Except They Be Agreed

In chapter 3 of the minor prophet book of Amos, we find several rhetorical questions that demand a negative response.  Will the lion roar if he has no prey?  Will the trumpet be blown in the city and the people not be afraid?  Will evil come upon a city and the Lord has not done it?  Can two walk together except they be agreed?  The resounding answer,...NO!

There has been a lot of contention in the SBC these days over the five points of Calvinism.  In the last decade or so, things have really gotten heated up.  The prominent leaders have done all that they can to steer the SBC away from the battle and to encourage a Rodney-King-esque "Let's just get along" demeanor.  Al Mohler and Paige Patterson met head to head at the 2006 convention for a much anticipated "debate", which turned out to be more of a display of mutual admiration between the two, disappointingly void of any doctrinal discussion whatsoever.  Daniel Akin preempted this "debate" with this reconciling article where he displays a genuine understudy on the history and teaching of Calvin and the reformed church with statements like this:

Later in the 17th century, followers of Calvin would systematize his theology and go beyond what Calvin himself taught. This system would ultimately be codified through the now famous acrostic TULIP.

With the Institutes of the Christian Religion and the vast body of work that Calvin produced, does Dr Akin really imagine that somebody besides Calvin systematized his theology?  Does Dr. Akin have anything to cite from the Canons of Dort and Calvin's Institutes to demonstrate this accusation of going "beyond what Calvin himself taught"?   The reformed world would like to know.

Dr. Akin, as do many others, sugar-coat the history of the SBC (as though, at the foundation, there was no particular theological leaning) with statements like this:

The reality is that the SBC has included "Five-Point Calvinists" and "Modified" Calvinists from the start. It should be stressed here that, from a denominational standpoint, in this discussion there is no "right or wrong." Southern Baptists have always been diverse in many regards, and the theological realm is no exception. 

I wonder if the SBC founders would agree with this.  Would James P Boyce agree that there is no "right or wrong" in the discussion of salvation doctrine?  The answer can be found in Boyce's own Abstract of Systematic Theology (there is no danger of "going beyond what Boyce himself taught").

And just recently, the hotly contested "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation" coming from the office of Eric Hankins added a bit of spice to the 2012 convention.  Furthermore, out of the convention came the well-cooked affirmation of the Sinner's Prayer.  The non-Calvinists were wearing smiles on their faces because the "sinner's prayer" is now a part of documented Southern Baptist affirmation, and the Calvinists all left with smiles because they re-worked it to the point that they could affirm it.  

So here we go again, we continue to dance around the table with victory on both sides.  But will either side be content with just "getting along", or will this debate continue to rage and enrage?  Both sides would no doubt answer, "sure we can get along as long as I get to teach what I believe and they don't".  And really, isn't that what it is all about?  Would Paige Patterson or Jerry Vines be content to sit under the teaching of Al Mohler or Mark Dever? Or would Al Mohler or Russel Moore be content to sit week after week under Jerry Vines or the belated Adrian Rogers who vigorously declared from his pulpit, "Calvinism is death to evangelism!"?  There is so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation going on, and in the process, nobody is willing to actually come to the table and contend for what they believe.

Now, what does this have to do with the prophet Amos' rhetorical question (can two walk together except they agree?); in the next post I will seek to give what I believe to be several valid reasons why this balancing act cannot work, and furthermore, why it is unhealthy for the church.