Southern Baptist Disclosure and Unity

by Mark on July 23, 2009

Post image for Southern Baptist Disclosure and Unity

So what do you do believe pastor? Do you hold to X-theology or Y-theology? Which is it Xism or Yism? If you hold to Xism we must have full disclosure!

OK, those aren’t exactly real questions. Though it’s been said more than once in Southern Baptist life that if a pastor holds to X-theology, he should offer full disclosure to the search committee. What hasn’t been say is that given the same situation that Y-theology should also be disclosed. It’s even been charged that a pastor holding to X or Y theology might come in and totally wreck an otherwise healthy church.

The wrecking of churches may or may not have merit. It’s hard to broadbrush in such a way. I would also add that what congregations do with their pastors is very sad today. Churches go through a pastor every 3 – 5 years depending on which stats you go by. I would argue that this hardly constitutes a “healthy” congregation all around. OK, off the rabbit trail.

A disclosure isn’t necessarily a bad idea. It may not always be the best idea either. Whatever the disclosure is either X or Y theology doesn’t always clear the mudd for the search committee. Depending on just how theologically astute the search committe members are can make the difference. So a flat out disclosure might hurt more than it helps. Even so, I have another suggestion for disclosure outside of Xism and Yism.

Better SBC Disclosure

OK, I’m speaking larger scale here as it comes to Southern Baptist theological disclosures. Recent emphasis has been on the Great Commission Resurgence which I don’t see as pointing to theology X or Y. Instead, I think the theological disclosure questions should be built around the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM). Even the SBC site’s Basic Belief’s section points to this document.

Southern Baptists have prepared a statement of generally held convictions called The Baptist Faith and Message. It serves as a guide to understanding who they are.

It may even been a good idea for the candidate to ask the search committee about the BFM. This may not be a perfect starting place, but it’s as good as any. This is the very theological document which Southern Baptist churches cooperate around. It only makes sense to start there as I see it.

My question might be: I understand your concern over theology X or Y. May I first ask you about the BFM and your churches stance on it? As I look to minister in a Southern Baptist church I do hold to the BFM and thought it wise that we first visit that document and work from there.

Good idea? Other thoughts?

Mark

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Previous post:

Next post:

Thesis Theme for WordPress: Options Galore and a Helpful Support Coummunity
  • Jonwards
    Anyone curious about the upfrontest prophecy article I've seen in many a moon can visit the "Powered by Christ Ministries" site and click on "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty" which is most certainly not recommended by Lindsey, LaHaye, Ice, and the rest of the Rapture Pack! The safest thing to do is to wear asbestos gloves and gulp some tranquilizers before reading it!
  • I think I saw that article some time ago. Something about the origins of dispensationalism..or something?
  • Wayne Elliott
    Just last year I had the opportunity to serve on a pastor search committee for our SBC church. Most members of the church, and probably a majority of the search committee, would not have a clear idea of the meaning of Calvinism. Like many Southern Baptists, some would undoubtedly have a visceral negative reaction to the term "Calvinist." At the same time, they would probably agree with three, if not four points. (Actually, two out of our last three pastors were undoubtedly moderate Calvinists. The issue never arose during their ministries.)
    Our search committee met with a candidate who started the interview with the statement: "I am a five point Calvinist. Would that be a problem with your church?" I was thrilled at his honesty and integrity in starting the interview that way. The committee immediately asked him if he supported the current version of the BFM and he affirmed that he had no problem with it. In hearing him preach, we were overwhelmed with the soundness, forcefulness and sensitivity of his proclamation of the Word. And the seriousness which he expressed about the responsibility of souls being placed under his care was refreshing.
    We called that candidate as our pastor and for the last year have been greatly blessed with the soundest Bible preaching and teaching I have heard in my 65 years as a Southern Baptist. He is greatly loved by the congregation. In his preaching, our pastor has been wise not to put labels on doctrine which may distract from the message of the Word. I would encourage similar forthright conversations between other candidates and search committees.
  • Bro. Wayne,

    Thanks for sharing your experience. When you put it so clearly as you have it seems that immediate full "disclosure" is/was the proper way to handle it. A great aspect of your experience is that the search committee had the wisdom to ask more questions and listen rather than condemn. What a good example for properly handling this situation.

