The Barbarians, the Bolsheviks, and the Baptists by Sam Houston

The guest essay below is written by a conservative Southern Baptist in the Southwest. The insight is stunning, reflecting a deep understanding of what’s happening in the Southern Baptist Convention. Read and absorb it with care.

With that, I am…

Peter

 

  In some ways, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) may be seen as a fractured set of special interest groups, none of whom share the same agenda but several of whom might have overlapping agendas. However, to oversimplify a bit, the Southern Baptist scene can be analyzed by noting three key groups, what I’ll call the Barbarians, the Bolsheviks, and the Baptists. All three groups are devoted Christians. All three groups believe the Bible. All three groups serve the Lord to the best of their ability. The difference between them boils down to who Baptists are and what means should be used to do the Lord’s work most effectively

The Barbarians

The ancient Barbarians invaded and dominated the once-great Roman Empire. The ancient Barbarians were, for the most part, uneducated. But this is not true of the Barbarians in the SBC. Most have a seminary degree, and are fairly well-read and well-versed in one doctrinal convention, though they do not tend to read more broadly. In fact, they tend to be quite proud of their learning, often coming off to others as arrogant. The Barbarians have come into Southern Baptist empire from other traditions. The reason for their entrance into SBC life is varied. Some attended an SBC seminary and just flowed into the denomination. Some wanted to be associated with the size and prestige of the Southern Baptist name. Some came because of their affinity with our doctrine. But none of them are “heart” Southern Baptists. They fly the Southern Baptist flag as a “flag of convenience” without any real commitment to the SBC. The SBC is just a vehicle for advancing their own agenda. Indeed, their churches tend not to have “Baptist” in their names. They could just as easily take or leave being a Southern Baptist. The Barbarians are therefore usually more interested in what they can take from the SBC than what they can give to it.

Although the Barbarians have general agreement with most Southern Baptist doctrines, usually including a high view of biblical inspiration, they openly question others. They tend to be more Reformed in their theology than most Southern Baptists. They disagree with most Baptists on a collection of other issues, such as drinking alcoholic beverages. They tend to bring (consciously or unconsciously) aspects of a non-Southern Baptist ecclesiology with them into Baptist life. They know not Joseph, George W. Truett, M. E. Dodd, or Lottie Moon. They tend to be impatient and critical of most Southern Baptist traditions and customs, and they tend to attend non-Southern Baptist meetings rather than Southern Baptist meetings. They make jokes about or demean the Cooperative Program. They criticize the convention agencies as being ineffective. They are not interested at all in maintaining distinctive Baptist beliefs, but believe theology itself is “emergent” or “emerging” into something new. These people are not pillars you can build on but caterpillars who crawl around, and they won’t be around for long.

The Bolsheviks

The Bolsheviks in Russia were not foreigners but Russians, yet they had virtually no “say” or control of the  government. They fought for the overthrow of the Tsarist autocracy. They wanted power for the people (meaning “their” people) instead of the old aristocracy. They represented those who were not in power, and they wanted to seize power. They wanted to usher in revolutionary change in the social system, economy, and governance of Russia. (The Bolsheviks were communists, but I have no pejorative intent in applying this nomenclature to persons in the SBC. I am simply focusing on the identity of Bolsheviks as revolutionaries).

The Bolsheviks in SBC life also feel disempowered, and they want to change that. Unlike the Barbarians, most of the Bolsheviks grew up in Southern Baptist life, or at least have been Southern Baptists for a longer period of time. But, like the Barbarians, they don’t like what is going on in SBC life, and want radical change. Some SBC Bolsheviks were lieutenants in the Conservative Resurgence, but they have never been promoted to the top level of power brokers. They share a high view of Scripture, but they want methodological change and a change in leadership. They believe it is their turn for the spotlight to shine on them. They consciously modeled the Great Commission Resurgence after the Conservative Resurgence (in some ways), and attempted to portray it as such.

Many other SBC Bolsheviks are too young to remember the Conservative Resurgence. Some are a mixture of Barbarian and Bolshevik. These younger Bolsheviks have a higher value for what is “cool,” what is the most recent fad in theology. They militantly insist on contemporary worship rather than traditional worship styles. They would rather start their own church plant and worship like they like than join a long existing SBC church staff and have to deal with adults. Many of them do not have a deep understanding or appreciation of SBC agencies and their work. Though they have been Southern Baptist for years, the Bolsheviks have ministered in the vacuum of their own ministries. They have been at the periphery of SBC life, or in the room while decisions were made, but they were not themselves the decision makers. Many Bolsheviks are associated with large churches that are so self-sufficient that they have little need for Baptist associations, state conventions, or even the national convention. They can write their own Bible study curriculum, develop their own music programs, train their own staff members, and send their own missionaries.

