Research on the Beliefs of SBC Pastors

Was there a difference about the "Southern" question depending on whether you were in the south or not or did you not ask that. Because as one that has lived almost my entire life outside the south (I am now living outside Atlanta), most SBC members that I know that were not in the south saw a problem, while most that were in the south did not.

Personally, I'd like to hear some first-hand stories of churches in which Calvinism has caused a problem. And perhaps what the problem was. I haven't up until now.

I'm curious, if there haven't been a substantial number of them, why SBC pastors would seemingly fear the doctrines usually called "Calvinist".

I can't really think of any reasons, unless there have been substantial problems. More problematic, say, than the paucity of tithers in SBC churches, or the abundance of churches that haven't been baptizing anybody.

p.s.: I like the word "paucity". Up until a week ago, I thought it was another word for "kennel".

I know of only one church near the Gulf Coast that had an issue with Calvinism & it was Hyper. I think those who have a problem with it don't understand it. BTW, I'm not a 5 pointer.

HAving pastored for 27 years in the Northwest, most of the churches out here don't use the word "Southern" in their church name- not becuase it helps or hinders, just becuase it doesn't make any sense. The churches I have served have all been listed in the phone books as Baptist, Southern. That has never created a problem- but is helpful to people who are new to the area.
The response to the issue of Calvinism is somewhat surprising. Again, in the NW theological concerns take second chair in most associational and convention wide meetings because the primary issue is survival! The other side of that issue in the northwest-at least in the recent past- many pastor's have no real theological grounding - except- Preach the Bible!
Baptism was a very important issue in the Northwest. Most of the early leaders in the Northwest were Landmarkers. Most associational constitutions included phrases allowing associations to discipline churches that accepted any baptism but Southern Baptist Baptism. Though most of those leaders are retired and out of influence, many younger pastors have little or no connection with the associations where their churches are located. Baptism is becoming almost a preference in some places- in other words, some church accept any form of immersion- regardless of the church or denomination in which it was performed. Does that make sense?
Who makes decisions? Gee, I always thought the congregation did, but then I've never pastored a church larger than 75 in regular attendance.
Thanks for the good work, Ed. I thoroughly enjoy reading your stuff!
Steve

Bob, this is definitely not unique to Calvinism (e.g., I Cor. 12-14) but I saw it become a problem in a non-denom. congregation that didn't pick sides on this debate.
Vocal Calvinist elements had no/low regard for those who didn't see things their way -- up to and including questioning the fitness for leadership/ministry of non-Calvinists.

Adam,

A good question. Although I can't do that on all questions, the one on the "Southern" probably must be looked at regionally. Because it is a subset, the sample is smaller and that has to be considered when you look at them by region.

Among pastors who answered an optional question indicating their state (698 church), we do see a little different response from those outside the South census region compared to those within the South. Strong disagreement that "Having the name 'Southern' in the 'Southern Baptist Convention' is a hindrance to the work of SBC churches" is 46% in the South compared to only 31% outside the South. We also see a small difference in strong agreement with the statement outside the South: 9% compared to 5 % within the South. Despite these differences, the majority of pastors outside the South still disagree (strongly or somewhat) with this statement.

For the second question that specifically asked about the possibility of a regional difference of opinion, Southern Baptist pastors were asked, "Having the name 'Southern' in the 'Southern Baptist Convention' is a hindrance to the work of SBC churches outside of the South." The only noticeable difference we see comparing pastors in the South census region to those outside the South is in the degree of agreement (not the number agreeing). In the South, 12% of pastors strongly agree and 30% somewhat agree whereas outside the South 26% strongly agree and 18% somewhat agree.

Brother Ed,

It does not surprise me that SB Pastors would have this view of Calvinism. Most SB Pastors are very ignorant or have been taught caustically concerning “reformed doctrine�, so their fear of the unknown is probably why the statistic is so high. I know many Pastors that simply do not have a clue what doctrines are supported under the heading of Calvinism, but they are ready to fire back their disgust when the “name� Calvin� is invoked. Maybe a better question would have been…. Do you think the Arminian Remonstrance has had an effect on SBC churches?

The speaking in tongues doctrine that is now relegated somehow to this “private prayer language� is really no different than the Calvin question. I saw Oral Roberts son, give a good defense of the practice. Not biblical in any way mind you, …but none the less seemed convincing to the gullible audience he was fleecing at the time. The statistic is a glowing example of doctrinal ignorance and understanding of the biblical nature and practice of tongues.

Baptism seemed like a smorgasbord …again, not really surprising.

All in all, it seems to be a matter of ignorance and tradition. I just hope we can begin to gain a little more accurate knowledge and build traditions based on truth, not myth.

Blessings,
Chris

Some VERY interesting findings. I was surprised to see that the S in SBC is not seen as a bigger hindrance in the N.

Yet, I think Adam S. is right. Suppose we asked church planters or pastors in the north that question and them only? I'd be willing to bet the stats would look different.

