike most plans, mine will not allow you to read both testaments simultaneously. But for those who are willing to spend about 3/4 of the year in the Old Testament (the Bible of the earliest church!), this plan will allow you to read through the grand narrative of Scripture as it unfolds. Even more important, you will read through the Old Testament in the same order as Jesus and the apostles would have done so before arriving at the New Testament.

If you are interested in using my Canonical Bible Reading Plan, check out the new Bible Reading Plan page on our website.

Tags: Bible Reading Plan, Daily Devotions, Daily Quite Time, Spiritual Disciplines

Dear Readers,

Between the Times will be going on hiatus for the remainder of 2008. Lord willing, we will return in early January 2009. Stay tuned for some new series, more guest authors, ongoing entries in the “Contours of a Great Commission Resurgence” series, and a new look for the blog! 

Thank you for taking the time to read our articles and joining us in our prayers for a Great Commission Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. We hope each of you enjoy a Merry Christmas and a blessed New Year.

Blessings in Christ,

Between the Times

Tags: Christmas Hiatus

Contours of a Great Commission Resurgence is a series of articles by faculty of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary that seeks to offer some definitions of what constitutes a GCR, why we believe the SBC is in need of such a movement, and what such a movement might look like in SBC life.  The series addresses biblical, theological, historical and practical issues related to a GCR with the hope that God will use our finite and flawed efforts for His glory and the good of the people called Southern Baptist. The author of this post is Alvin L. Reid, who occupies the Bailey Smith Chair of Evangelism and serves as Associate Dean of Proclamation Studies at Southeastern Seminary.

————————————————————

Do We Truly Want Revival? A Look at a Great Commission Resurgence through the Lens of Great Awakenings

By Alvin L. Reid

I recently attended a national meeting sponsored by the North American Mission Board.  At that meeting, attended by state convention, national, and seminary leaders in evangelism, we heard again about the need for revival in our land. Speakers reminded us how great the need is. In particular Chuck Kelley, president of New Orleans Seminary, told us how bleak the forecast is for the Southern Baptist Convention, arguing we are in danger today of becoming like the Methodists of the last generation, who set a record for church decline. “We have better memories of our past than dreams for our future,” he said.  Kelley and others spoke of the need for revival in our day. No doubt we need a fresh movement of God.  But do we truly know what it is for which we pray?

I have spent much of my adult life studying and learning from what historians call great awakenings.  When we think of movements like Pietism (with Spener, Francke, Zinzendorf, and others), the Evangelical Awakening in England (John and Charles Wesley, George Whitefield), or the First Great Awakening (Jonathan Edwards, Gilbert Tennent, Theodore Frelinghuysen, and Whitefield), we rightly think of brokenness over sin among believers and effective evangelization of the lost as a result.  But I would submit that every powerful revival in history feautured more: each in its own way was a type of Great Commission Resurgence, the very thing for which many of us pray.

In each of the movements we call revival or awakening, from larger movements like the First Great Awakening to less extensive stirrings like the Jesus Movement, you see a challenge to the status quo in the church.  Again and again institutionalism gave way to fresh movements, traditionalism to innovation, while a return to orthodoxy typically lashed the timely to the timeless. John and Charles Wesley and young Whitefield were proper, Oxford-trained Anglicans. John Wesley started the Methodist Church but never left the Anglican Communion.  But the movement he and others spurred challenged greatly the status quo of the church in his day.

An example: at one point in his journal John Wesley wrote that he was convinced a person could not be converted outside a church building. Yet one of the most remarkable features of the Evangelical Awakening was the field preaching of the Wesleys and Whitefield, which Whitefield continued in the New World. All of these men reluctantly took up the practice, which was begun by a man named Howell Harris in Wales. Harris was a layman, and thus could not speak from the pulpit in a “proper” church service (note: I think we are more concerned in our day with conformity than effectiveness).  His zeal led him to preach in the fields, where multitudes came to hear him.  The newfound passion for Christ of the Wesleys and Whitefield caused established churches to be less than inclined to utilize them. So, after a great internal struggle, each of these men began to preach in the fields as well. Imagine the idea of going to where the people are to preach the Word of God to them rather than putting up a sign outside a church building. Sounds a little scandalous, sort of like the book of Acts.

