Al Mohler and Ed Stetzer on Calvinism in the SBC: Consequential or Inconsequential? by Peter Lumpkins

   I have several thoughts on the cover story on Al Mohler by Molly Worthen in the October 2010 edition of Christianity Today entitled, "The Reformer." Earlier, I posted my thoughts on some pre-publication criticism offered by young, restless, and Reformed icon, Justin Taylor. I also included a link to Trevin Wax's essential agreement with Taylor albeit Wax was more nuanced in his criticism and offered some considerable reasons why he believed Worthen was "condescending" toward Mohler, Southern seminary, and the Conservative Resurgence. Take a look and see what you think.

For now, I note an interesting tension between Ed Stetzer's view of Calvinism and Mohler's view. Worthen queried Stetzer on Calvinism's significance as an issue in the SBC:

"Calvinism is a small issue," says Ed Stetzer of the SBC's LifeWay Research. "On the scale of theological diversity, it's not that big of a distinction."

On the other hand, Al Mohler thinks Calvinism is quite a consequential chunk. In fact, according to Worthen, Mohler believes non-Calvinist Southern Baptists hold less than a full deck of theological cards. Worthen writes:

Mohler believes that the only intellectually robust defense of biblical inerrancy lies in the Reformed scholasticism that emerged from the Synod of Dort (1618) and enjoyed its apogee at late-19th-century Princeton Theological Seminary, where James Boyce trained. Non-Calvinist conservatives, Mohler says, "are not aware of the basic structures of thought, rightly described as Reformed, that are necessary to protect the very gospel they insist is to be eagerly shared." He thinks that Reformed theology's appeal to young people proves its unique imperviousness to the corrosive forces of 21st-century life. "If you're a young Southern Baptist and you've been swimming against the tide of secularism … you're going to have to have a structure of thought that's more comprehensive than merely a deck of cards with all the right doctrines." 

So, on the one hand, Ed Stetzer, the statistical guru of the SBC, holds Calvinism apparently as a tertiary issue. But on the other hand, Al Mohler insists non-Calvinist theologians like Paige Patterson, Malcolm Yarnell, and/or David Allen--not to mention Conservative Resurgence leaders like Adrian Rogers and Jerry Vines among others--along with 90-95% of Southern Baptist pastors and churches remain unaware of the "basic structures of [Reformed] thought...necessary to protect the gospel..." (emphasis mine). In fact, non-Calvinist theology is likened to a faulty deck of cards.

Either Stetzer better dump the vacuous, tertiary line that Calvinism is a "small issue" with "not that big of a distinction" or brace himself for a wake-up call from Louisville!  

If Mohler is correct, and Calvinism is intrinsic to the theological construct of a necessary biblical doctrine--in this case, biblical inspiration--there is no middle ground available, no "small issue" to negotiate. A legitimate either/or exists.

There is little question where Mohler's theological presupposition leads--the complete Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention.

It's coming. 

Mark it down.

It may already be too late.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Michelle]

<< Mohler says, "are not aware of the basic structures of thought, rightly described as Reformed, that are necessary to protect the very gospel they insist is to be eagerly shared." >>

Do they have Calvinist classes that teach Calvinist to all argue the same arguments? I seriously ask this. The first Calvinist I ever met told me that they her church held classes on how to "argue theology". Every Calvinist I've ever met....ever....says this if you don't agree with Calvinism, you just don't understand it.

Peter, I think I read one of your comments one time where you stated that you used to be a Calvinist. I'd love to read more about your testimony and what made you switch. Which of their doctrines did you find unbiblical? I know this is off topic, so if you don't wish to publish this here, I understand (though if you were willing to email me, I'd greatly appreciate. We homeschool and my son met some Calvinist's recently and I've been trying to help him understand more ever since. One of his big questions is "WHY would anyone ever believe this?" I can't answer that!

[Lynn Gray]

Michelle,
I believe it because (to me) it seems to sum up the plain teaching of the Bible.

Peter,

I dont see anything in Dr. Mohler's statement that says he is intent of taking over the SBC for Calvin. How do you get this from his saying that Calvinism is the "only intellectually robust defense of biblical inerrancy"? This doesnt seem to be an effort to force someone to be a Calvinist. Does it to you? If someone disagrees with his position (as I assume you do) in regards to other ways of "robust defense" I assume that Mohler would simply agree to disagree with you on that point and not try to force you to change.

