So ultimately, the question is, can Calvinists and non-Calvinists dwell peacefully together under the Southern Baptist roof, or any other roof for that matter? I suppose the answer would differ from person to person or even church to church. However, there are some distinctions that may be helpful in determining the overall viability of such a proposal.
Understanding Calvinism
Firstly, to avoid confusion, I shall use a definition of Calvinism that is distinctly reformed and confessional. Calvinism is spoken of today as though it is a spectrum (five-point, four-point, etc.), but that is an unfortunate distortion of the Calvin's theology. Calvin's theology was a thorough systematic and biblical theology, not a few points that could be separated and held to independent of one another. One who professes to be a "four-point" Calvinist (typically a nomenclature given to the individual that denies Particular Redemption) simply demonstrates his lack of a good understanding of the fully orbed theological system of Calvin and other reformers. Rejecting one of the "points" is to undermine the implications and foundation of the others - that foundation being the Covenantal framework of reformed theology. There must be a mutual understanding of what is at stake in disagreement and unfortunately, I fear that most of whom oppose Calvinism are not fully aware of what reformed Calvinists believe.
Theological Triage
Albert Mohler published his "triage" as a useful way of distinguishing the hierarchy of doctrine. Calvin also had a similar understanding of the practical division of biblical doctrines. For Mohler, the first tier of doctrine includes those essential doctrines that define Christianity (The Trinity, the deity of Christ, the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ, etc.). One cannot be a Christian without adherence to the first tier doctrines. The second tier are those doctrines that prevent fellow Christians from worshiping together in one congregation. These are those doctrines that bring divisions between believers and prevent worship or service together (Mohler cites Baptism and ordination of woman here). The third tier would consist of those doctrines that believers can disagree over but still serve and worship in harmony within the same congregation (Mohler includes eschatology and passages that are difficult to interpret, I suppose like 1 Peter 3:19). This structure can be very helpful, but there may be disagreement as to what tier to place certain doctrines. For instance, for the believer convinced of the soundness of reformed theology, salvation doctrine is central to the faith and worship of the church, belonging firmly in the second tier. There may be however, a well meaning four-pointer or even an Arminian (relatively unaware of his own theology much less that of a Calvininst), that would think it to be of little importance, third tier for sure.
Confessional Unity
Confessionalism is a very important matter for the reformed believer. The confessions and Catechisms that arose out of the Reformation (Westminster Confession of Faith, The Savoy Declaration, The London Baptist Confession of 1644 and 1689, Heidelberg Catechism, Westminster Catechism, Canons of Dordt, etc.) were robust and distinctive regarding key doctrines of scripture. These documents were very concise, even wordy (dare say) about the scripture, God's sovereignty, His decree, the work of redemption, the church, the means of grace (Word and sacraments), the life of the believer and more. Doctrines pertaining to salvation were central - salvation is, after all, a work of God's free grace in the application of that redemption accomplished by Christ. To give up the distinction of these doctrines, or to effectively relegate them to a dusty closet, is unacceptable in the reformed faith.
This is exactly what has happened in most evangelical churches today. Little by little, the doctrinal distinctives have been abandoned in favor of "peace" in the camp. Contrarily, the Baptist 2000 Faith and Message is actually a better statement than its predecessor in that it is more definitive rather than following the trend of ambiguity, but this has also been one of the sparks of the Calvinist controversy in the SBC.
I know, I know, I can hear people saying, "We need to teach the Bible, not a confession!". But dear one, a confession is nothing more than a standard of what we believe the Bible actually teaches. Everyone has a confession whether it is articulated in a document or not. Unfortunately, most in the church today don't give much thought to what they believe (perhaps this is the rancid fruit of our watered down theology). How much better to have it articulated so we can agree and stand together in true unity with brethren today and historically.
Imagine the debate that would ensue before the PCA, OPC or ARBCA, would throw out the Westminster or the 1689 LBC to adopt a confessional statement that could fit on one page, EGAD! It would never happen because these denominational organizations build their unity around doctrine, not a false "peace" at the expense of doctrinal reductionism. Does excluding a doctrine because of the controversy that may arise from it really lead to a functionally vibrant church, or does the "salt lose its savor"? Does it build true unity and peace, or is it a cheap facade? Wherever peace and unity is bought at the price of truth, liberalism is reigning. True unity can only come from "standing in agreement with" (the definition of confession by the way).
In Practice
Practically speaking, the Cooperative Program of the SBC leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of this reformed Baptist. I can't stomach seeing God's storehouses emptied to support seminaries that don't teach from a biblical confessional standard. To hear the reports boasting 500 member roles and less than 100 show up on the Lord's Day for worship. To send missionaries into the field that are primarily trained to "get decisions". To pay six figure salaries to men who design visionary platforms for planting churches when 15% of the existing churches don't even have a pastor and are struggling to keep the doors open. Every issue just mentioned stems from doctrinal errors that are easily addressed from a Calvinistic/Reformed theology. But who wants to hear the answer if they don't agree with it?
Can two really walk together except they agree? Can two really join efforts in ministry when they can't even agree on the foundational doctrines of salvation? For a confessionally reformed Baptist as myself, this is a road of futility and frustration. But I also understand that there are many that stand elsewhere in the doctrinal spectrum. We can both be wrong, but we cannot both be right. I can admit that I may be wrong, but I must also profess that I am convinced of what I believe from the scriptures. So I am left to say with Martin Luther, "Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God."
The great encouragement for all who are in Christ, is that we will one day worship Him in glory where all the disagreements here in this world will fall off and we will worship in true unity. It is without doubt that we can agree with that!
No comments:
Post a Comment