With Al Mohler, an advocate of Calvinism, having led the SBC's flagship Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for some years now, it’s not surprising that a growing number of seminary graduates also profess Calvinism.Acknowledging the trend, conferences on the newly resurgent doctrine now dot the Baptist landscape, including one of about 550 people who are at Ridgecrest this week for a conference called “Building Bridges: Southern Baptists and Calvinism.” The conference is co-sponsored by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and “Founders Ministries,” an unabashed pro-Calvinist organization.
Speaking at the conference, the SBC's LifeWay Christian Resources researcher and “missiologist in residence” Ed Stetzer said nearly 30 percent of recent SBC seminary graduates now serving as church pastors affirm the traditional five points of Calvinism.
That compares to about 10 percent of pastors who claim to be Calvinists among the general SBC population.
Stetzer said his research showed that 29 percent of SBC pastors who are recent SBC seminary graduates indicated they are Calvinists. He said 27 percent of 1,234 recent graduates serving in SBC church leadership positions "somewhat agree" or "strongly agree" that they are five-point Calvinists, while 67 percent affirmed that God's "grace is irresistible" and 58 percent said they believe "people do not choose to become Christians, God chooses and calls people who respond to him."
In other words, a clear majority of recent SBC seminary graduates do not believe that God gave humans the freedom to make their own decisions about matters of salvation, but that God alone decides who will receive grace and who will be condemned.
For many rank and file Baptist church members, that is a surprising and radical thought – but one that might well be proclaimed by their next pastor.
Stetzer’s numbers indicate that the Calvinist shift has strong momentum: the numbers of graduates who affirmed Calvinism rose steadily between 1998 and 2004, with 34 percent of the 2004 graduates identifying themselves as five-point Calvinists.
Some of Baptists’ bitterest battles were fought in the nineteenth century as Calvinistic “anti-missionary” Baptists and Arminian “missionary” Baptists struggled for control of churches on the American frontier.
Now that fundamentalism has won the day against more progressive thought in the SBC, it appears certain that the next “resurgence” will not be of conservatives, but of Calvinists.
14 comments:
I have been following this for some time. I have to ask, Why is Calvinism predominating? Is it an outgrowth of the sense of exclusivity that comes with Fundamentalism? If we take predestination to its extreme, doesn't that, then, undermine the historic purpose of the SBC?
I have to conclude that most Baptists, including both so-called "Calvinists" and those who react to them, seem to completely misread John Calvin. Both have tended to interpret the reformer through the lens of early 18th century debates that culminated in the Synod of Dort(1619). Many forget that Calvin was a humanist - one deeply interested in describing the existential human experience. Indeed, he begins the Institutes of the Christian Religion with the surprising claim that knowledge of God is directly related to the knowledge of self. He is not one who is the least bit interested in speculating on God's nature, instead he attempts to be honest in describing what he observes of the human experience. Anthropology is not a sub-category in his theology - it is the major source for his theology. In this way, Calvin is quite radical and modern. For those on the right who claim him, I think you need to engage him through different lenses. And for those of us who are critical of the right, we too might benefit from a reading of his works. How is it, for example, that so many Presbyterians and Congregationalists, two of the most theologically and socially progressive groups in American Protestantism, find their inspiration and theological roots in the reformed tradition?
Scott, have you read Pulitzer prize winner Marilynn Robinson on Calvin?
Must read for you if you haven't; in her collection of essays, the Death of Adam.
Also of interest to a likely esoteric like you is Garry Wills recent interpretation of the Calvinism of Jonathan Edwards in his American Christianities.
If you've read Robinson, I would be interested in your thoughts at whatever length you have time for here because if I understand her at all she is in full agreement with you, lot of misreading and misunderstanding of Calvin.
foxofbama,
Thanks for your comments and your recommendation of Robinson's Death of Adam. I have not read her essay but will do so on your suggestion. I have read Wills and I appreciate the fact that he situates Calvin in the tradition of St. Augustine, - this is how Calvin understood and described himself. His theological project was an outgrowth of the Augustinian tradition. Wills is particularly well qualified to make this assessment given his excellent recent scholarship on Augustine and his translation of The Confessions. In a similar way, Karl Barth would locate his own theology as one rooted in the work of John Calvin and the reformed movement. One of my teachers, James Cone, begins his own introductory course in systematics elaborating on his debt to Karl Barth and the reformed tradition. This progression of thought should prompt us to rethink the way we interpret theological movements. Calvin was not a prototype for late 20th century fundamentalism.