    I stand corrected again.
  • Wayne Elliott
    I did not intend to correct you, brother Mark. Just was just sharing an experience with a very candid and forthright pastoral candidate and a search committee focused on God's plan for our church. It worked for us!!
  • I suppose it's not so much correction as it is helping me get my thoughts and reasoning in line. :)
  • I would think that a Calvinist congregation would desire to weed out Arminian and simi-Pelagian pastoral candidates every bit as much as Arminian congregations would Calvinists. Same with Continualist/Cessationists, etc. Theology matters, and both the church and the candidate should desire to find out if there will be a good fit, or not.

    Walking far in shoes that don't fit causes pain, and can cause injury. An ill-fitting pulpit can do the same.

    ~Squirrel
    .-= The Squirrel´s last blog ..The Squirrel's Nut Cache - 7/23/09 =-.
  • It's not the only one, but it is often the easiest place to start as it encapsulates many others and the reaction to "Are you a Calvinist?" will tell you a lot about what the person considers important theologically as well as how well studied they are.

    The BFM is a good place to start with another Christian whom you've recently met, but I would consider it a given (right or wrong, we all know how assumptions go) when talking with an ordained minister in the SBC.
  • Frank, this is one of the most impacting things I've read today: "There’s no reason to go in hiding the fact that you think God is Great and saves those who ought to be condemned." Thanks for that.

    Mark, the question of "what's yoru stance on the BFM" is a great one, but it could be perceived as a dodge or an attempt to pick a fight, even if the tone is very gentle. My perception might be off though.
    .-= Aaron´s last blog ..A Holy Terror =-.
  • I just don't think it's a bad idea to start with the BFM. I'm not advocating avoiding the issue.

    Funny how Calvinism is seems only theology in view that needs to be brought out isn't it?
  • Well sure, since it tends to be the one position that prevents you from preaching self-esteem messages (and you don't want to preach something that will make people leave if you've got a building to pay for, right?)
    .-= Aaron´s last blog ..A Holy Terror =-.
  • They don;t have to get up and start systematically preaching TULIP sure, but what happens when, with a Calvinistic bent, they decide to preach through Job or related topics dealing with the question of evil? What happens when they start teaching through John 3:16 and redefine world to not mean world?

    I've listened to quite a few seminary lectures, sermons by seminary professors, and chapel messages and I would emphatically disagree with the notion that it is unhelpful for a preacher to systematically name both the field of study a particular topic they are discussing falls under as well as their particular stance on the topic. The best ones I've heard even briefly mention at least the names of opposing or competing views that fall within the realm of orthadoxy. Even if they go a tad further to note why they disagree with these competing views I would consider this approach far more edifying and educational than the all too common practice (from what I've seen anyway) of pastors in failing to mention both their theological presuppositions as well as any valid competing views.

    Such a lack of forwardness makes me think the pastor either doesn't know what they are talking about or is trying to deliberately hide or mislead their congregation. I know this is not the case in all circumstances, but if we are truly trying to educate and edify, a lack of reference to the theological terms and positions being discussed really begs the question.

    I wouldn't say that most SBC pastors are moderately Calvinistic, most from what I've seen (especially the older crowd) don't seem to even know the theological terms well enough to even enter the discussion. I would define Calvinistic as a knowledge and acceptance of 3 or more pedals, not merely a high view of God's sovereignty which is not a defining characteristic of Calvinism.
    .-= Wes Widner´s last blog ..The missing link of a Great Commission Resurgence: Apologetics =-.
  • Bro. Wes,

    I know we've not had lunch yet, my neighbor. Looks like we'll have some interesting discussions. :)

    Funny you should mention Job. All you have to do is preach the text of Job. And who redefines "world" in John 3:16? These two questions would be a great test case for starting at the BFM and moving forward.

    We can disagree on whether or not it's helpful to name your particular theology while preaching. Sometimes it might be helpful, sometimes not. I wouldn't want that to take the listeners attention away from the text. I don't see a problem with giving alternate orthodox interpretations though to compare and contrast. Now we've gone from search committees to preaching. Depending on where a pastor is with there congregation different approaches at different times may be called for.

    Another thing. You're probably going to get a slightly different message in a seminary than in a regular Sunday church service.