What was the result? They began to reach people, like the miners for whom the established church cared little. They developed a passion for missions, Whitefield going seven times to the American colonies, and Methodism soon spreading globally.  They witnessed a church planting movement as many of the Methodist Societies eventually became churches. And they were part of a movement of God so extensive that historians use the term “great awakening” to describe it.

I for one am grateful for so many who cry for revival in our time. I would caution those who pray for God to move to consider their request carefully.  Great awakenings can bring division, for challenging the status quo causes us to make hard choices–witness the Old Lights/New Lights among the Congregationalists and the Old Sides/New Sides among the Presbyterians in the First Great Awakening in the colonies. Challenging the status quo is rarely a popular thing. A movement of God, whether it be in Josiah’s day, in Ephesus in Acts 19, or the Haystack Revival of the early 1800s, will challenge the status quo.  We must be careful to discern that which is timeless and must be defended and declared, like the gospel (note: the prominent theme of preaching in awakenings was not messages on “revival,” but on justification by faith!), and those which must be jettisoned, like our preferences (you know, robed choir, style of music, preachers wearing a periwig in one generation or a tie in another, etc.). A genuine movement of God will serve to bring us back to the things that matter, like global evangelization.

I came to Christ during the Jesus Movement of the 1960s-70s. One day in 1970, a group of pastors were walking down a sidewalk in Washington, DC. Dressed in suits and looking quite ministerial, they noticed some scruffy looking young people passing out Bibles and speaking to people on the street about Jesus. One of the pastors asked the young men what they were doing. “We are doing what you preachers only talk about,” one replied. Ouch. Awakenings that are real will take God’s people back to the things that matter.

So what does this say for our time? We must pray for revival. We desperately need a God-intervention in our culture, both inside the church walls and without. But we must not assume that a revival sent from the Most High God will affirm our institutionalism, our consumerism, or our love for our preferences over our refusal to engage the culture with the gospel. I meet people who truly believe that if we simply went back to where we were a few decades ago we would once again be effective in reaching America. I would answer by saying every movement of God I ever studied pushed the church to look backward theologically, affirming the unchanging Word, but pushed her forward methodologically, creating new and effective ways to take a timeless gospel to the world in a timely way. And by they way, every spiritual awakening changed the ways music was done in the church.

Look at a few things that came from awakenings. I mentioned field preaching, but what about the birth of modern missions, the extensive practice of itinerant ministry, remarkable church planting movements, and many voluntary societies from the famous Bible societies to those focusing on education, social justice, and others. What about the birth of hymnody, from Charles Wesley who alone wrote over 6000 hymns to the praise and worship movement in our time, the roots of which go back at least to the Jesus Movement? What about the innovations in evangelism, like the use of published sermons in the 1700s, to massive urban crusades in the 1800s, to coffeehouse ministries of the 1970s?

I believe James Burns overstated his point about revival when he argued all progress in the church has come through revival movements. But it would be hard to underestimate the church planting, missionary, and evangelistic impact made through seasons of renewal we call revival. When I pray for revival, I pray for a fresh hunger for God, but I also pray for right thoughts (theology) about God and effective practice for God.

Would we truly pray for revival if it meant giving up things we hold dear? David Bryant defines awakening thusly: “When the Spirit of God moves in the Church to quicken a new vision so that, in its generation, the Church cannot turn over and go back to sleep on what He is doing in the earth but must rise and get going with Him, that’s awakening.”  That is the revival for which I am praying.  And if such a revival came, a Great Commission Resurgence would be the result.

