Fertilizing Tulips

There's a bit of stink coming from some SBC/Calvinism discussion, originating with SBC president Bobby Welch's church newsletter based on Steve Lemke's study.  Scott Slayton is talking about it, so it Marty Duren.  Joe Thorn has some good things to say and is encouraging a response from Founders Ministries (I think he will be successful).

UPDATE 7.27.05: Founder's Ministries responds

Comments

[Scott]

From what I have heard, some of the Founder's guys new about this already and some of them are working on responses already. I will be interested to hear what they say.

[Steve McCoy]

Wouldn't surprise me Scott.

[Joe Thorn]

Yeah, Tom Ascol said his response was already on the way.

[Justin Sok]

Thanks for pulling all the info together Steve...I am astonished by the kind of, funny ignorance about the whole newsletter article.

[Richard A. Bailey]

Steve, I really hope that someone outside of the Founders' camp speaks up about this. Of course, the Founders will respond. Everyone will expect that. What is really needed if we hope to emphasize what a shoddy piece of research and analysis this whole thing is, though, is for someone non-Founders, like say Danny Akin, to stand up and say that this is a shoddy piece of research and analysis. I fear that a response from Founders' guys like Ascol will only serve to polarize the differences between the two sides even more. I am quite discouraged by how much these pieces (both Lemke's and Welch's) illustrate how poorly SBC leaders and professors understand ideas of baptist polity and ecclesiology. I will be even more discouraged should no non-Calvinist step up and say that this is a horrible example of research and analysis. I guess what I am saying is that the comments of Welch and Lemke are un-baptist at best and un-Christian at worst. And of course the latter is the worst of the two grievances.

[Steve McCoy]

Richard, a really good point. I agree. Call up Danny and make it happen, would you?

[Richard A. Bailey]

I'll have my people get in touch with his people (translated: I'll let Leanne call Charlotte).

[Lee]

Please excuse my ignorance, but I'm confused by the metrics-oriented talk I've been hearing coming from the SBC as of late.

Focusing on rate of growth, ratios and the such has gotten way out of hand and is completely irrelevant to our calling.
How it counter-culture if we're using the same methods for evaluating "goodness" as secular engineers? Heck, I'm to the point where I expect to see a BP artile entitled "Using Derivatives to Discover God's Direction For Your Association"

[THilton]

I just finished reading a rather comical and informative book that was given to me called A Journey In Grace: A Theological Novel by Richard Belcher. It is the story of Ira Fife Pointer, who discovers extreme oppposition to Calvinism in the Baptist college he is attending and in the Baptist church he has just begun to pastor. When he chooses to pick Calvinism's influence among Baptists as a research topic, he discovers a rich hertiage that is not hyper-calvinistic, but experiences persecution from his professor who is anti-Calvinist. He becomes convinced of the doctrines of grace at a time when revival begins to break out in his church. The book displays a good contrast between the hyper-calvinism that is so famous and Calvinism that embraces evangelism.

It is a very simplistic instructional type of book, but I thought the characters exhibited a lot of the charactisics we see in those who make generalized judgements without any evidence today. It can be found in the Journey Series at ww.richbarrypress.com. Just thought I would pass it along.

[Jim Hamilton]

I would love to know your reactions to a blog I just posted on whether the dispute over Calvinism and Arminianism is a first or third order dispute: www.jimhamilton.blogspot.com.

[Jeff T]

I read the book and it is sorta corny, but it is a decent book. I use it to pass on to others as they struggle with the issues of calvinism.

Jeff

[Scot McKnight]

Steve,
My next series of blogs will be on Post-Calvinism, or Why I am no longer a Calvinist. 2-3 days I'll get it going.

[Steve McCoy]

Looking forward to it Scot.

[stuart]

How about Lemke's "pied Piper" reference. Cute.

I find his discussion on preaching to be alarmist and unfounded. While it is the case that many preachers who are boomers who preach to boomers are focused on felt-needs, they are not representative of most younger (under 40) preachers attempting to engage the emerging culture with a missional ecclesiology.

Further, I don't see how a current generation's lack of infatuation with all of the details of his generation's theologicalpolitical battles equates to a low view of Scripture or inerrancy. One can be pleased with the result of the 20+ year effort without desiring to hear the participants patting themselves on their backs ad nauseum.

And...if I might add, it seems to me that the higher view of Scripture is that one that doesn't limit the biblical teaching on certain topics (i.e. the officers of the church) to the interpretation of BFM2K. Surely he isn't implying that the BFM2K presents an infallible interpretation of Scripture or that a different interpretation equates to a "low view" of inerrancy.

