40 Years of Murder

40 years ago, the Roe v. Wade decision wasn’t even the biggest news story of the day

There have been several good articles today to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling that States did not have the authority to criminalize abortion. Here are a few of the best:

• How Abortion Became an Evangelical Issue — Al Mohler’s article from today’s Washington Post explains how evangelicals gradually became co-belligerents with Catholics in opposing abortion. Any of my fellow Southern Baptists who are not familiar with our denomination’s history on this issue (hint: the SBC wasn’t always so pro-life) should read this.
  
• We Know They Are Killing Children—All of Us Know — John Piper: “For forty years this has meant that any perceived stress is a legal ground for eliminating the child. We have killed fifty million babies. And what increases our guilt as a nation is that we know what we are doing. Here’s the evidence that we know we are killing children.”
• 5 Things You Didn’t Know About “Jane Roe” — The history of Norma McCorvey (the “Roe” of Roe v. Wade), including her conversion to Christianity and the pro-life conviction that came with it.

Abortion is a topic I’ve addressed several times on this blog. Here are some posts from the archives which may be of interest to you:

• Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice — Are conservative Christians “anti-choice”? Are abortionists “anti-life”? Defining the terms of the debate.
  
• Is It Fair to Compare Abortion to the Holocaust? — Tracing the philosophy that justifies death on a massive scale from Darwin to Nietszche to Hitler to Planned Parenthood.
• The Greatest Moral Failure of Our Time — Focusing on the politics of the issue, including why I disagree with most political conservatives about how best to legislate abortion.

In that last post, you’ll also find some facts which conservatives today may find uncomfortable. For instance, did you know that two years prior to Roe v. Wade, the Southern Baptists passed a resolution seeking Federal legislation that would make abortion legal? Or that perhaps the most progressive legislation legalizing abortion prior to Roe v. Wade was signed into law by California Governor Ronald Reagan?

The good news is that both Reagan and the SBC, like “Jane Roe” herself, eventually became staunch defenders of life, which holds promise that the battle is worth fighting. Today’s abortionist may well be tomorrow’s abolitionist.

Calvinists and Arminians Are On the Same Team

Yesterday I posted summaries of the “five points” of both Arminianism and Calvinism. Today I want to demonstrate how these differences, while substantial and important, are not essential. In other words, Calvinists and Arminians are on the same team! We can work and worship together, because we agree that:

1. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone
2. God is Triune, and sovereign over all things, including salvation
3. The Bible is inerrant and authoritative

The list could go on. But many within the Southern Baptist Convention (the current flashpoint for a centuries-old debate) and elsewhere would benefit from a little historical context of cooperation. I submit to you now two examples of admirable cooperation. The first is Charles Simeon’s account of a conversation he had with John Wesley more than 250 years ago (recounted in J.I. Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God):

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers.  But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions.  Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.

The second goes straight to the source. Writing of John Calvin’s Commentaries on the Bible, Jacobus (James) Arminius himself said the following:

“After the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate, and more than any other … I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read … For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the Fathers — so much that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, indeed, above all.”

I’ll be the last one to say that our doctrinal differences aren’t important, or aren’t worth debating. But surely we can all play nice, right? Let’s save our daggers for the Enemy.

Who Is In the SBC Family?

Tom Ascol has his finger on the pulse of the SBC, and has identified what he believes are four distinct types of Southern Baptists today. I think his analysis is right on, and his commentary on the bigger picture of what’s happening in the convention right now is definitely worth a read. Here are the four types:

1. Intolerant Calvinists—These are those who are convinced of the doctrines of grace and believe that anyone who does not agree with their views does not really believe the gospel. Therefore, they are always suspicious and often dismissive of folks who understand issues like unconditional election, particular redemption and effectual calling differently than they do and think that it is unwise at best and most likely impossible to work together with such people.
2. Cooperative Calvinists—These are people who believe the doctrines of grace but recognize that there are other brothers and sisters in the SBC who do not agree with their understanding. They are not mad about the disagreement but believe there can be genuine cooperation on the basis of what is believed in common. They do not think that it is necessary to be a Calvinist in order to “really believe” the gospel and they acknowledge that there are good and godly people who simply disagree with some of the specific tenets of reformed soteriology. They are unwilling to compromise their convictions but do not see cooperating with gospel-believing non-Calvinists as necessitating that.
3. Cooperative non-Calvinists—These Southern Baptists disagree with one or more points of the Calvinistic understanding of the doctrines of grace but do not believe that Calvinists are heretics or believe a “different gospel.” They are open to dialogue about their differences and willing to work with Calvinists and others who might disagree with their views as long as there is agreement on the nature of the gospel. They are not embarrassed about the Calvinistic heritage of the SBC and harbor no paternalistic attitude toward their Calvinist brethren. They are unwilling merely to tolerate Calvinists but desire to work with them in the common cause of making Christ known to the nations.
4. Anti-Calvinists—This group genuinely believes that Calvinism is a serious threat that must be rooted out of the convention or at best, relegated to a “back of the bus” status. They seek to marginalize Southern Baptist Calvinists by actively working to block access to local churches and denominational positions. Those anti-Calvinists who are denominational employees sense a stewardship to stand against Calvinism as well as, with increasing regularity, against those cooperative non-Calvinists who embrace their Calvinist brethren as equals. They believe that by doing so they are protecting the convention.

Like Ascol, I am a type-2 Southern Baptist, which he believes is the fastest-growing group. The vast majority of our church membership probably fall into category #3, though we have our fair share of #4′s as well. I hope and pray that the coming years will see the growth of categories 2 & 3, with fewer and fewer on the fringes who are unwilling to cooperate.

I highly encourage you to read the rest of his article here.

