by Big Daddy Weaver » Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:07 am
The "consensus accord" is a waste of time. Maybe it serves to calm the storm for a brief moment. But long-term, it's not really a solution.
The major argument put forth by these "Traditional Southern Baptists" is that - playing off of Bill Leonard's Grand Compromise thesis - there's been an unspoken agreement between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. The agreement is essentially that Calvinists know their place and don't step out of line.
Well, Calvinism is on the rise, Calvinist leaders are increasingly influential and hold prestigious positions in the denomination. And now, these traditionalists are ticked off and complaining.
I sympathize with the Calvinists because these "Traditionalists" are really coming across as arrogant youknowwhats
All that said, isn't this just fundamentalism at its finest? Doctrinal purity is the cornerstone of fundamentalism. A public fight is how that purity is secured and defended. For the most part, these "Traditionalists" represent the Old Guard. They are the ones who instigated the "Conservative Resurgence." Now, their 40-55 year-old sons with their many myths and romanticized view of the 1980s are stepping up to do battle and defend the power and control that their elders secured.
Just further proof that - for these leaders - the past was about power and control and the present must be about maintaining power and control (although they are a little late to the scene here).
To a certain extent, this debate is a distraction. Fighting over Calvinism is just an excuse to fight, IMO. That's fundamentalism.
My book:
My Baptists Today column:
My blog: