It seems that there’s a(nother) storm brewing in the Southern Baptist Convention, and Reformed Theology, commony referred to as “Calvinism” is again the center of controversy. I’ve alluded to the discontinuity between numbers and reality in the SBC and here to the scheduled “discussion” between Al Mohler and Paige Patterson regarding this issue as well as the irresponsible comments made by Ergun Caner, so I’ve been following these events with bemused interest for some time.

Watching these events develop, what amazes me is that, it’s typically Reformed believers who are labeled as “argumentative,” and “always looking for another debate.” But, in recent events, such could not be farther from the truth. Ergun Caner’s unprovoked charge of “hypercalvinism” is matched by other battle-drawing comments from, among others, Malcom Yarnell of Southwestern Serminary, who recently preached against the evils of hyper-calvinism, which he defined as not having altar calls. We’ve heard of attacks from Jerry Vines, Paige Patterson and others.

Being Reformed and living near Forth Worth, I hear many tales concerning Paige Patterson’s open rebuff of anything Reformed being taught in “his” seminary (I’m sorry, but last time I checked, my church helps pay for “that” seminary, don’t I have a say what’s taught there, isn’t that the SBC way? Apparently not when you’re a good ol’ boy par excellence). Reports continue to stream from Southwestern’s chapels week after week of inaccurate and irresponsible attacks on Calvinism. More and more, the opponents of Reformed Theology are very vocally making their position known in the SBC and I’m afraid their picking a fight they don’t actually want.

While I have tremendous respect for Thom Rainer, I’m afraid that he has his work cut out for him at Lifeway. For years, they have produced theologically weak material to dead and/or dying churches while a young generation of pastors has cried out for solid material, only to look elsewhere, thus having their allegiance to the SBC questioned. Much of the tension of the current debate centers squarely on the convention’s lack of theological pursuit in recent years. Theological debate of any kind has been brushed aside for the common and single cause of inerrancy and now we’re seeing the fruits of what happens when theological discussion is limited to a single issue for the sake of “denomination politics”.

As one friend noted, Patterson and others have found themselves in an interesting dilemna. For years, inerrancy has been their sole battle cry. As such, they have found themselves increasingly surrounded by Reformed thinkers. After all, we didn’t come to these conclusions ourselves, but only through Scripture! What we’re now seeing arise in the SBC is the result of years of single-minded fervor coming undone. Patterson and others want to rid themselves once and for all of the strange bedfellows they’ve been keeping and it seems that the method they’ve chosen is public outcry rather than actual engagement. After all, straw men are always easier to deal with, aren’t they?

As such, we’re witnessing a dramatic increase in the rise of public attacks on Calvinism from many high profile and wannabe good ol’ boys. While this does not surprise me, what does surprise me is the lack of sophistication and the lack of Scripture in these critiques. Let’s face it, Caner and Yarnell know better than to equate all Calvinism as hyper- and they know better than to define hyperCalvinism as a lack of an invitation system in the morning worship service. They know that the comments they’re making are not only untrue but in poor taste. Then why aren’t they being held accountable?

These men aren’t being held accountable because the SBC is a glorified “good ol’ boy system” where politics reign and successors are hand-picked, pragmatic numbers are rewarded over theological diligence and those in power are the same ones encouraging these attacks. But what happens if these tensions are pushed to the breaking point and we see a split in the convention (I pray that this doesn’t happen, but with spirits going the way they have been, we must consider this a possibility)?

While I don’t want to promote stereotypes, it does seem that Reformed believers are generally more involved in theological pursuits beyond the simple cry of inerrancy. While many have rightly made the cry for inerrancy, it has generally been Reformed believers trying to apply the implications of doctrine to the lives of people. It’s not enough to have a battlecry, we must have changed lives. What if many of the theologically-minded members of the convention are asked to leave and you’re left with the simple cry of inerrancy, Lifeway, and not much else?

I want to charge my like-minded brothers in the SBC to prove the naysayers wrong. Though their cries against hyper-Calvinism are a red herring, are we lovingly encouraging our people to be bold with the Gospel? Is the Gospel always on our lips or are we looking for another theological debate? The best theological argument is a life glorifying to God.

It breaks my heart, but the SBC has been a dying denomination for years. We know that the inflated numbers are dishonest but rewarded and we know that there has been, for the most part a serious lack of any serious theological engagement. So what happens when the oponents of Reformed Theology get the battle they’re pushing for? God only knows.

• Read Johnmark’s “James White to Debate Caner Brothers….Possibly”.
• Read D.R.’s “Calvinism Debate Imminent.”
• Read Michael’s “Calvinism vs. Arminianism in the SBC, Round 78,867,113″.
• Read Tom Ascol’s “Dr. Yarnell’s Gracious Response”.