The SBC: Unified with Divisions and “Non-Calvinists”

***Update: I’ve removed the “and Move On” from my title as this was a point I was going to make about something, but felt that it did not fit the tone of the post, nor the tone of dialogue amongst Christians.  I thought I’d taken it out, but apparently not!***

A week has passed since the SBC Convention in Louisville, KY, giving many of us SBCers plenty of time to let what went on to sink in.  The big topic from last weeks continues to be the passing of the GCR, among other issues related to it, particularly Morris Chapman and his Executive Committee report.   It would seem that, from the blogs I’ve been reading, that most SBCers agree that Chapman’s actions were uncalled for – taking advantage of a free microphone to rant against Calvinists in the SBC.   While Tim Brister at Provocations and Pantings has stated that Chapman’s actions should “bring about his resignation,” it seems most have voiced disappointment (to say the least) at Chapman’s actions.  Alan Cross at www.Downshoredrift.com, however, provides an interesting perspective on Chapman’s address.

According to Cross,

I might not agree with all that he said (and I don’t), but I am wondering if we dismissed his words too quickly because they didn’t fit with what we all wanted to hear. As I went back and read over his address, I found myself agreeing with almost all of it. Even his controversial statements on Calvinism are more understandable if you hear them in context of the rest of his address. He wonders why we cannot allow for a proper tension between Divine Sovereignty and the human response of faith, instead of putting all of the focus on God’s work and none on man’s response.

While I can see where Cross is coming from, I just don’t see how his rant (not sure what else to call it) fit within the rest of his address, which was excellent.  As I read and re-read it, his call for unity was overshadowed by his seemingly pointed criticisms of Calvinists within the SBC.  It seems that on one side of his mouth Chapman called for unity, but on the other side he drew the battle line.  However if what Cross states is true:

Even his controversial statements on Calvinism are more understandable if you hear them in context of the rest of his address. He wonders why we cannot allow for a proper tension between Divine Sovereignty and the human response of faith, instead of putting all of the focus on God’s work and none on man’s response.

then I agree to an extent, but we must also consider the flip side of the statement ”instead of putting all of the focus on God’s work and none on man’s response” – non-Calvinists need to stop putting all of the focus on man’s response and none on God’s work.  Thus, while I don’t feel we should go as far as Tim suggests (see above), I’m not so sure either about Cross’ interpretation of Chapman’s speech.  To conclude this section, however, I include Cross’ closing words which set a good tone for the GCR conversation:

Here is my main concern:  We need to be careful that we do not enter a time where questions about the GCR or theological differences are dismissed or different positions are not allowed to be presented on the areas where we differ for fear that someone will lose their job or they will be shouted down. If Dr. Chapman was wrong about Calvinism, then someone needs to say so, … I will defend the right of Calvinists to be in the SBC, even though they think that their view is the only correct view. Actually, I respect that. Why would you hold to a view that you don’t think is correct? At the same time, I will defend Dr. Chapman’s right to question that view or to question the GCR, even if he is shown to be mistaken about part of it or is responding to a caricature. That is where dialogue comes in and without dialogue, we have no hope for cooperation. There should be enough room for different voices in the SBC and we should be able to disagree on these issues and still work together.

So, going back and reading Dr. Chapman’s address, I can say that I disagree with him on his perspective on Calvinism (not that the correct view is a divine tension but that Calvinists diminish faith), but I do not disagree with his main point that we should keep Christ and His gospel central to all that we do and that we should cooperate together to take His gospel to the ends of the earth. Let’s not lose the main point because we disagree with the direction the person is coming from. If we do that, then all dialogue will break down and we will never be able to work with those who differ from us in certain areas.

Keep Christ central. Love one another. Agree on the main things. Partner for missions.

Thank you for these words, Alan.

In light of this GCR, I have a question – what is meant by “non-Calvinist” in these discussions?  Throughout my reading on this issue, the term “non-Calvinist” has been thrown around quite a bit with no real definition.  I wrote previously that the term “Calvinist” needed to be clarified in the GCR debate, but so does “non-Calvinist.”  When we refer to a non-Calvinist, do we automatically assume that this person is Armenian in his soteriology with “non-Calvinist” serving as a euphemism for  the Armenian view point?  Or, are there other views of soteriology that fall under this umbrella term (non-Calvinist) plays a role in SBC life?  While some may see the question as trivial and the answer obvious, I believe it is necessary that we clarify what we’re speaking of for arguments sake, for what may be happening is that we have many people arguing past each other while using the same words.