Perhaps in part to achieve their agenda, the SBC Bolsheviks have signed a peace treaty with Calvinists, though they may not be Calvinists themselves. They also partnered with many SBC Barbarians to further their agenda, particularly by developing large meetings with non-Southern Baptist speakers and attendees. Many Barbarians dressed with the same color t-shirts (so they could be more easily identified and manipulated by the power brokers) were brought into SBC convention meetings. The Bolsheviks have compromised some of their earlier stances regarding some of the practices of the Barbarians in order to secure their cooperation. The SBC Bolshevik revolution took place not in Red October, as with the Russian Bolsheviks, but in the June 2009 and 2010 SBC conventions with the adoption of the Great Commission Resurgence report.

Like the Russian Bolsheviks, what the SBC Bolsheviks want is revolutionary change. They want to overthrow the old SBC aristocracy and have a change in leadership (and put them in charge). They want to explode the “bloated bureaucracies” of the tsarist SBC, and bring more power back to their local church. They want local churches to send missionaries instead of mission agencies. They want to defund and close the old “ battleship” SBC agencies, and replace them with dozens of PT boats with no unified command. They eschew cooperation, that old deeply held Baptist core value, and want instead to make participation the key value (or, in their parlance, to eschew being “mission minded” and to become “missional”). They want each church to decide how they want to give their gifts, rather than contributing to a common pool which enables all SBC ministries.

Many Bolsheviks are on staff at megachurches in the midst of costly ongoing building programs, as well as supporting a highly paid staff and world class programs in the church. This has led to cutting Cooperative Program giving and keeping more in their church. However, the standard of Cooperative Program giving as a qualification for SBC leadership positions has frustrated them to the point of exasperation. The primary point of change in the GCR was and is the redefinition of Cooperative Program gifts so that pastors of churches giving a small percentage to the Cooperative Program could still be elected to convention leadership. Though they have not achieved total control, it is fair to say that the SBC Bolshevik revolution is in the ascendency and is likely to succeed.

The Baptists

Each of these groups is Baptist, of course, but it is “The Baptists” to whom that name really means something. It means a tradition to be conserved. It is a name to be proud of. They have watched over the last generation as Southern Baptists grew from a small regional denomination to become the largest Protestant denomination in America. They are somewhat bewildered, then, by the cries of the Barbarians and Bolsheviks to explode the entire system and start all over again. For the most part, the Baptists were in favor of the Conservative Resurgence (or at least were against liberals), though they didn’t necessarily like the politics involved or the subsequent control by a small cadre of leaders.

The Baptists grew up in Mission Friends, RAs, and GAs, and they were trained and bought into SBC missions. They’re proud of the Baptist empire and what it has accomplished for the Lord. They believe in the Cooperative Program. They believe that we can achieve more together than each church can achieve individually. They believe that funding career missionaries who stay on a mission field for decades, utilizing their knowledge of the language and culture, is a better investment of missions giving than sending untrained church folk, who have no knowledge of the language or culture of where they’re going, on what essentially becomes a discounted overseas vacation. That is not to say that volunteer missions is not good or needed, of course. It is to say that, in a world of limited resources, it is not the best investment of missions dollars. They have been convinced of the ineffectiveness of “faith” missions or the old Societal method, and convinced in the value of everyone sending gifts into a single Cooperative Program that distributes the gifts according to need by a vote of all Baptists, not according to emotions or “who you know” in a particular church.

The Baptists believe Baptist doctrine. They believe the Bible. They believe in evangelism. They believe in missions. They believe in living a holy, separated life, and are confused when they see Barbarians and Bolsheviks publicly advocating consumption of alcoholic beverages, cursing in sermons, or speaking graphically about sex in sermons. Most Southern Baptists aren’t Calvinists, and they don’t want a Calvinist pastor or youth minister who advocates doctrines foreign to what godly people have taught them all of their lives.

The Baptists aren’t perfect. Sometimes they’re a little too slow to change, a little too tied to Southern culture. They may have been too insistent on traditional worship and overly resistant to new developments in worship. At their worst, sometimes they’re racist. But they are people with a good heart. They contribute more to the church than Barbarians or Bolsheviks. They donate their own time and resources to help the needy or aid in disaster relief. They serve in ministries like Gideons , RAs, GAs, Awana, and Upward. They are good family people. They are “middle America.” They are the “Silent Majority.”