    Interesting you should say that most SBC pastors don't seem to know theological terms well enough, etc. What do you think this might say about the congregations? This brings me back to starting with the BFM.

    Would you agree then that Calvinistic is atleast 3 points while Calvinism is 5? I think if more pastors properly understood Calvinism they'd probably be surprised just how much they agree.

    Why does Calvinism become the target here? Maybe it's Frank's fault. Yeah, that sounds good!
  • Mark,

    We certainly do need to set aside time for lunch sometime soon, now that we are almost through with our running around for the summer it should be easier to plan on our end. I imagine we will have quite a bit to talk about when we do get the chance to meet!

    I'll readily agree that most congregations are not very well trained theologically and I would imagine the search committees aren't in many cases either. However I don't think a potential pastor ought to act or be treated as a superior simply because they have (hopefully) been to seminary whereas (generally) the members of a search committee haven't.

    When it comes to the points raised by the Remonstrates, codified in the TULIP acrostic, I don't think agreement with the simple "points" is an accurate measure of one's affinity to Calvinism. I like what Dr Aiken said in his 12 Axioms sermon about "redefine and then accept" when it comes to the 5 points of Calvinism. It seems to me that a surface-level agreement with the basic tenant of, say, limited atonement, can be easily ascribed to by even a staunch Armenian like Dr. Craig if you allow the definition to be "limited in the scope of it's application". However, we both know that is not the position of historical Calvinism and when I talk about those who ascribe to the points of TULIP I mean those who ascribe to them as they were held to by Beza and eventually codified at the Synod of Dort.

    I think the reason Calvinism ends up being a target is because of it's questionable philosophical footing and deplorable logical outcomes. I know we will debate this point, but I don't think Calvinism is being singled out unfairly, nor should those who hold it's tenants adopt a "woe is me" attitude. By the same token, they shouldn't adopt a mentality (which is all too common) of thinking of themselves as "reformed" or "purified" since such a stance is unequivocally arrogant (be it intentionally or unintentionally).

    Rather, as a tight theological system, Calvinism is, as I've said elsewhere, simply an easy and very telling measuring stick to gage where a potential pastor (or church) is at theologically and whether that pastor or church would be a good match (either with the search committee's expectations or one's own in the case of the church shopper).
    .-= Wes Widner´s last blog ..The missing link of a Great Commission Resurgence: Apologetics =-.
  • I'm not saying to just preach the Bible without theological bias. LOL That would be impossible. I'm saying one does not have to go up and systematically name of certain theological systems as they are preaching.

    I would say most SBC pastors are moderately Calvinistic. But what do you mean by that?
  • Heck, I'm SBC and I don't even know the difference between the different degrees of Calvinism. I believe the difference is not in the theology but the degree to which the doctrines are adhered to and applied. And therein lies the rub. If a search committee hires a pastor who is moderately Calvinistic, choosing to tolerate their views, who is to say the pastor won't turn into another RC Sproul down the line?

    I've often heard the objection of "just preach the Bible" raised when it comes to search committees and potential pastors. I don't think anyone comes without any theological bias. "Just preach the Bible" sounds like a noble idea, but the problem is that we are human and we all filter the text through our own philosophical presuppositions.

    I've also heard the objection of "can't we all just get along" raised when it comes to new pastors and I quite frankly, don't understand the objection. I'm sure there are churches that aren't very loving in their approach to selecting a new pastor but I don't see where failing to call a pastor based on their theological convictions is any less loving. I would think, as others have mentioned above, that it would be far more loving to figure out that a congregation and potential pastor are incompatible beforehand rather than waking up later after a series of heated arguments and broken relationships with the resentment of "Why didn't we know we were in for this going in?"

    Then again, if it was all predetermined anyway, why worry about it either way? :-P
    .-= Wes Widner´s last blog ..The missing link of a Great Commission Resurgence: Apologetics =-.
  • Wes, the pelagius question was a joke. Hence the-> :)

    That said, the BFM is going to layout the proper understanding of grace which is often missing in articles when statements are made against certain theologies. Grace is hardly even mentioned, if at all. I too hope search committees know enough theology proper to understand.