I am praying for revival, but a revival that will:

 change our paradigm from maintaining our institutions to advancing a movement;
 rescue us from consumerism and give us a passion to serve others;
 give us a greater love for unchanging truth than our personal preferences;
 take us from sectarian nit-picking to a hunger for biblical unity;
 focus our hearts less on impressing each other and more on loving the lost;
 make us continually love the Word while affirming creative ways to communicate it in our ever-changing world;
 add to our programmatic, attractional witness a missional lifestyle to penetrate the unchurched culture;
 challenge our youth not only to hate the things of this world, but to sacrifice all for the sake of the gospel;
 give us a hunger for the nations of the world and the great cities of the West;
 create a church planting movement the likes of which the world has never known.

In concluding his stirring and sobering message, Chuck Kelley added: “We face the greatest battle in the history of our Convention. Will we meet the challenge?” It is a challenge only a sovereign God can meet. And I pray He will find us usable enough to meet the challenge.

Tags: Alvin Reid, Awakening, Great Commission Resurgence, Revival

“Baptists are a people of the Book”. It is a slogan we have all heard before, and when we are at our very best, no doubt these words ring true. As a denomination, Southern Baptists have now spoken out loud and clear for the inerrancy of Scripture for almost three decades. For this, we should be grateful. But any denomination that is committed to the truthfulness of Scripture will wrestle with what the Bible actually teaches, so it is only natural that we find ourselves in the midst of several intramural debates about faith and practice.

In particular, for the last few years Southern Baptists have been debating aspects of our Baptist identity. Sometimes we debate Baptist principles themselves. For instance, there is an ongoing question as to whether or not a plural elder leadership model is consistent with the traditional Baptist belief in congregational church government. The ordinances are also being debated. Churches, seminarians, bloggers, and agency trustees are discussing the nature and validity of some baptisms. A few among us have considered the possibility of allowing non-immersed Christians to be members of their churches. When it comes to the Lord’s Table, an ongoing question is whether communion should be open to all professing Christians or restricted to only those believers who have been immersed. Although the nature of regenerate church membership was ably addressed in a resolution at this past year’s SBC annual meeting, we continue to have family discussions about such issues as the proper age for baptismal candidates and the specifics of redemptive church discipline.

Then there are those debates that are not related to Baptist principles per se, but rather focus on appropriate boundaries for Southern Baptist belief. This is especially relevant for those who are interested in serving in denominational leadership, whether paid or elected. For example, is it kosher for Southern Baptists to affirm some “miraculous” spiritual gifts traditionally associated with the charismatic and Pentecostal movements? Are there particular worship practices that are inappropriate in a Southern Baptist context? Are there local church offices, besides pastor/elder, that are biblical restricted to men alone? Are there denominational posts that are inappropriate for women to hold? How many of the “points” of Calvinism can someone affirm and still be considered a “good” Southern Baptist? The list could go on.

Of course all of these debates occur in a denomination that is committed to preserving local church autonomy and liberty of conscience, so a variety of opinions exist on each of these issues. And these are just the things that conservative Southern Baptists debate; our moderate friends bring a whole list of other issues to the table, especially in some of the state conventions and in many local associations.

As Southern Baptists continue to discuss these and other important issues, we would do well to remember that, as the Baptist Faith & Message says, our inerrant Bible “reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.” In other words, the Bible alone is our ultimate authority for faith and practice, including our Baptist identity. While our theological traditions and historical precedents can aid us in discerning who we are and determining who we ought to be, these are but tools. The Scripture must have the last word because Scripture alone is God’s written revelation to humanity. The buck must stop with the Bible.

We often appeal to what is popular when we discuss controversial issues. But what is popular may not be what is biblical. We often point to Baptist history when we argue for contemporary positions. But Baptists–even Southern Baptists–are not infallible, and just because something may have been true of some Baptists in the past does not mean it is biblical. We sometimes appeal to the practices of other Christian traditions when we try to defend our convictions. But other Christian traditions also often miss the mark when it comes to biblical fidelity. We often appeal to our current or historic confessions of faith when we make our case for certain beliefs, but we must always remember that minor (and sometimes not so minor) differences exist between the various Baptist confessions. More importantly, because most Baptists believe that confessions are non-inspired summaries of what most Baptists believe at a particular point in time, no confession is authoritative except insofar as it accurately conveys biblical teaching. And even then a confession’s authority is a derived authority, being grounded in Scripture and not in the confession itself.