The Baptists aren’t going anywhere. They were raised Baptist, and they intend to stay Baptist all of their lives. They have a Baptist identity. In ways, they are the anchor that keeps Baptists moored to our roots and foundations. They are very concerned about what they hear about the Barbarians and Bolsheviks, although since those groups impact the convention level rather than the local church level, most Baptists don’t know that much about them. But when they do, it should be an interesting discussion.

Sam Houston

Comments

[Les Puryear]

Sam,

You wrote "The primary point of change in the GCR was and is the redefinition of Cooperative Program gifts so that pastors of churches giving a small percentage to the Cooperative Program could still be elected to convention leadership."

Exactly.

Les

[Dr. James Galyon]

So, in summary, I glean from the article that Calvinists are generally nothing more than barbaric communists who have invaded the convention and seek to impose a foreign identity upon it. Interesting.

[Howell Scott]

Peter,

Thanks for posting this. To quote Dr. Chuck Kelley, himself quoting an old Hebrew expression, WOW! I give credit to "Sam Houston" for putting into words what so many of us -- in the Southwest and throughout the country -- are feeling regarding what is happening within the SBC.

Having graduated from Southern in 1997, I lean to the side of Calvinism, but I would most surely not be welcome in the club as I am what I term an "inconsistent Calvinist." I closely identify with the "Baptist" description in this post. And, while I would not have considered myself a BI guy, I think that it is interesting that the "Baptists" (of all stripes) are coming together. While it may be a silent majority now, I do not think that it will remain as such.

I was particularly intrigued by the paragraph about the "peace treaty" between Calvinists and others, circa 2009 and 2010. I myself have thought about the "politics" of this and think that this is an area in need of further discussion and analysis. I'm sure this post will cause some to be greatly disturbed, but I think that Sam Houston is spot on in his analysis. Thanks again for sharing this with your readers. God bless,

Howell

[Tim Rogers]

Dr. Gaylon,

In all due respect, what part of (The Bolsheviks were communists, but I have no pejorative intent in applying this nomenclature to persons in the SBC. I am simply focusing on the identity of Bolsheviks as revolutionaries). is not clear? Brother Houston clearly stated he was not pushing a point that anyone in the convention was a "barbaric communist".

Brother Howell,

It is time for you to come out of the closet into the BI world. Face it, you are a Baptist. Come on out we are not bad guys. You may not like the housecoat that Brother Peter wears but if you will tell his mama she will get him another one right down to the basement. :)

Blessings,
Tim

[Mary]

Where does the bourgeois fit in? Might I suggest three types of bourgeois:

1). Closet Calvinist or those who will claim to have always been Calvinist or they've had their eyes open to the glories of DOG as the political tide turns.

2) Pure political creatures who just follow those in power for their own political gain in rising up the structure.

3). Innocent people being duped by the "we don't have intention of taking over and kicking out those not like us so let's all sing kumbayah"

[Howell Scott]

Tim,

You may be right that I identify as a Baptist, and that's not a bad thing,even though some churches (large and prominent ones at that) are removing "Baptist" from their name, but I digress. I don't know about you and Peter, but housecoats are so constricting when I type :). I do, however, wish that I had a basement out here in New Mexico.

Dr. Gaylon,

I did not read and interpret Sam Houston's post in the same way that you did, but that just goes to illustrate that we have groups within SBC life that are speaking at least two different languages. There was one language that was predominant at the SBC's annual meeting this past June in Orlando. It may or may not be the language that is spoken by the majority of the 45,000+ churches of the SBC.

Time will tell, but I'm not sure that these language barriers can be overcome because, while they touch on theology, at the heart of each language is what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist. What our Baptist idenity is will determine where we go as a convention. Thanks and God bless,

Howell

[Dr. James Galyon]

First - the name is Galyon, not Gaylon.

Second, I do not believe Mr. Houston believes Calvinists are *actually* communists. Nonetheless, his disclaimer does little to soften the charge that Calvinists and those associated with them are little more than a horde of radical revolutionaries who are out to decimate "real" Baptists who are just "good people" from "Middle America." I'm sure that if a Reformed fellow had made such analogies that the comparison would be received less than gleefully by non-Reformed folks.

