I’m personally and professionally exasperated for being made to feel that I have to look a certain way, dress a certain way, believe certain theological positions, in order to be considered a Southern Baptist. What does that even mean anymore? Case in point, an article was recently written by Bob Allen for BaptistGlobalNews.com, in which he cites a well-known Baptist pastor arguing that Calvinism is a, and I quote, “trojan horse.” It pains me to see such rhetoric used on men and women within the SBC who have no greater joy that to see the Sovereign King glorified in the saving of the lost in the great name of Jesus Christ. In response, therefore, I have 3 thoughts that I’d like those involved to consider.
First, there should be room for theological diversity in our convention. Granted, I’m not here suggesting that liberalism be tolerated or encouraged, but I am saying that conservative Arminians and Calvinists (and all those in between) shouldn’t be made to feel like their status within the convention is questionable or unappreciated because they’re supralapsarian instead of infralapsarian.
Second, if a church, whether bent toward Arminian or Reformed theology, is an SBC church, then they’ve presumably put their tithe money where their theological mouth is. In other words, our support suggests that, although we may differ on “Ordo Salutis,” our goal is common—to reach people for Christ, nationally and internationally, to build and support our seminaries, and to plant more Gospel churches.
Finally, if the chapels in our seminaries are going to tolerate manipulative talk, then I’d like to know what exactly is being facilitated in the classes? We chastise the liberal public universities for teaching a single agenda, which incidentally leads away from traditional conservatism, but do we now have to be concerned with whether or not our seminaries are going to follow suit theologically, in teaching what they presumably prefer (Arminianism) over what is, dare I say, plausible (Calvinism)? Too often, I find the opponents of Calvinism guilty of the very thing they claim to bemoan in its adherents, namely, rudeness, lovelessness, and a calloused handling of the facts.
Obviously there are various nuances to this argument that should be addressed, but the main points are clear and undeniable. This kind of divisive language is wrong. I’m personally and professionally exasperated for being made to feel that I have to look, dress, and think a certain way in order to be accepted in the SBC. Perhaps we need to reconsider who we have speak at our chapels, teach in our seminaries, or lead our conventions. Just as error can spring from either the Arminian or Calvinist camps, so can the Truth spoken in love. We should be aiming at the latter. We may not all look the same or think the same, but one thing is certain—the same One King rules over us all. We should speak accordingly.
New City Church