I am thankful we are debating important theological and methodological issues; again, this should be expected in a denomination that takes the authority and sufficiency of Scripture seriously. But we must be willing to make the case for our positions from that Scripture rather than our own opinions, popular sentiment, history, the teachings of theologians, or even confessions of faith. To say it another way, we must be a people of the book as we debate our Baptist identity.

My prayer is that God will grant us great wisdom and abundant charity as we continue to wrestle with who we are and who we ought to be as Southern Baptists. I hope you join me in that prayer.

Tags: Baptist Identity, Biblical authority

Global Context Series (Preface)

One of the most striking memories of my childhood is the Prisoner Bulletin that my parents received several times per year during the last years before the fall of the Soviet Union. In this bulletin, which was written by Russian believers, we were made aware of the faithful but persecuted underground church, of pastors and believers dragged from their homes and thrown into prison and killed, of people whose lives were vastly different from my own.

My father would read the bulletin to us (mom, my brother and two sisters) and we would pray for these men and women who loved the same Lord. But we didn’t stop there; we prayed for the countless millions in the USSR, and in the USA, and around the world, who had little or no access to the gospel because they had never seen a Bible, a Christian, or a church. In short, my parents taught me that, in addition to studying God’s Word, we ought to study God’s world.

There are many ways to get to know the people of God’s world: travel to another land, invite an international student to your home, open your eyes to those who live in our neighborhoods, etc. Another significant way is to read books that make us aware of our global context.

Over the coming months and years, I will be posting book notices and book reviews under the heading, “Global Context Series.” I will be reviewing books that usually can be found easily at Barnes & Noble or on Amazon.com. Usually they are the type of books that will be found in the current affairs, history, or new release sections of the bookstore. Many of them are New York Times Bestsellers and should be fairly accessible to any interested reader.

The books that I list will not necessarily be the best books available on a particular subject, but they will be among the best books that I have read on that subject. I will try to tell you a little bit about the author, the style of the book, its readability, and of course a little bit about its content. I hope that you will find this series helpful. I hope you will enjoy the books, and will find them to be a stimulus to love God as you learn about, and learn to love, the people in God’s world.

Southeastern announces new undergraduate dean

By Jason Hall

WAKE FOREST, N.C. – Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary President Daniel Akin announced Dec. 12 that Bruce R. Ashford will be the new dean of The College at Southeastern, the school’s undergraduate program.

Ashford will assume his new role on January 1, 2009.

“Bruce Ashford is a gifted theologian and apologist with the heart of a missionary and evangelist,” Akin said. “He will bring passion and excitement to his assignment as the dean of The College at Southeastern.”

Ashford is currently the holder of the Richard and Gina Headrick Chair of World Missions at Southeastern and director of the seminary’s Louis A. Drummond Center for Great Commission Studies. He has been teaching philosophy and intercultural studies at Southeastern since 2003, when he graduated from Southeastern with a doctor of philosophy degree.

Ashford also spent several years on the mission field before coming to serve at Southeastern.

“I could not be happier about working with the faculty and students at The College at Southeastern,” Ashford said. “The college is, and will continue to be, a first-rate college providing students with training in theological studies and the liberal arts.”

Southeastern’s academic vice president and dean of the faculty David Nelson said, “Dr. Ashford is a brilliant scholar, and excellent classroom teacher, and he has a natural ability to communicate with students. I am delighted that he is willing to serve our college in this way.”

Ashford will be taking over the dean’s job from Peter Schemm, who has served as the school’s dean for the past three years. Schemm will be stepping over to a role he occupied before becoming dean, teaching theology at the graduate level for Southeastern.

Southeastern started its undergraduate school in 1994, and the college has grown to nearly 500 students. The school changed its name and curriculum last year, adding emphases in pastoral ministry and missions that reflect Southeastern’s overall commitment to Great Commission education.