    Look, I don't want a pastor that gets up and preaches Calvinism nor Arminianism. I want him to preach the Bible. One of the problems is that even apologist/philosopher William Lane Craig doesn't understand the difference between calvinism and hyper-calvinism. He's SBC and someone who might be looked up to. There are others too.

    I just wish the SBC theological complaints would reference the BFM and show where someone is preaching/teaching contrary.
  • I wouldn't object to any theological questions from a search committee, especially since asking such questions is their responsibility. They also know how variation in doctrines (beyond the first-order doctrines that is) their fellow congregation can or are willing to take.

    BTW: Pelagious was a heretic and not, as is commonly and fallacitiously believed, the opposite of Calvinism. One would hope that a search committee would know enough about theology and church history to not lump every candidate into "Calvinist" and "Armenian or Pelagian" categories. There are far more questions that require answering in order to get a good idea of what a potential pastor believes. It just so happens that SBC seminaries are putting out higher percentages of Calvinists and it is a pretty easy question to ask a potential pastor to see where they stand and how they will go about answering potentially dicey questions.
    .-= Wes Widner´s last blog ..The missing link of a Great Commission Resurgence: Apologetics =-.
  • The appeal to the BFM as a starting point makes perfect sense to me. If a person is a Calvinist he can go through the BFM very easily as he explains. The push back is that many might not be familiar with the BFM.

    It's not about dishonesty. Why not ask if one is pelagian? :)

    How autonomous are we really? Just read a published baptist paper and tell me your answer. This is another spot where the BFM would take away bias. Or atleast help.
  • Well, if you are a Calvinistic who logically holds to determinism, would your answer to the above questions really matter or make a difference if you are already "foreordained" to pastor there? :-P

    Seriously, I agree with Frank's comment above. If I were on the search committee, an appeal to the BFM would sound evasive to a direct question of "Are you a Calvinist?". It would also make me wonder about the pastor's commitment to all those under his care (even the "reprobate") if he weren't willing to be honest with those entrusted by the congregation to ask such questions.

    I'm not sure I understand why biased congregations are such an obstacle or anathema in a denomination where autonomism is such a closely held hallmark.
    .-= Wes Widner´s last blog ..The missing link of a Great Commission Resurgence: Apologetics =-.
  • I would not only include specifics of any "ology" of what one adheres to or disagrees with, but I would also put forth any theologies that they are currently "reconsidering" or trying to grow deeper in.

    The problem with these questions is that the pastor knows that any answers he gives won't be forgiven and most likely held against him...but that's why it is best to be a Calvinist when searching for a church because you know that God will sovereignly place you where he wants you :)
    .-= Seth McBee´s last blog ..The Ins and Outs of Communion: What is Communion? =-.
  • There you go. Best commenters in blogdom! So many the BFM is the best place to start and work through. Being upfront also means explaining in detail either side.

    Thanks guys!
  • "an SBC calvinist should disclose mightily that’s he’s a TULIP-loving amillennial..."

    ...Or a TULIP-loving pre-millennial dispensationalist...

    :o)
    .-= The Squirrel´s last blog ..The Squirrel's Nut Cache - 7/23/09 =-.
  • Mark,

    It seems to me that it is in the best interest of both the church and the pastor that both be as upfront and detailed in stating their respective theological positions as possible. This will, of course, not eliminate all future conflicts, but it would go a long way tour to reducing them.

    Just my two acorns worth...

    ~Squirrel
    .-= The Squirrel´s last blog ..The Squirrel's Nut Cache - 7/23/09 =-.
  • I think you're right -- but if I were on the search committee, I'd hear that answer as evasive, seeking to direct away from the question asked.

    Honestly: an SBC calvinist should disclose mightily that's he's a TULIP-loving amillennial tool in the hand of the living God to put the glory of God on display in a local church. The reason is simple: there's no sense in fighting that fight. There's no reason to go in hiding the fact that you think God is Great and saves those who ought to be condemned -- and when it comes up in the book of Exodus, or the book of Genesis, or in John 3, or wherever, to suddenly finding one's self in a fight for one's life and vocation.

    Be bold: I AM A REFORMED BAPTIST, BY GRACE AND BY HEAVEN! And if they don;t run you off in the interview, nobody can say on the backside, "hey: you never told us -that-."
    .-= Frank Turk´s last blog .. =-.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: