Topics we all talk about but never seem to settle...

Consider these topics:

• For Whose Sins Did Jesus Die?
• What Did We Inherit From Adam?
• Does Regeneration Precede Faith?
• What Were the Early SBC Leaders' Views on Salvation?
• Who Are the Elect?
• Is the Sinners' Prayer Biblical?

Indisputably, these topics--and/or subtopics spawned by these topics--are among the most talked about, blogged about, argued about, shouted about, and wondered about over the internet amongst websites and personal blogs in the circle of those connected with Southern Baptists. Some blogs have repeatedly ruled these topics off their radar screen only to later reinstate the subjects with a vengeance. Other blogs conclude how useless or irrelevant the subject is to our health but nonetheless continue to sing songs about the subject citing the clear "truthfulness" of the Calvinistic answers to many of the questions raised by the topics/subtopics. For them, the issue is settled and therefore mostly irrelevant.

While it's true there is a sense in which the questions raised in the topics/subtopics above have been thoroughly pillaged by friend and foe alike, we wrongly assume that what is an "old hat" to us--and if I may employ yet another worn-out cliche, a been-there-done-that type of subject--we do well not to assume the questions have been thoroughly exhausted amongst those millions of Southern Baptists who attend our 44K+ churches every week. To the contrary, the exchanges we've experienced over the topics above haven't made it to the popular masses of Southern Baptists. If we think they have, we grossly overestimate the effect SBC blogs have had on grassroots Southern Baptists. While many may have our RSS feed in another blogger's google reader, I assure you, the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists have no clue what the blogs have been arguing about for years.

In short, while many may claim they are "sick  and  tired" of the Calvinism debate in the SBC, the reality is, the debate hasn't even happened yet--that is, in the SBC. Equating what's happened on blogs with what's happened in the SBC is fundamentally mistaken. You're "sick and tired" mainly because you read blogs. Mainstream, grassroots Southern Baptists don't habitually read blogs; and if they do, it's only occasionally. I find that when the subject is mentioned in my real world outside cyberspace, people's responses immediately indicate to me they are interested in the issues I've just mentioned. Far from being "sick and tired" they crave information about the issues we've endlessly pillaged.   

I'm suddenly reminded of Jeremiah–

“If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?” (Je 12:5)

As Huey says of this proverbial answer God offers Jeremiah about his lament concerning the persecution he'd experienced at the hands of the men of Anathoth,¹ “by means of gentle irony, he warned Jeremiah that if he could not cope with difficulties he was then experiencing, he should consider what he would do in a really serious situation.”²  Or, in more colloquial language, "Jeremiah, get a life. You ain't seen nothing yet!" If we are "sick and tired" of this subject now, what will we do when the masses of Southern Baptists actually deal with these issues on a local church level? 

For this reason, I'm glad for conferences like The 2013 John 3:16 Conference (J316C). The topics at the beginning are the very topics the conference will pursue. Though not the final answer for settling the issues surrounding the topics/subtopics we've mentioned, J316C heads us in the right direction by taking the issues from the bloggers who continue to suggest they are "sick and tired" of the subject and offering it in a venue where settling the issue is actually possible--off the internet and in the local church.

Furthermore, it will be good to hear from scholars and speakers not typically cited by the ubiquitous young, restless, and reformed community so vigorously involved in the internet discussion, scholars like Eric Hankins, Adam Harwood, and Jerry Vines among many others. And, while conferences like this can only go so far in reaching the grassroots among us since these conferences are restricted to those who register, it nonetheless remains a good start in reaching what constitutes the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists with the issues concerning which so many of us register we're "sick and tired"--whether the neo-Calvinistic resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention is a good thing for our churches.

The fact remains, if the masses of Southern Baptists get in on the issues most talked about, blogged about, argued about, shouted about, and wondered about by Southern Baptists on the internet, the masses will be in a position to do something about it—namely, they can actually settle it so far as their local church is concerned.

And, so far as I am concerned, that would be a good thing I think.

 

¹"The injuries done thee by the men of Anathoth (“the footmen”) are small compared with those which the men of Jerusalem (“the horsemen”) are about to inflict on thee. If the former weary thee out, how wilt thou contend with the king, the court, and the priests at Jerusalem?" Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), Je 12:5.

²F. B. Huey, vol. 16, Jeremiah, Lamentations, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 140.

Comments

[David (NAS) Rogers]

I am in the midst of teaching an interpretation class at the association office. Our association is made up of many pastors who did not go to seminary, and discussions on these matters do not normally come up. However, so far in the class, when I have brought up scriptures on other matters where there are disagreements, when I point out the contrasting positions, and when I sketch the implications that come from each viewpoint and their impact on ministry, the class becomes very interested. I suspect that should I bring up the above topics and then proceed to analysis of scripture, perspective, theology, implication, and on to ministry, the interest and discussion would be the opposite of "sick and tired."

