I have taken a long break from blogging, but I thought I would return to offer some of my thoughts on the recent Southern Baptist Convention. I left this convention with very mixed feelings. The high point of the convention was certainly the election of Dr. Luter as President, while the low point was probably the apparent division in our convention. I may post my thoughts on other issues later, but I will start by addressing the issue that most directly affects the church I pastor.
The divide in the convention right now is supposedly a theological divide between Calvinists and Traditionalists (or non-Calvinists). But as I listened to the discussion, both during and after the convention, I am not sure the debate is completely a theological debate, or that the question is as simple as how we are saved. I think an underlying question behind the divide is where are we as a convention.
From what I have seen from the “spokesmen” of these groups, the Traditionalists tend to think that we have been largely successful as a convention and as churches. They highlight numbers of baptisms and professions of faith, rightful causes of celebration for followers of Jesus. The general consensus from Traditionalist spokesmen seems to be that we are on the right path as a convention (or at least that we were on the right path). If we continue to press forward with our traditional methods of evangelism and discipleship, we will see the resurgence needed in our convention. In this sense, the title of traditionalists is apt.
Many of the supposed New Calvinists seem to take a different approach. Their spokesmen tend to emphasize the number of people who profess Christ and later leave the church or the number of professing Christians who lack a basic biblical worldview. The consensus from this group seems to be that we need a redirection as a convention and as churches; we need to refocus ourselves and our discipleship and missions efforts. In this sense, the title of reformers would perhaps be more apt than the term Calvinists.
A few caveats are important here. First, I don’t pretend that the theological divide is fictitious or unimportant. There are theological differences, but I don’t think the theological differences are the only factors in the debate. Second, when you try to differentiate between two groups, the lines get muddled and sometimes certain labels prove unhelpful. Not all Calvinists are non-traditionalists in this sense of the word, nor are all Traditionalists (or non-Calvinists) traditionalists in that sense of the word. But the traditionalist/reformer debate appears alive and well on many issues in our convention from what we call ourselves to how we designate and spend our money. In fact, one of my overwhelming impressions after leaving the convention was that while theologically I am a Traditionalist, I found myself much more sympathetic to the arguments of the Calvinist speakers, I think because of the underlying tendency toward being reformers.
Calvinism is a non-issue at our church, but the divide between traditionalists and reformers is prevalent. We have those who would call for us to stay the course and solidify what we have done in the past, and we have those who would call for a “reformation” of how we do church and make disciples. I think this same debate is at least as big a factor at the convention level as is the theological debate. I don’t think the theological debate is a bad debate to have if done in love, but I’m actually much more interested in the traditionalist/reformer debate. I think it’s time for a sober assessment of our churches and of our convention. We need to face the numbers. I am beginning to sense that the number of young adults in South Mississippi with a biblical worldview is shockingly small (even among those who consider themselves Southern Baptist). Theological debates among ourselves will not change that number, but perhaps a reformation of how we make disciples and how we do church will.
A Family of Faith 