“We are building a Great Commission college, one that recognizes that we are to live in an intentionally Christian manner in all of life’s various callings—not only in our families and churches, but also in the workplace and community,” Ashford said, describing his vision for the college. “The gospel’s relevance is not limited to the four walls of a church building, but extends to every intellectual and social endeavor of mankind, and it is for this reason that we educate our students not only in theology, but also in the arts, the sciences, and the public square.”

Akin also announced that Brent Aucoin will be stepping in as the college’s new associate dean. Aucoin, an associate professor of history, has been at Southeastern since 2004.

“I am grateful for the opportunity to serve as the associate dean for the College at Southeastern,” Aucoin said. “I see it as a chance to contribute even more to an institution that I love and firmly believe in. The college provides a much-needed approach to undergraduate education: one that it both academically rigorous and thoroughly Christian.”

Nelson said, “I am so pleased with our new administrative team in our college. We have had excellent leadership in the past, and I have great confidence in the leadership of Drs. Ashford and Aucoin for the future.”

For more information about Southeastern Seminary and The College at Southeastern, visit sebts.edu and college.sebts.edu.

###

Tags: Bruce Ashford, Great Commission Resurgence, The College at Southeastern

I originally blogged on this topic back in May of this year. It was part of a series of posts at my now-defunct personal blog. Every semester in my Baptist History and Distinctives course I spend the last hour or so of the final class meeting hosting a Q&A with the students. The students are allowed to ask me any question about the SBC itself, Baptist distinctives, theology, church life, etc. I promise them a straight answer to every question, though I do not promise they will like my answers! One of the questions I get every single semester (including this past week) is about the future of Calvinism in the SBC.

In light of the internet banter sparked by the recent John 3:16 Conference, I thought it would be appropriate for me to re-post my earlier article (with some minor revisions). Please note that this article was published months before the most recent round of debates and thus should not be interpreted as a direct response to either the conference itself or individual bloggers who have engaged this issue in recent weeks. Rather, it is best understood as my musings about the broader debate itself.

Q. Will the SBC split over Calvinism? (Variation: Do you think they will “kick out” all the Calvinists one day?)

A. The future of SBC Calvinism is actually a relatively complicated issue with implications for other issues. As I see it, there are at least four different Southern Baptist responses to Calvinism. Note that this taxonomy is concerned more with how someone reacts to Calvinism rather than how many “points” one affirms, though there is obviously some overlap between the two.

1. Some Southern Baptists are non-cooperative non-Calvinists. Some of these folks are simply revivalistic evangelicals who are fearful of the influence Calvinism will have on common practices and emphases. Others just despise Calvinist theology. Some non-cooperative non-Calvinists are Amyraldians (”4-point” Calvinists), but most of them appear to be classical Arminians, by which I mean non-Wesleyan Arminians with a high view of sin (though not total depravity), a belief in conditional or corporate election coupled with a general atonement, and an affirmation of some form of eternal security. Many of them would call themselves “1-point” or “2-point” Calvinists, if they use that type of language at all.

Non-cooperative non-Calvinists either see Calvinism as a threat to the Convention’s status quo or they believe Calvinism is the wrong solution to the Convention’s problems–maybe even a worse problem. Not all non-cooperative non-Calvinists want to see Calvinists leave the SBC, but most of them want to see Calvinism relegated to small churches with little intradenominational influence. They definitely do not want to see very many Calvinists receiving CP funds to plant churches (either domestically or internationally) or teach in seminaries and colleges. Many of them are opposed to the Abstract of Principles because they believe it is too Calvinistic. Others have no problem with the Abstract, so long as nobody actually interprets the words to mean what the drafters of the confession intended, particularly regarding unconditional election.

Non-cooperative non-Calvinists tend to misrepresent the convictions of Calvinists (Calvinists aren’t evangelistic) and use incorrect labels when discussing Calvinism (”hyper-Calvinism,” “militant Calvinism”). Though there are some well-known Southern Baptists that probably fit into this category, I suspect it is a minority position among well-read non-Calvinists. Non-cooperative non-Calvinism is an extreme position and is a threat to the future of the SBC itself, not just Calvinism within the Convention.