Third, I believe Howell's observation that "what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist" is a key matter. Of course, this is not a question which arose with the GCR. It emerged during the 80s and 90s with the CR and is still working itself out in our convention.

Fourth, if we (Calvinist/non-Calvinist SBCers) insist on continuing to attack each other explicitly and implicitly rather than recognizing each other as fellow Christians with a valid Southern Baptist identity, then our denominational future is bleak.

[Darby Livingston]

Interesting how the nomenclature changes from barbarians and bolsheviks - both negative - to baptists. This shows a serious lack of self-awareness on the part of the "baptists." To be consistent in the analogy, the baptists must be the aristocratic empire who demands the right to keep control because of their rich heritage and birthright. Of course, perhaps this is pointed to in this foolish statement: "They’re proud of the Baptist empire and what it has accomplished for the Lord." That statement right there is why the barbarians and the bolsheviks are necessary to begin with. Let's get something straight right up front. No one has accomplished anything for the Lord. It is he who is accomplishing his own will for us. And unfortunately, due to the tone of the article, I believe this writer has much pride in the SBC. Too much.

[Matt]

"Interesting how the nomenclature changes from barbarians and bolsheviks - both negative - to baptists. This shows a serious lack of self-awareness on the part of the "baptists."

"And unfortunately, due to the tone of the article, I believe this writer has much pride in the SBC. Too much."

Darby is right on... The tone of this article is very telling. This article is very unhelpful when trying to get productive dialogue between Southern Baptists. When you set up three camps and your camp is the only 'positive' one it is telling of the arrogance of that camp.

[Tom Shelton]

I came to the same conclusion Dr. Galyon did when I read the article. I don't see how any other conclusion could be reached as it seemed obvious that was the author's intent was to portray Calvinists as barbarians set on destroying the SBC. These are the attitudes that will split our convention...maybe beyond repair.

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Galyon,

You write: "if we (Calvinist/non-Calvinist SBCers) insist on continuing to attack each other... rather than recognizing each other as fellow Christians with a valid Southern Baptist identity, then our denominational future is bleak." Who on this thread disagrees with that?

On the other hand, until those in the convention whom you often defend understand how serious the breach remains b/w aggressive Calvinists (along with their partners) in "reforming" the SBC, there will be no harmony to be had.

Nor for that matter do I see myself as "attacking" anyone nor any movement. What I do intend on continuing is offering an entirely other perspective on some pivotal events or statements the center of which the "Reformed" continue to be (e.g. Mohler's fantastic theological gaffe concerning Calvinism's necessity to the gospel).

Finally, you wrote, "I glean from the article that Calvinists are generally nothing more than barbaric communists..." but then denied "I do not believe Mr. Houston believes Calvinists are *actually* communists." Just by emphasizing *actually* does nothing to diminish the raw tension in your statements. Nor do you give the OP rightful consideration when he explicitly noted he was uninterested in communicating pejorative intent but the concept of revolutionary change. Instead you go right ahead and blow his house down anyway by suggesting "I glean from the article that Calvinists are generally nothing more than barbaric communists...Interesting."

Quite.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Darby,

Why under the blue sky would you spoil a very perceptive critique you had gong for you in the opening of your comments by digging into the writer's heart? Why? Why?!

Doggone it, now let me get something straight: you don't know jack squat about the writer's heart. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. You don't know he's filled with pride. It's that simple, Darby.

Why could you not just stick with the worthy idea that the analogy is inconsistent? We could actually have a real and quite substantial discussion about that. As it is, you get nothing. Who wants to discuss whether somebody elses heart or inner life is sinful?

Oh my my...

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Tom,

Your conclusion is just a bit different than Galyon's: "the author's intent was to portray Calvinists as barbarians set on destroying the SBC." It wasn't Calvinists per se but two other groups...well actually three if one counts the partnership between Barbarians & Bols as separate--which threatens the SBC. Also, the images were intended to convey the idea of revolutionary change, not necessarily destruction.

Interestingly, revolutionary or "radical" change is precisely the language of today's power brokers. And "reforming" the SBC is precisely what Founders-Calvinism envisions. Hence, I'm wondering how Sam Houston erred in his analysis even if he employed provocative metaphors to convey the message.

Thanks Tom.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Darby Livingston]

Sorry to disappoint Peter. However, I don't have to speculate about his heart. He said he had pride in the SBC and what it has accomplished for the Lord. All I did was quote that. It's not like I said he's a lust-filled hatemonger. You are correct in stating that I don't know this man's heart, which is why I only addressed what he wrote. That was my only intention.