I am convinced that the antidote to the new "Calvinist" is a strong dose of Calvin himself, and we who find ourselves at odds with their theology do no favors by identifying their theology as "Calvinist". Calvin is too important to sweep away. We react to formulations that at first don't seem to fit our notions of what works without ever wrestling with the idea in its social and theological context. The problem many of us face is not with the notion of predestination (or God's foreknowledge) as much as it is with our own idealized notion of freedom. Freedom has many contingencies: poverty, disease, warfare, slavery, sickness, death...; I think those Christians in the developing world whose lives are constantly about the work of survival might teach us much about freedom and its limits. And we should be careful when espousing the ideal when the reality speaks so loudly. I am all for freedom - it is at the heart of my own theological understanding as a Baptist. It was also at the center of Calvin's understanding - the freedom of God.
When we Baptists describe our theological heritage as one of upholding Christian "freedom" we do so in the context of a tradition that emerged and took root amid the denial of freedom to an entire race, and one where many of our fathers and mothers continued to embody and publicly articulate that deep dissonance into the late 20th century. Calvin observed in human life the reality of those contingencies and tried to make sense of it all. For him it was important to claim from his vantage point that God was in control, perfectly free even in the abyss of human misery. I understand Calvin's need most when I am confronted with despair and meaninglessness in the world, something we have all too much of today.
I look forward to reading Robinson. I really enjoyed her wonderful book, Gilead. Thanks,
Tony: This post really surprises me given your support for the IMB policies being wrong. Is Calvinism such a threat? I don't see where anyone is trying to convert anyone to Calvinism, simply seeking understanding of both those who are not Calvinist and those who are. The Calvinists of the 19th century were not non-missional, but very missional. Again, the question has been asked to point to one hyper-Calvinist in the Southern Baptist church. No one has been able to do that yet. As a self-proclaimed Calvinist myself I have a deep burden for the lost, I do witness every chance I get and I love and support missionaries to other countries. Does it matter if Calvinism is predominant or not? I don't think so. I think more the worry is those who would mix justification by faith alone in Christ alone with works. I am more concerned that there are those who expect the lost to behave and think like we do.
As for Scott's assessment of John Calvin, I would disagree totally, but then again I am an avid studier of Calvin's life and all his writings, not just one or two sentences. Calvin simply read scripture and discovered through this reading what Augustine had miraculously seen in his reading of scripture. Period. Pretty simple. My question is simply what does scripture say. All of scripture not just parts. That is the basis of my belief. Not what Calvin has said or Spurgeon or Luther, but does what they say match with scripture. I am not a total agreer of any of the above mentioned men, but I do agree on their view of what takes place at salvation and afterward. But I do not expect all Southern Baptists to agree with me. I do believe that we give lip service to the Bible being the final authority but have gotten away from this thought. We need to get back. But that is my own personal opinion.
Debbie,
Thanks for your comments. When you state that you disagree with me "totally" does that mean that you disagree with my suggestion that the thrust of Calvin's theology was largly his own need to affirm the "freedom of God"? The danger in reading any historical figure is to impose our own questions from our own historical moment on the past, and I think we need to treat Calvin as someone who actually lived in a particular time that is quite different than the time in which we live. Calvin was just as rooted in his social, cultural and political context as we are ours. That doesn't mean that we can't discover insights and resonate with his theology. But like reading scripture, we should approach it with both humility and an acknowledgement of how its domestication and familiarity can reduce its power to transform our lives.
You state that
"Calvin simply read scripture and discovered through this reading what Augustine had miraculously seen in his reading of scripture. Period. Pretty simple. My question is simply what does scripture say".
Is it really that simple? Was that Calvin's motivation?" Why not just preach Augustine? We know from the only "autobiographical" writing we have of his, namely a small section of in his Preface to his Commentary on the Psalms, that his early motivation was to set forth and vidicate the beliefs of those in France who were accused of heresy and made martyrs. In the earliest addition, he set forth a summary of Christian beliefs - a theology that would provide Christians with a framework for interpreting the scriptures, not a commentary or exegesis of the scriptures themselves. His need to provide this framework seems to me to imply that the scriptures are anything but simple, and the interpretation of scripture is all the more complex.
