I'm responding to this after much prayer and deliberation. First, I had to pray about whether to respond or not--whether I should enter the fray, so to speak. I'm so weary of the stone throwing that goes on among brothers in Christ regarding this issue, and I don't want to contribute to anything that would be unhealthy to the body or unhelpful to the Kingdom. However, since you asked, and since this is an important issue in Southern Baptist life, I will give my 2 cents (maybe worth less than that). The kind of document in question is not helpful, in my opinion, whichever position one takes on this issue, so my general comments would apply for those on "the other side" as well. And for those who are unaware of the the statement under discussion, I'll include the link at the end of this post.
To begin with, let me say that I do not know Eric Hankins, so I will refrain from speculating about his motives. As far as I'm concerned, his motivation is as he expressed it in his introductory comments. He has a concern for the church, the Gospel, and biblically sound doctrine. I do know Eric's father, David Hankins, and he is a remarkably bright and gifted man. The son's views seem to mirror his father's, and I want to show them both the respect they deserve.
Moreover, as I perused the list of signers of the statement, I saw the names of friends, colleagues, and other people I admire deeply. I love and respect these brothers, and my experience is that most of the people I know on both sides of this issue get along well and love each other. This is how it should be.
Now I shall speak to the statement itself, though my comments will be brief. I do not want to pick it apart line-by-line, but I will share some general thoughts and discuss some of the things that give me concern.
First, I believe that theological discussion is healthy for the church. Therefore, I applaud Dr. Hankins for being willing to articulate his position on soteriology. I also applaud the signers for their willingness to affix their names to the document. We will never grow and be refined if we do not challenge each other in Christ-like ways. Sometimes we affirm each other. Sometimes we correct each other. And sometimes we simply come to an impasse and agree to cooperate together to fulfill the Great Commission--as long as our disagreements do not rise to the level of heresy.
Nevertheless, one of the things I teach my students in Pulpit Apologetics is that we must fairly and accurately represent those with whom we disagree. I tell them that it is essential to talk about rival belief systems, but that when we describe those belief systems, we should do so in ways that adherents to those systems would describe their own beliefs. To fail to do so typically means we are using inflammatory rhetoric and/or setting up strawmen. We end up arguing against beliefs that our opponents do not hold.
The latter is what Dr. Hankins has done in his statement. I am not accusing him of fabricating anything, but he demonstrates (largely by implication) that he does not really understand Reformed theology. Let me give a couple of examples:
These are some of the statments made by Dr. Hankins that seem to indicate a misunderstanding of Reformed theology on his part. Maybe I am wrong, though. Maybe in these statements he does not mean to imply that Calvinists would disagree with these points. I have to wonder, then, why he would include them in his document.
Moreover, Dr. Hankins writes of a "movement [that] is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the 'Doctrines of Grace' ('TULIP'), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation." I've heard this from others who are concerned about Calvinism in the SBC, but I've never actually seen or heard of any evidence to substantiate the claim. Where is this "movement" taking place? Who are the architects of this conspiracy? Does the mere existence of Reformed pastors and professors constitute some kind of threat to SBC life? I would simply ask Dr. Hankins to substantiate his assertion.
Dr. Hankins also is concerned about potential "anti-missionism." Well, some of the most mission-minded people I know are Reformed. I know missionaries, church planters, evangelists, and pastors who hold to the doctrines of grace. To suggest that Reformed theology is anti-missions (or can logicallly lead to an anti-mission position) reveals a lack of understanding of the doctrines of grace. To be sure, there is a heresy called hyper-calvinism that is decidedly anti-missions and anti-evangelism, but Calvinists have been denouncing that aberrant strain for centuries.
Of course, I've heard people point to the number of churches in our denomination that are plateaued or declining as an indication of the encroachment of Calvinism in our ranks. But if over 80% of our churches are plateaued or declining, and if only 10% of our pastors are Calvinists, this argument won't hold water. I've also heard about all the church splits that are being caused by Calvinists with an agenda. Perhaps this is true, and if it is, then shame on the person or persons who are causing division in the body. But while I've never personally known of a church to split over a Calvinist movement, I know lots that have split over immorality, gossip, programs, pride, and a host of other issues. Is Calvinism really posing a threat to church health and missions? I've seen absolutely zero documentation to support such a claim.
And one more thing. I reject the idea that the the soteriology espoused by Dr. Hankins represents a "traditional Southern Baptist understanding" of salvation. While Calvinism is certainly not held by a majority of Southern Baptists today, to imply that we have traditionally been mainly in a non-Calvinist camp is historically inaccurate. Many of our forefathers and statesmen have held to Reformed theology, and to fail to acknowledge that strong theme does a disservice to our history as well as to our potentially unified future.
I really didn't want to write as much as I have. And I certainly would never want to offend my brother, Eric Hankins, or anyone who supports his statement. I also would never want to discourage theological discourse, as I think it is crucial to the health of the body of Christ. I just want to make sure we don't see what Dr. Mohler calls a "development of theological tribalism among us." Let us not love our theological positions so much that we spend more time defending them than we do working for the Great Commission. And let us not become so passionate about secondary issues that we alienate one another. I'm actually afraid right now that many of the young reformed potential leaders of our denomination might begin to feel so ostracized that they decide to find fellowship outside the SBC. If we make our tent too small to include them, we will be much worse for it.
As I close, let me give you what I think is the best response I've seen yet to this document. The response is from Frank Page, President of the SBC Executive Committee, and he is not a Calvinist. He said, "Southern Baptists have always found a way to work together, within the framework of historical Christian faith and Baptist doctrine, to support and promote our cooperative enterprises of global missions, theological education and benevolent ministries. While I fully affirm any group of Southern Baptists to express their deeply held convictions about doctrinal matters, especially a matter as important as the doctrine of salvation, I would prefer that any collective document to which I affix my signature be a consensus statement, developed jointly with those of various soteriological persuasions, that expresses our core commitments to those matters we hold in common. The Baptist Faith and Message is such a document." Amen and amen.
The full statement can be found here:
sbctoday.com/2012/05/30/an-introduction-to-%E2%80%9Ca-statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-god%E2%80%99s-plan-of-salvation%E2%80%9D/