Even if I grant your assumption that I was judging his heart, you being a writer, and a good one at that, knows full well that one's heart comes through in the tone and vocabulary of what is written. This article is not just informative writing. It's persuasive. So the writer's heart comes through loud and clear, requiring little speculation on the part of the reader.

[peter lumpkins]

Darby,

It's not about disappointment; it's about what's appropriate in discussing ideas. In addition, there remains a valid distinction between using pride as a figure of speech--as in "I am proud of my name...my kids...my grandchildren...my church...my school...etc"--and judging a person's inner life as filled with pride, which Scripture is not embarrassed to condemn but which we cannot so easily humanly detect.

Finally, in my own experience, I've noticed the short step many blogging critics make from failure to overturn a point to judging an author's "tone" as unworthy. Keep your eyes peeled and see if you don't see the same thing. More than not, it's those who fail to make their case from any 'objective' criteria that tun to the completely 'subjective' criteria--"tone"--to judge an author as mistaken (or perhaps worse, sinful).

Actually that's the very reason I brought this up. The fact is, Darby, your normal practice is not to go "tone". Again, you had a very good 'objective' point to raise contra the author's point--is he being consistent with his use of metaphors?--well worth exploring.

Anyways, sorry. I trust your Saturday a good one.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Darby Livingston]

Good point Peter. I agree with you.

[Steve Lemke]

So, Galyon, you're saying that being a Reformed/Calvinist means that you are conserving a static position and obstinately defending a fixed position, rather than being a part of a "continuing Reformation" that could be described as . . . revolutionary? You know, that often happens -- movements that we once dynamic and vital become static and fixed in later generations.

Actually, though Sam the Baptist's prejudices were obvious (and self-acknowledged), I didn't quite hear it in quite as negative a way as James and Darby (somewhat defensively) took it. I'll have to admit, had he not explained that he did not mean "Bolshevik" in the perjorative sense, but rather to indicate being a revolutionary for
overthrowing the status quo, I would have felt the same way. Evidently, he has a thing for alliteration with the three B's, though Mary's point is well taken that the Baptists could have been the "Bourgeois." Might that name particularly apply to Peter and his alleged smoking jacket? (:-).

I agree with James and Darby that we should not be attacking each other. But did Sam do that? I believed Sam when he said that it was just a matter of identity and means: "All three groups are devoted Christians. All three groups believe the Bible. All three groups serve the Lord to the best of their ability. The difference between them boils down to who Baptists are and what means should be used to do the Lord’s work most effectively." That doesn't seem quite so brutal to me as ya'll were taking it. Frankly, if you want it, I could cite you about five dozen examples when people whom Sam might characterize as Barbarians or Bolsheviks were much more attacking than this. Aren't ya'll being a little overly sensitive?

Darby, I didn't see pride in the negative sense in Sam' article. He acknowledged shortcomings in the Baptists -- their overlove for tradition, their slowness to change, their lack of inclusiveness, and even their racism. He made the unflattering analogy of comparing the "Baptists" to aristocratic, tzarist Russia -- not complimentary at all. That might even be suggestive of some arrogance on the part of Baptists. It seems to me that he was being pretty balanced, even though, again, he forthrightly asserted his own position. I just understood him to be described Baptist life as he saw it. Is that okay in our PC world?

[Steve Lemke]

By the way, James, it is interesting to me that (despite your protestations) in your response to this article on your own website, you speak of the need for revolutionary change rather than Southern Baptists "simply holding on to the remnants of their once grand empire." Sounds Bolshevekish to me!

[peter lumpkins]

Darby,

Be careful with that "agree with you" when "you" = PL. Some aggregate blogs may just recommend you be exorcised from their "influential" categories section ;^)

Have a great day, bro.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Let me see if I can tease out who would be the bourgeois. The middle class of Baptist would perhaps be those who are known in their states or associations but not much in the aristocracy of the national leaders. The Baptists are a subset within the bourgeois. The Baptist are the lay people who mostly don't pay attention to state and national baptist politics. If they know about Calvinism they know they don't want it in their churches, but if other churches are Calvinist they don't care. It's because the bourgeois is complacent and apathic to politics within the SBC that the Bolshiviks are able to rattle their sabres. The bourgeois doesn't see the threat of the coming revolution. If the bourgeois wakes up and realizes that as the seminaries go so go the local churches they might realize that they will not be allowed their churches the way they've always done had them. The bourgeois is the weakness to the Bolsheviks.