I am glad to learn that you are an an "avid studier of Calvin's life and all his writings". We need more in the fold to take theology and our tradition more seriously. However, I am a bit confused as to you rather off handed comment implying that my arguement is based upon one or two sentences of Calvin. Here I feel that perhaps Calvin and I have something in common in your analysis. How can you make such a harsh judgment not knowing me, my background, my theology or history? Can you really make such a sweeping interpretation from what I've tried to offer here? After all, I've only written a few sentences in response to what I perceive to be a misuse of a major historical figure.
Scott:
Your gonna love Robinson on Calvin.
Would love to have your take at my blog. Just send it in the comment line and I will give it top billing, moving it with attribution as a Main guest post.
Looks like you may also read Noll and Charles Marsh as well. Maybe Cartledge and some of the Campbell revenants will have you down as guest lecturer of some sort
Sister Debbie,
I have crossed swords with you before and I certainly hate doing it here, but I believe you need to re-word your statements.
First you said; "Tony: This post really surprises me given your support for the IMB policies being wrong." This sounds like you expect Dr. Cartledge to give carte blanche acceptance to anything that you agree. Just because the one causing the disruption at the IMB BoT's is Calvinist in his doctrine, does not mean that his doctrine gets a free pass.
Second, you say; "Calvin simply read scripture and discovered through this reading what Augustine had miraculously seen in his reading of scripture. Period. Pretty simple." Are you seriously saying that John Calvin wrote his systematic theology in a vacum. Are you saying that John Calvin, who has such an astute mind and was so well read, that he never studied Augustine?
Not trying to pick a fight, but just wanted you to reassess your statements.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim: If you read Calvin's conversion that is exactly what happened. He read the scriptures for himself, and came to see what is now known as Calvinism. He did not in any way discover it as you pointed out Augustine and others have seen it in the Bible as well. Calvin however did refine it and expound on it further than his predecessors.
I said what I did concerning this post for this simple reason. The policies of the IMB said we have no room for those who believe or have a private prayer language nor do we have room for those who were not baptized by the proper person in the proper place. I say there is room for those who would agree and disagree with the above. I also believe there is room for Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. I feel I am at least consistent. To me this says I agree until...... Calvinists nor non-Calvinists neither one are heretical and both are just as Christian. Both hold to the inerrancy of scripture with all that entails. I see this post and not being very consistent.
Scott: Where I disagree is in your over analyzing of Calvin. He simply wrote that he saw things from God's point of view and not man's which is what Calvinists will tell you this view does. Period. Don't try and analyze him. I doubt that one can and be accurate. He was a theologian who strongly believed in scripture alone as the final authority. End of story.
Scott: I forgot to answer one question where you ask what does scripture say? That would take much more room and time than I have hear. I do believe it was covered quite well at the Building bridges conference however to which there are audio files that I'm sure would answer that question.
That should be more time than I have here not hear.
Sister Debbie,
You said; "If you read Calvin's conversion that is exactly what happened. He read the scriptures for himself, and came to see what is now known as Calvinism. He did not in any way discover it as you pointed out Augustine and others have seen it in the Bible as well. Calvin however did refine it and expound on it further than his predecessors." We are not speaking about Calvin's conversion. We are speaking about a systematic theology. Are you saying that John Calvin put his Systematic Theology together only with Scripture and did not use any other source?
Blessings,
Tim
Yes Tim, that is what I am saying or what Calvin himself has said. He rediscovered this doctrine through the sole reading of the scriptures. Calvin's conversion and his rediscovery of this doctrine were at one and the same time. When Calvin was converted, he left the Roman Catholic church because of the many corruptions and the differing doctrines between the RCC and what Calvin saw as he read scripture. I believe the book of Romans is the book that enlightened him so to speak to the truths of the scriptures. His commentary to me is a prime example of his own personal study of the reading of the scriptures. He was one of the leading minds of his day. Calvin stressed more of the Original Sin than Luther or Augustine. So yes, I do believe Calvin was influenced solely by the Bible. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Now Martin Luther was a different story in that he was highly influenced by Augustine. The book of Romans was where he discovered the doctrine of justification. It is said that if one can understand the book of Romans fully, one can understand the entire Bible.
Post a Comment