2. Some Southern Baptists are cooperative non-Calvinists. Like the above category, these folks can shake out anywhere between classical Arminianism and Amyraldianism, though I think it is safe to say there is a higher percentage of the latter in this category. Cooperative non-Calvinists do not agree with traditional Calvinism, especially limited atonement and often irresistible grace, and they do not want to see the SBC become a Calvinist-dominated denomination. But they do believe there is a place in the SBC for Calvinists, even in positions of leadership and influence. For many folks in this category, Calvinism is not a threat to the convention, but plays a prophetic role in speaking out against much of the silliness and shallowness in the SBC, even if Calvinism does not always provide the best solution for those problems.

Most of the non-Calvinist students I know fall into this category, as do a number of non-Calvinist professors at some of our seminaries and colleges. Most non-Calvinist pastors I know, especially those under age 50, fit in this category. The Building Bridges Conference last November was the brainchild of several cooperative non-Calvinists and at least one pastor in the following category. This is a reasonable position that will aid the Convention in building upon the foundation of the Conservative Resurgence as we move toward a Great Commission Resurgence.

3. Some Southern Baptists are cooperative Calvinists. These folks are consistent Calvinists, meaning they affirm all five points of Calvinism (though there may be intra-Calvinist debates about the best way to articulate some of the points, particularly limited atonement). Cooperative Calvinists want to see the influence of Calvinism grow within the SBC. They are excited by both the renewed interest in the soteriological convictions of many of our Southern Baptist forefathers and the creative interaction between contemporary Calvinistic Southern Baptists and other Calvinistic evangelicals. Cooperative Calvinists think that Calvinism offers some good solutions for some of the problems in the SBC, but they are willing to work together with cooperative non-Calvinists within the Convention’s framework.

Cooperative Calvinists are not interested in turning the SBC into a uniformly Calvinist denomination, though they would be delighted to see a tempering of some of the revivalism and pragmatism in the Convention. All of the Calvinists I know who work within the bureaucracy are cooperative Calvinists, as are the majority of the Calvinistic students and pastors I know. Several cooperative Calvinists participated in the Building Bridges last November. This is a reasonable position that will aid the Convention in building upon the foundation of the Conservative Resurgence as we move toward a Great Commission Resurgence.

4. Some Southern Baptists are non-cooperative Calvinists. Like the above category, these folks are consistent Calvinists. Unlike the above category, non-cooperative Calvinists are unwilling to join hands with those who do not share all or most of their theological convictions. For these folks, Calvinism is the gospel, and it is as simple as that. Furthermore, the SBC is an almost hopelessly Pelagian denomination that needs to be rescued from the coming wrath of God. Calvinism is the magic pill that will solve all the SBC’s ailments.

Though there are much fewer non-cooperative Calvinists than there are non-cooperative non-Calvinists (there are fewer Calvinists, after all), they probably comprise about the same percentage within SBC Calvinism that vocal non-cooperatives do among the non-Calvinists. Unfortunately, weblogs (especially the comment sections) create the illusion sometimes that this group is larger than it seems, much like the prominence of some non-cooperative non-Calvinists contributes to an exaggerated estimation of the size of that group.

I do know a handful of Calvinistic pastors who fit this bill. I also know some students that are like this, though I hold out hope that most of them are just immature new Calvinists. Thankfully, when most folks have this mentality they tend to leave the SBC and align with more uniformly Calvinistic groups, much like the separatist fundamentalists of an earlier generation. Non-cooperative Calvinism is an extreme position and is a threat to the future of the SBC itself.

Here’s the point of the above taxonomy: if Calvinism is to have a future in the SBC, then both extremes have to pipe down and play nicely or leave the Convention to align with other groups. The tragedy in this whole thing is the way that the different extremes feed off of each other. Many cooperative non-Calvinists have been driven to a non-cooperative position by personal interaction with a pugnacious Calvinist or two (often a staff member or fellow pastor who has recently become Calvinist). Many cooperative Calvinists have been mistreated or maligned by non-cooperative non-Calvinists, pushing them toward a non-cooperative Calvinist position. It is a vicious cyle that crops up in the Convention every few months. To be frank, it irritates the fire out of those of us who want to cooperate.

Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists have a legitimate claim to the Convention. Calvinists can rightly argue that their convictions are more consistent with earlier generations of Southern Baptists than many non-Calvinists. Amyraldians have pretty much always been around the SBC, though most of the early leaders were consistent Calvinists. Non-Calvinists can rightly argue that their convictions are more consistent with recent generations of Southern Baptists. Many non-Calvinists understandably tend to view Calvinism as a recent innovation rather than a resurgence. Both sides can rightly call upon history to buttress their arguments; they simply reference different points in history. Unfortunately, both sides sometimes oversimplify history.

Because the SBC was formed as a means for missionary Baptists to cooperate together in common mission endeavors, it is critical that non-cooperatives on all sides of this issue get with the program or find another place to call home. I mean no ill will; non-cooperative non-Calvinists would be more at home with Independent Baptists, and non-cooperative Calvinists would be more at home in “capital R” Reformed denominations and networks. This is because both groups are more interested in furthering their pet agenda and/or mandating conformity to their personal theological convictions rather than cooperating together to make disciples of all nations.

So to answer the original question: I do not think the SBC will divide over Calvinism, though it is possible if the extremes do not tone it down or move on. Think about the trend: As many as one-third of the SBC pastors and staff members who are recent seminary graduates are consistent Calvinists. That is not counting younger church leaders who did not graduate from seminary or have only a college education. That is not counting foreign missionaries, North American church planters, or professors, ministries toward which a disproportionately high number of Calvinists seem to gravitate. And that is not counting Amyraldians and other types of “four-point” Calvinists. In other words, Calvinism is becoming more influential in the SBC, which is why it is critical that Convention Calvinists be willing to cooperate and non-Calvinists be willing to let them do so. If this does not happen, then yes, we will divide over Calvinism. There will be no Great Commission Resurgence. And that will be a shame.

Tags: Calvinism, Cooperation, Great Commission Resurgence, Non-Calvinism

It may surprise you to learn that, strictly speaking, Thanksgiving Day is not a “holiday”–at least not in the strictest sense of the term. Traditionally, holidays are by definition religious occasions (”holy day”). Thanksgiving is not a sacred event, but rather is a national day of observance. To put it another way, Thanksgiving has more in common with Halloween than Christmas, though all three are considered “holidays” by most Americans.

Even though Thanksgiving is no Easter, it is right and proper for Christians to delight in Thanksgiving, and for reasons besides patriotism or tradition. Giving thanks is, after all, a biblical concept. Psalm 100:4 says, “Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name (KJV).” There are many other verses I could have cited. We Christians of all people should be characterized by a life of thanksgiving. And every year, this particular day of observance reminds us of that fact. So enjoy a wonderful Thanksgiving Day with your family and friends.

P.S. If you are interested, every year the President of the United States issues an official Thanksgiving Day proclamation. You can read President Bush’s 2008 proclamation here. To see President George Washington’s original proclamation, check out this website.

Tags: Thanksgiving

The Evangelical Theological Society will hold its annual meeting next week in Providence, Rhode Island. The ETS is a scholarly society comprised of evangelicals who affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity. Because this is a pretty minimalist doctrinal commitment, the ETS has faced some internal controversies in the past decade, most notably a battle over whether open theism is a legitimate evangelical option.

To help bring greater doctrinal clarity to the ETS, Boyce College dean Denny Burk and Union University professor Ray Van Neste, both New Testament scholars (and Southern Baptists), have been advocating an amendment to the ETS doctrinal statement for some time. There will be a vote to amend the statement at this year’s meeting. You can read about the proposed amendment on Denny’s blog or your can check out the Amend ETS website.

Tags: Confessionalism, Denny Burk, ETS, Ray Van Neste