The whole article is full of self-contradictions. On one hand, he wants to claim that the exploration of doctrine is paramount. On the other, he wants to limit that exploration to certain parameters that he deems "THE Southern Baptist position." On one hand, he asserts that today's generation of seminarians and young pastors aren't interested in doctrinal matters. On the other hand, he suggests that their interest in doctrine and historical theology beyond the heretofore "traditional" SBC positions spells trouble for the denomination.

He (rightly) alludes to the danger of pragmatism while failing to the realize that the most blatant pragmatists in the convention are many of his peers and much of the generation immediately his junior. It is they who have accomodated the modernist view that if "it works" it must be "good" or that large numbers somehow signal right doctrine or God's blessing.

I'll leave his remarks about Calvinism alone for now except to say his labeling all "Dortians" as "hyper" Calvinists appears either to be intelectually dishonest or lazy.

I love NOBTS. But I have to say that articles like this one from its Provost don't do much to contradict the unfortunate notion that it is the weaker sister intellectually, academically, and theologically among the SBC seminaries.

[joe kennedy]

Stuart.

"I love NOBTS. But I have to say that articles like this one from its Provost don't do much to contradict the unfortunate notion that it is the weaker sister intellectually, academically, and theologically among the SBC seminaries."

Really? Was that really necessary? Outside of that one article, what makes NOBTS actually look as if it is the "intellectual, academic, and theological weaker sister" of the SBC seminaries?

I absolutely take offense, and you should by all means step up and offer ample evidence to back up such a bold and derrogatory statement. I don't care if you love the place, but show us how, outside of one article that we are such a weak link.

I might just be a lowly NOBTS M.Div-Urban Missions student to you, but man, that's junk. Do not presume to down an entire organization based on one article. Doing so insults every professor and student who has, does, or will attend this institution.

[stuart]

Joe--

First of all, relax.
Second, re-read my post. Nowhere did I say that "I" believe NOBTS is the "weaker sister" in those areas. I simply admitted that the notion exists in people's minds. I can't give you "ample evidence" for a prejudice that I do not personally share. But anecdotally, just last week I conversed with a Leavell College student who will be leaving NO for Louisville in a few weeks because of its "stronger academic programs." (His words, not mine.)

Third, consider if your reply to me wasn't unnecessarily accusatory and based more on how you interpreted what I wrote than on what I actually wrote.

Here was my point: There are many in SBC life, particularly some students, gradutates, and personnel at other seminaries who tend to look down their noses at NOBTS. I don't like it anymore than you. (Even if I choose to temper my reactions more appropriately.)Articles like Lemke's WON'T persuade anybody with the aforementioned attitude about NOBTS to change their minds. And that is unfortunate. Which was my point.

[joe kennedy]

Stuart, I did re-read it last night. I apologize for spazzing out. This is the first time I've gotten online all day, so here I am. I want to say I'm sorry for that...

I do get testy when I hear that NOBTS is considered weaker. I've felt very disrespected by the Executive Committee and many SBC leaders because of their treatment of NOBTS. Issues over sole-membership come to mind. Incidences that I'm not at liberty to discuss, Baptist Press artciels that misrepresent our presdient Dr. Kelley and the school as a whole.

I recognize that years ago, NOBTS decided to emphasize practical ministry over the theologcial basis for ministry. Many in the more academic circles have looked down on us for that. They assume, I guess, that the theological basis has been completely eliminated. However, it has not. Simply put, instead of spending an entire semester discussing why Calvin's 5 points in conjunction with the entirity of the Scriptures leads one to be fully Calvinist and fully evangelical, we spend about a day on it and move on. Down here, generally, the "academic" issues of Calvinism, Arminianism, and the other eight or so arenas for God's knowledge and hand in everyday life are not as big of issues. Rather than going back to the same old debates every day, we just try to get things done. I'm not saying other seminaries don't, but we all know that SBTS is more academic than others.

I just get very irritated when I hear that other seminaries, other seminary students, and SBC leaders jab and attack NOBTS. It's very reminiscent of the squabbling of local churches within associations. And that junk really bothers me. I grow weary of competitions and longstanding debates over meaningless ideas (yes, I did just call the Calvinism-Arminianism debate worthless, and you can call me on it, but I don't care, it is in the long run). I grow weary of churches competing. Of seminaries comepting. I'm sick of it.

And I do apologize to you because I know that's not what you said or meant. And don't think I speak for NOBTS, but I can say this- everyday I want to put the SBC leaders, seminaries, pastors... all out of my mind. I want to forget they even exist, and just focus on doing what I do down here. Because all the arguing is a waste of time.

Yeah, I just took all my current thoughts and jumbled them into one post. Ya'll can figure it out. I'm out.

[Paul]

Lee, I agree with you. The only difference I would have is that if these same researchers/pastors were being paid by a real business for the research they produce/conclusions they draw they would all be summarily fired for such sloppy work.