A Calvinist viewpoint on meticulous providence would greatly interest and impact those who engage in grief counseling and dealing with people struggling with sexual orientation issues.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi David. Thanks for your comment. Your experience fits nicely what I encounter among average church members. Most of the congregants of my church have little (if any) theological education but they remain interested in theological subjects and most questions the theologically-inclined normally pursue when those questions are spawned by biblical passages. They become very motivated to learn what's going on here, why churches and Christians hold different views, what Baptists have historically believed about such and such. I'm presently finishing up a series on the BF&M which has taken me many months to accomplish. Their interest level is quite astounding.

Thanks again...

[Aaron O'Kelley]

I recall a "Building Bridges" conference held several years ago, the purpose of which was to have an open, honest, charitable discussion between brothers who disagree on many of these issues. It was a model of how to do this well.

A little while later, the first "John 3:16" conference emerged, billing itself as a "majoritarian response" to the previous conference. Interestingly, the latter conference only represented one theological perspective, in contrast to its predecessor. I think that speaks for itself.

[peter lumpkins]

Sorry, Aaron. How ever the BB conference was billed, the J316C so far as I recall--and I both wrote about it and attended it--was never billed as the '"majoritarian response" to the previous conference'. Rather is was consistently billed as a response to 5 Point Calvinism period. Therefore to judge it based on criteria it never claimed remains entirely unfair. So, that makes your claim speak for itself as well I suppose.

Have a good afternoon...

[Matt]

I could care less, either way, but looks like the "majoritarian" comment came from Steve Lemke on Ed Stetzer's blog, a note that apparently Mr. Lemke said Mr. Stetzer could post: "This conference is intended as a majoritarian Southern Baptist response to the “Building Bridges” and “Together for the Gospel” conferences. The announcement of this conference has already provoked considerable buzz and speculation in the blogosphere. Hope you’ll join us! Steve Lemke"

You'll have to scroll down the page to see it:
http://www.edstetzer.com/2008/03/people_and_places_in_the_sbc_2.html#comments

[peter lumpkins]

With all due respect to Dr. Lemke whom I count a dear friend, he was/is welcome to give his view of what the first J316C was billed as. But he was a platform speaker, neither the strategizer nor organizer, Matt. From the beginning, the J316C was a response to 5 point Calvinism. And, frankly I'm in a pretty good position to know this since I was a part of the process.

[Mary]

Building Bridges was about Building Bridges between 5 point and 4 point Calvinists. Building a bridge between those who disagree on limited atonement is not crossing such a wide chasm. I understand Calvinists now have "acceptable" nonCalvinist to proclaim "I love nonCalvinists really." But it's the U that matters.

[Matt]

Well, he called it what he wanted, and it was published in a B&H book. That quote from Lemke is found in Chuck Lawless & Adam Greenway's book, The Great Commission Resurgence: Fulfilling God's Mandate in Our Time, on page 74. That book footnotes Stetzer's website that I posted on my comment.

[peter lumpkins]

Matt,

I'm not sure what point you wish to make. The footnote is in Nathan Finn's chapter which he cites in support of his criticism toward those who apparently questioned the balance of the Building Bridges Conference of which he was a part. Nothing new is here. It's still the same source you cited the first time, still an insufficient source to demonstrate the J316C's main purpose was other than responding to 5 point Calvinism. Both the conference and the book based upon the conference--Whosoever Will: a Biblical-Theological Critique of Five Point Calvinism http://www.amazon.com/Whosoever-Will-Biblical-Theological-Five-Point-Calvinism/dp/0805464166 -- was publicly billed as focusing on critiquing Calvinism not discussing it. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

[Max]

"Topics we all talk about but never seem to settle..."

We can talk about it ... think about it ... talk about it ... think about it ... until the cows come home. But I settled these topics with the Holy Spirit's help a long time ago. I can answer all those questions, but it doesn't really matter what I think in my intellect - we must base our walk on revealed Truth not the teachings and traditions of men. I'm on a path that has brought me safe thus far and will lead me home ... I never needed a systematic approach to my journey.

[Matt]

I'm not trying to make a point. I have no issue with this is SBC life. No need to get snarky. :-) I just noticed that you shut Aaron down for calling it a "majoritarian response". I assumed that since he put it in quotes, he had heard or read of it somewhere. I googled it and tracked the verbiage back to Lemke.

[peter lumpkins]

Matt,

When you can demonstrate how stating a fact is supposedly getting "snarky" I'll be glad to address it. Until you can, we'll just leave it at that.

Now, for the third time, the source you cite has little if anything to judge as to whether Aaron's assertion possessed credibility; namely, that the "John 3:16" conference emerged, billing itself as a "majoritarian response" to the previous conference." This is entirely skewed, having little accurate substance at all. While others conferences may have contributed in some way as to the occasion of the first J316C, conferences were by no means the core purpose of the J316C, a purpose clearly and publicly presented as a conference the speakers of which were responding to five point Calvinism. Therefore, Aaron's statement (and apparently your view as well since you continue to milk this cow) misrepresents the J316C's actual purpose.

I trust we can move on from this unless you have something either new or relevant to add. Have a good weekend...