I’m a Five Strip Baconist

So much for the SBC soteriology debate. Once people realize we’ve got BACON on our side, everybody will be a Calvinist!

Consider: You may think you had the opportunity to reject the bacon that was freely offered to you, but I know that I was irresistibly drawn to it.

Or, for those unwilling to part with the TULIP acronym, here’s a little baconization for you:

Total Deliciousness
Unconditional Edibility
Limited Allotment
Irresisible Goodness
Perseverance of the Savor

(HT: Ben Woodring via Jules Lapierre for the image, though please don’t blame the rest of my terrible puns on them… I take full responsibility.)

Why Local Laypeople Should Care About the SBC Soteriology Debate

Though I’m writing this post specifically for the benefit of members of my own church (Stevens Street Baptist in Cookeville, TN), hopefully this will have broader appeal as well, even outside the Southern Baptist Convention.

“Debate? What debate?”

That’s probably what most people around here would say in response to the title of this article. We tend to steer clear of the various debates that go on within the Convention… like the potential name change (to “Great Commission Baptists”) proposed at last year’s SBC annual meeting, or the Great Commission Task Force debate from two years ago. For better or worse, we don’t get caught up in those conversations.

While I believe there was merit to both of those discussions, they didn’t really mean that much to the average Baptist on the street, so it didn’t matter much that we weren’t paying attention. This year, however, there’s a debate going on that really does matter to Southern Baptists everywhere. It started a few weeks ago, and will probably figure heavily in the events that will take place at this year’s SBC annual meeting, which takes place in New Orleans this week.

Here’s the debate in as close to a nutshell as I can get it:

Ever since the Southern Baptist conservative resurgence that began before my birth — but especially within the last decade — Reformed/Calvinist doctrine has been gaining influence within Southern Baptist churches. The SBC’s flagship school (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) has had a decidedly Reformed theological bent since Albert Mohler became the institution’s ninth (and current) president in 1993. Increasing numbers of young SBC pastors and lay leaders now identify as Reformed in their understanding of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation).

While there should be no reason that Reformed and non-Reformed Southern Baptists cannot fellowship and serve together in ministry, there has been growing animosity between some (on both sides), which has been thrust into the spotlight by the recent publication of “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”. This document, which has been signed by quite a few prominent Southern Baptists (including five former SBC presidents and two current seminary presidents; see the list of all signers), aims to draw a distinction to Calvinist doctrine and outline a set of affirmations which they claim represent “the vast majority” of Southern Baptists.

This has sparked a lot of helpful discussion online, and nothing I could write about the document itself would add much, so at the end of this post I will simply direct you to what I have found to be the most balanced and thoughtful contributions. But what I can do is show you why I hope that many members of my church (and others like it) will get involved.

One thing that pretty much everyone who has chimed in seems to agree on is that nothing is more important than the Gospel. Amen! So while as a Reformed Baptist I disagree strongly with much of the content of the statement, I agree wholeheartedly with its authors that how we articulate the Gospel is a critically important issue. Because of this, I am thankful that this much-needed discussion is happening, and that the vast majority of the debate has been civil and charitable.

The real problem in the SBC is quite apparent at the local level, and Stevens Street is no exception: Many Southern Baptists cannot clearly articulate the Gospel. I’m not talking about the distinctions between Reformed and non-Reformed understandings of certain doctrinal points; I mean the bare-bones essentials! Whatever the causes may be, the fact is that the doctrinal literacy of the average SBC church member has become very watered down, leaving countless professing believers unable to discern between orthodoxy and heresy.

This is made painfully clear here in Cookeville by the fact that large numbers of lifelong Southern Baptists have joined churches and/or been influenced by books marked by teaching that is not just contrary to the Baptist Faith & Message, but which stretches the bounds of orthodoxy to the limit. Even larger numbers of church members continue to fill pews in Baptist churches without any real grasp on the Gospel (which does not necessarily mean that the Gospel is not being taught).

So whatever the immediate outcome of the current debate ends up being, I hope that the long-term result is increased clarity and biblical fidelity in the teaching of the Gospel in Southern Baptist churches, and increased doctrinal understanding by lay members of those churches. It’s one of the reasons I’m so excited about The Gospel Project, LifeWay’s new curriculum that looks EXCELLENT, and is sure to be adopted by large numbers of SBC churches (including Stevens Street).

Paul wrote to the Corinthian church that “there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Corinthians 11:19). I believe that, as painful as it is to have factions within the SBC family, the result will be the advance of the Gospel.

This is a conversation worth having, and if you’re still reading, I invite you to join it. Following are links to the most pertinent articles. I welcome your comments after you’ve had a chance to read up on the debate!

Recommended Reading

• A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation — Straight to the source.
• The FAQ’s — The best summary of the finer points of the debate. Consider this the “Cliff’s Notes” version if you don’t have time to read anything else.
• Southern Baptists and Salvation: It’s Time to Talk — Al Mohler’s response has been the most influential response from a Reformed perspective. Clear, concise, and charitable, he acknowledges the legitimacy of many of the concerns of non-Reformed Baptists, but also points out the errors in their means of addressing those concerns.
  
• It Is Time to Discuss the Elephant in the Room — Jerry Vines, one of the former SBC presidents to sign the document, provided a fitting counterpoint to Mohler’s article by defending the statement against Mohler’s charge of semi-Pelagianism, while affirming Mohler’s call for civil discourse about the subject.
  
• Commentary and Observations from Tom Ascol — For those who really want to get into the nitty-gritty, Ascol’s ongoing response (the final part of which was published today) is very detailed and instructive. He closely examines each of the statement’s affirmations and denials and provides a thorough response.
  
• So Why All the Labels? — Voddie Baucham takes a different approach to the issue, discussing why he feels terms like “Calvinist” and “Arminian” are helpful and clarifying. I agree.