[Dr. James Galyon]

Steve,

Where does my article speak of the need for such *revolutionary* change? I stated, "Our nation and our world are being inundated with true barbaric hordes, seeking to dominate the globe with their secular and godless worldviews. The only way to battle the onslaught is with the gospel of Jesus Christ. If Southern Baptists are unable to unite around this grand message, and lay aside their petty provincialism, then their future is bleak. Southern Baptists must be willing to advance Kingdom causes rather than simply holding on to the remnants of their once grand empire."

Our denomination is hurting (as are others). One may note the decline in attendance, giving, etc. The vast majority of our congregations have been plateaued or declining since the 90s. We aren't what we were during the 50s-80s in size, influence, etc. Noting such does not make one a "Bolshevik". The answer lies not in political maneuvering, which has happened all too often over the past few decades in the SBC, but in the simple message of the Gospel. Some called the Lord Jesus Christ and His message revolutionary, so since He and His message are my focus, I guess I'm in good company.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

Seems Dr. Galyon has written a response to Houston’s essay on his site.  What’s incredibly funny but nonetheless disappointing is, the thread kinda starts bleating about me personally rather than engaging Houston. Even more telling about Dr. Galyon’s response is, he didn’t engage the essay at all so far as I can tell. He simply denied it’s true and concluded if the SBC doesn’t lay aside its focus on “petty provincialism”, then [its] future is bleak”. Okay…

Perhaps the funniest part of Galyon’s post is the picture of “The Baptists”.  While he called my pics on the Barbarians and Bols, he raised the stakes on Baptists—it’s a pic of the Women’s Temperance Union!  Pretty funny!

On the other hand, I’d say Dr. Galyon has no business coming over here criticizing metaphors as being inaccurate like he did to Houston’s Bolshevik-communists. When he can adequately explain how “The Baptists” are accurately represented by “The Women’s Temperance Union” we’ll hear him when he objects to Sam Houston’s image of Bolsheviks (for the record, the pictures here I added and were *NOT* furnished by the author).

With that, I am…

Peter

[D.R. Randle]

The real problem with Sam's commentary is that it is filled with inaccuracies. Allow me to point out probably the most glaring one. He claims that those new to the scene in Southern Baptist life who aren't "heart Southern Baptists" "tend to be more Reformed in their theology than most Southern Baptists" with the suggestion that they are somehow a major group in SBC life (then he equates this group with those who believe theology is "emerging"? Really? I'd love for him to name some Reformed "Emergents" in the SBC).

That's simply inaccurate. While I was at NOBTS between 2000 and 2003, almost every person from my class who entered the Ph.D. program was Reformed. And I didn't know a single one of them who didn't grow up Southern Baptist. Almost every person I met at SBTS was a lifelong Southern Baptist.

Professors I had at NOBTS like Dr. Stan Norman, Dr. Robert Stewart, Dr. Archie England, and Dr. Charles Quarrels were all lifelong Southern Baptists who were Calvinists (and all of them actually witnessed the Conservative Resurgence).

The Reformed movement in the SBC came from inside the SBC, not from some supposed interlopers who came in from outside. By far, the vast majority of Calvinists in the SBC today grew up as Southern Baptists. They know Lottie Moon, George Truett, and M.E. Dodd, but they also know James Boyce, B.H. Carroll, P.M. Mell, W.A. Criswell, and a host of other lifelong confessing Calvinistic Southern Baptists.

Additionally, from my perspective Sam needs to go to one of our fine Southern Baptist seminaries and learn some of our history.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother D.R.,

You say; "and a host of other lifelong confessing Calvinistic Southern Baptists". So, am I understanding you to say that a Southern Baptist, who may not claim to be a Calvinist but agrees that points of the TULIP have validity, is a Calvinistic Southern Baptist?

Blessings,
Tim

[peter lumpkins]

D.R.

You think the “real problem” with SH is “that it is filled with inaccuracies.” The first “inaccuracy” you cite—perhaps the “most glaring” one—pertains to Barbarians which you interpret SH suggesting “they are somehow a major group in SBC life” whom Houston “equates”with those who “believe theology is "emerging"”  You then challenge him to “name some Reformed "Emergents" in the SBC” and conclude, “That's simply inaccurate.”  Really? Consider,

A) Sam Houston does not label the Barbarians “somehow a major group in SBC life.”  In fact he openly admits it may be an “oversimplification” (“oversimplify a bit”) to do so, but an analysis of the SBC scene” bears three key groups.  He makes no mention about which of the “key” dominate though one group “The Baptists” do appear to be the largest and most stable at the essay’s end.  In the beginning, however, Barbarians are one of three of what SH calls within the SBC a “fractured set of special interest groups…” which lend themselves to his simplified analysis. 