I dont know you but do you dislike Calvinists being in the SBC?

Lynn Gray
Deacon, Morning Star Baptist - Meeker,OK
MATS student @ SBTS

[peter]

Michelle,

Id' be glad to share a few snippets of my life, my theological journey, and how I came to view Calvinism an inadequate theological construct. I'll get back asap...

Lynn,

Thanks for your comment. And, while Calvinism may be the perfectly plain biblical teaching to you, Lynn, to most of us (most of us meaning the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists), Calvinism remains an inadequate summary of exegetical theology.

As for Dr. Mohler's statement, I'd simply ask you to follow the logic: if A is necessary to sustain a necessary doctrine, how is it one may, in good conscience, forfeit A?

Of course, there are other factors indicative of my prediction, factors I've rehearsed for four years now. So those factors play heavily into my little prognosis.

As for Calvinists being in the SBC I've not the least concern. But my very point is not the presence of Calvinism but the unchecked prominence of Calvinism, a Calvinism which continues to bully its way into virtually every sphere of SBC life.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: It will not take over and has no desire to take over. Mark that down. Bully? This is ironic coming from you who wishes no Calvinist were SBC and have made that quite clear. From our camp, you are quite welcome in the SBC and to even teach your view. The only way Calvinism will take over is if God in his infinite wisdom opens all eyes to see Calvinism in the Bible. Otherwise, we just won't be shoved out, but a takeover? Please Peter.

[Darby Livingston]

So... taking the last couple posts as a unit, it appears that you're shooting for a non-cool, non-Calvinist convention. It seems everyone wants to make the convention into their own image. :)

[Mary]

Not only do Al Mohler and company envision the SBC purified of all those dumb non Calvinist but the egalitarians will be kicked out right behind irregardless of their soteriology. That "Great Commission Resurgence" was NOT about the Great Commission as evidenced by the Ezell nomination. Mohler may not be an intellectual heavy weight but his political skills have been way underestimated as seen by his brillant let's make a power grab and call it the GCR.

[Ron Hale]

Peter,
It gave me no joy in reading Dr. Mohler's comment concerning ... "Non-Calvinist Conservatives are not aware of the basic structures of thought, rightly described as Reformed, that are necesssary to protect the very gospel they insist is to be eagerly shared."

After reading that ... I was shocked.

I had a weird experience of almost hearing a Col. Jessup [Jack Nicholson] kind of voice from the movie A Few Good Men saying, "You people [Non-Calvinists] have no idea how to defend the gospel. All you can do is weaken a Convention."

[Tim G]

Ron,
That is a great description of how that comment reads!

TG

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

Unless you're willing to document where I've "made quite clear" or even clearly implied I "wish no Calvinist were SBC" drop the baseless rhetoric. What I have "made quite clear" is the Founders' vision of "reforming" one SBC church at a time to their interpretation of the "doctrines of grace" is unwelcome, in my view, in the SBC...

Darby,

How is one supposed to make something in his image, so to speak, when it already is so?

Ron & Tim,

Agreed.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Darby Livingston]

Peter,

Good point.

[sãoray]

I enjoyed the CT article and didn't think it was imbalanced. In fact it was very insightful to anyone who isn't familiar with SBC's workings.

The more i rub shoulders with the YRR, the more apparent it becomes that [obviously] the "Y"oung "R"estless parts don't react to critical commentary very well.

[DK]

Calvinism is orthodox theology. If someone is so concerned with its presence, they need to go after some heresy instead (such as wrong views of the Trinity preached in SBC pulpits). How long will people dog on, poke fun at Calvinsim rather than going out and sharing the orthodox gospel of Jesus Christ with someone?

[Rick]

Ron gets four stars for his "Few Good Men" analogy. If only my "basic structures of thought" were better, I would obviously agree with those whose "basic structures of thought" are superior to mine, according to them.

We live under the blanket of theological freedom Al Mohler provides and then question the manner in which he provides it. Deep down, in matters we don't talk about at church fellowships, I WANT Al Mohler in that Seminary Tower. I NEED him in that Seminary Tower.

Clearly, in Mohler's view, I can't handle the truth.