B) Nor does SH “equate” those who believe “theology is “emerging”” with “Reformed Emergents” as you suggest. Unless, of course, you assume Houston actually meant to convey the more technical sense of “Emergent” as in Tony Jones, Brian McClaren, etc. I personally don’t see that as his meaning and hence doubt the connection you appear to make; rather I sense him bearing more of a vernacular understanding of the ‘cool’, the hip’ “emerging” similarities. Now I maybe wrong I concede. But I think my interpretation makes much sense out of Houston’s statement than does yours. 

Hence, D.R., if you want to cite “inaccuracies” as fodder to pooh-pooh Houston’s analysis, it may be best to make sure you accurately deal with what he describes yourself. 

On another not, your personal experience is interesting, and I for one appreciate you sharing it.  You indicate that between 2000 & 2003, “almost every” graduate from your class who entered the PhD program were “Reformed,” and not a one (you knew at least) grew up outside SBC circles. You further cited as “lifelong Southern Baptists” and “Calvinists” four professors—Norman (now at Oklahoma Bapt University), Stewart (still at NOBTS), England (still at NOBTS), and Quarrels (now at Louisiana [Baptist] College).  And, I can only assume you know they were (are) Calvinists from either their teaching, their testimony, or both.

How different from NOBTS just a decade earlier.  I took my family to NO area in 1987 and for the next three years I studied there. Interestingly, there were but a handful of Calvinists on campus. I know. I was one of them. I learned quickly, however, Calvinism was hardly a strength among students or faculty. As a matter of fact, to my knowledge, there were no Calvinist professors. But even if there were, the fact is, Calvinism was not only not visible, Calvinism was irrelevant. It didn’t matter. About the only real visible, overt Calvinism was displayed by a couple of guys who were considered eccentric. One carried a briefcase of tracts appearing like like a salesman; his wares were short articles by Pink, Spurgeon, and other well-known Calvinists.  His bread-n-butter, however, was Founders, an organization with which I was very familiar.

How incredibly different only 10 years made, D.R!  I find it fantastic (not of course that you’re mistaken). I’m wondering where all the lifelong, Southern Baptist “Reformed” people came from.  Who were the “Reformed” pastors back then raising up all these “Reformed” ministers attending seminary?  Nor may the neo-Calvinist movement alive and well today be summoned as a contributor to the transition NOBTS experienced from 1990 to 2000. A puzzle to consider.

Even so, I’m also wondering why, if NOBTS transitioned without a proactive “reforming” process using the Abstract of Principles like President Mohler has done at SBTS (AP which NOBTS does not possess), and their faculty has vocal, visible “Reformed” professors with vocal, visible “Reformed” students…why would SBTS need to create an exclusively Calvinistic theological community?

Your testimony surely makes me think a lot about what’s happening in the SBC and how it happened.   

With that, I am…

Peter

[Steve Lemke]

A simple question -- if Houston's analysis is not correct, why are you guys defending the alterative positions so vigorously? It seems like you are thereby acknowledgeing that you see yourself in those descriptions. Perhaps that suggests that the analysis is more accurate than you want to admit.

[Jim Upchurch]

"At their worst, sometimes they’re racist. But they are people with a good heart."

This has to be the oddest and most incoherent quote in the post. First "at their worst" makes it sound not that bad. Second, how can you have a good heart and be "sometimes" racist? Can fresh and salt water come from the same spring?!

[peter lumpkins]

Jim,

I got a pretty hefty giggle out of your comment. And understand I essentially agree with you. But SH may very well be referring to 19th century Baptists, a much more understandable "racist" Baptist era.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Steve Lemke]

Jim,
What about "worst" do you not understand?

[Steve Lemke]

D.R.,
Thanks for your comments. I've been following this thread, and have found the discussion interesting. I not endorsing what Houston has said, and I'm not particularly interested in defending him (I don't know him), but I'm not sure the criticisms of him are accurate either.

Just a couple of minor points (which probably don't make any difference in the eternal scheme of things) and then I think I'll drop out of the discussion. I understood Houston to say just that the "MAJORITY" of "the Baptists" were not Calvinists, not that NONE were Calvinists, or that Calvinists might not make up a significant minority within the SBC. I think that is a demonstrable fact. Calvinists are a minority in the SBC, according to the LifeWay research statistics which Peter has recently quoted (10 percent).

I also understood Houston to be contrasting the Bolsheviks as being YOUNGER by and large than the "Baptists," who tended to be older and more traditional. He said the Bolshevik young leaders were beginning to take over positions of leadership from the older "Baptist" aristocracy.

To use your NOBTS example, you named four NOBTS professors who are Calvinistic in theology. Actually, in addition to these Calvinistic professors whom you name, we (i.e., Dr. Kelley and myself, who some would not consider to be strong Calvinists) have added at least four or five more professors who identify themselves as Calvinists. I aree with Peter -- to my knowledge that is the most Calvinists on the faculty ever in the 95 year history of NOBTS. Yet, regarding the "majority," they make up only about 10 percent of the NOBTS faculty (amazingly close to the 10 percent of Southern Baptists being Calvinist that LifeWay estimates). Apart from SBTS, I believe that Calvinist faculty members are in the minority at every other SBC seminary (and some of my SBTS friends dispute that it is a majority even there). Likewise, all of these Calvinist NOBTS professors are younger faculty members, matching the other description by Houston.

About your doctoral seminars, yes, a higher percentage of current students (doctoral or otherwise) are more Calvinist than in previous times. Ed Stetzer's published research in this area indicated that 29 percent of recent seminary graduates (particularly those focused on church planting) are Calvinists. It is stronger in some seminaries and weaker in others. So the phenomenon that you cite in your doctoral seminars is probably right (though if you include all disciplines, Calvinists would still not be in the majority of doctoral students at NOBTS and some other SBC seminaries).

So, again, what I understood Houston to say is that Calvinists were a minority and were younger. I don't think the examples you cite do anything but confirm what Houston was saying.

[Jim Upchurch]

Steve,

I took the phrase "at their worst" in the way I usually take it. Doesn't that phrase usually indicate that that is as bad as it gets and it's not that bad? "At their worst the kids are rowdy and don't listen" I mean, one doesn't usually say something like, "At their worst they murder and rape." If it was meant in a more negative way, it could have been written more clearly.

If I have misunderstood, then I apologize.

Jim

[Steve Lemke]

Jim,
I hate getting into things like this at all, as it probably doesn't matter in the eternal scheme of things, but ponder your two back to back statements:
"as bad as it gets" and "it's not that bad?"
Do you get it? If not, don't worry about it. It's not worth trying to explain why those are contraries. You've just decided that whatever Houston has said is bad, no matter how self-incriminating his comments appear to us who understand the difference between "worst" and "not that bad."

[peter]

All

I took a comment down. Will explain we back in office
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

All,

Sorry to get back so late. It's been one of those days.

Earlier a comment was posted by Sam Houston. I approved the comment without having read the comment (for the record, I don't normally read long comments before they are approved, especially from someone who possesses no history of logging on just to complain or insult, comments of which are usually short anyway). Even so, I received another comment (via droid btw) rebutting specifically one element of Sam Houston's comment. His rebuttal caught my eye. So I went back and read Sam Houston.

Hence, I judged the comment needed to come down.

For my part, Houston's sub-cultural analysis of the SBC is worthy to stand on its own anyway. Not one of the critics on this thread--at least from my perspective--offered either a better alternative or a fatal flaw in Sam Houston.

Even so, the comment needed to come down. It contained much too provocative an image to employ with any degree of effectiveness.

That said, I offer my deepest apologies to SBC Tomorrow readers. While I did not write the comment, I am responsible in part for it since it was posted on my site. I am sorry it was posted.

As for the one who posted here that alerted me to the comment I scrubbed from the public thread, he wasted no time posting it on his blog. He posted his comment that alerted me at 1:36 pm. I removed the comment immediately (before 1:58pm when I logged the comment above).

And, that's about all I know about that.

Grace to all.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

Thank you, Peter.

[Jim Upchurch]

Steve,

First of all, why did you get the impression I thought everything Houston said was bad? I never said that. I don't think that. I just pointed out one instance in his post that I strongly disliked.

And I still think it reads like the racism of "the Baptists" isn't that bad a thing. Note the sentence immediately following the reference: "But they are people with a good heart."

Although racism in the church is a big (gospel related) problem, you are right, our misunderstandings/miscommunications concerning this point are small. I would venture to guess that we both love Jesus Christ, hate racism, and want the best for the SBC.