Not that you don't have enough to do, but I'm curious as to how many find it helpful or harmful to have or not have "Baptist" in the church's name or on its marquee, etc.

I was curious about two things:

What percentage of those poled self-identified as Calvinists?

What percentage of those poled actually live / minister in the northern states?

Am I reading this correctly? Did 16% of pastors say they would require re-baptism for those immersed after conversion in a fellow SBC church? If that is indeed the case, that is bizarre. Do a full 16% then believe that only baptisms performed in their own congregation are valid? Did they misunderstand the question? Is there any other possible explanation?

Indeed you are correct (in the gist, though not using the exact wording).

That is the response that most surprises me. We can only guess what they were thinking, but that is how they answered.

One thought: they were more likely to accept one with the "beliefs" than one with the denominational connection. That may (and I stress "may") be part of the reason-- they may not accept the baptism of all other SBC churches perhaps becuase some SBC churches accept baptisms they do not.

But, all we know for sure is that is how they answered.

Ed

Ed, I'm a young pastor in the SBC, serving in the south (in El Paso, Texas, right on the border with Mexico). I have a question and a comment.

The question: What reasons were given (or were any given) for why "Southern" would be problematic? There are hundreds of churches here in El Paso, many of them SBC, and I don't know of ANY church here in El Paso that calls itself "X Southern Baptist Church". Most call themselves "X Baptist Church." Is it common to include the Southern in church names?

And yes I realize that was more than one question =)

My comment: Where we're at (El Paso is about 80% Hispanic, 70% Roman Catholic), the term "Baptist" has been problematic, not "Southern." As a matter of fact, almost 1 years ago we changed our name from "Vista del Sol Baptist Church" to simply "Del Sol Church" because "Baptist" is such a barrier in our community.

Ariel,

The questions were just asked as they were reported here-- we did not ask "why" questions.

Ed

Ed: I am not a Baptist in name and not completely in some of my beliefs. My background is in the Independent Christian Church/C of C (i.e. Dave Ferguson). I no longer hold to that baptism position. So I could really care less about the Baptist/Calvinist discussion. But the baptism discussion caught my eye. For years I taught that salvation occurred at baptism but never considered myself a water regenerationist (faith, repentance and confession must precede it). I now believe that baptism is an act of obedience that a Christ-follower will want to do. What I find incredulous is the sectarianism in those pastors who would not accept "my baptisms" as being okay. Am I missing something here or misunderstood this survey? in my "previous life" I was accused of being sectarian but isn't this what I am reading here? "Believe as I believe or you ain't got it?" Please tell me if I am wrong! Like I said...I am not a Baptist...I consider myself a Christ-follower who holds to the basic tenets of the Scripture (just not a 5 pointer/TULIP guy)

I thought this whole Calvinism issue was addressed last year at Southeastern? Listening to those sermons it really sounds like you have a lot of intelligent, devout people coming together to say "Hypercalvinism= bad, Calvinism = friend." Even for those who disagree with Calvinism it seemed like they were committed to the issue of the conference, namely "Building Bridges." Of course, then you get another polemical conference coming out with full backing of the SBC attempting to further the divide, that being the deceivingly named "John 3:16 Conference" with Jerry Vines and Johnny Hunt.

Maybe these hard line SBCer's are scared of Calvinism because there are so many highly Calvinistic SBC and non-SBC churches taking away members from non-Calvinist SBC churches left and right (think JD Greear, Mark Driscoll, and the Acts 29 network). Honestly, I don't understand the ignorance, I mean contempt, towards reformed theology that is festering inside the SBC. I wouldn't be surprised if it splits the convention down the middle, which it appears the "John 3:16 Conference" is trying to do. That's a real shame.

Bill,

If you were immersed in a church that believed it was for your salvation, most SBC pastors would not consider that a baptism and would want you to be baptized. The same would be true if you were sprinkled as an infant. In both cases, most Baptists would not see that as baptism.

Ed

Ed,
I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church in an area north of Baltimore, Md. There were transplanted southerners in my church. The appeal for others was to come and hear a preacher with a southern accent!

If it's any comfort, the vast majority of Churches of Christ (at least the ones practicing "sound doctrine") would not accept someone who had been baptized only after they thought they were saved. Such an unbiblical baptism would clearly indicate that the person was not saved at all.

Ed, you kind of addressed my question already. I was stunned to see that more pastors would not require baptism for new members who had been baptized at churches with similar beliefs than they would for new members moving from other SBC churches. If that really is the case, I can't help but think that statistic reveals an outright breakdown in denominationalism. Frankly, I would welcome that (not a breakdown in denominations but a breakdown in denominationalism, something of which the SBC is quite guilty at times).

I'm actually stunned by those numbers.

From the beginning of Southern Baptists both as to organization and to original churches, the history is plain: they were calvinistic/sovereign grace believers. However, their faith in the doctrines of grace was attractive, like John Newton who summed his up in the hymn, AMAZING GRACE, a good sovereign grace or calvinistic hymn. That theology is far more liberal and radical than most people think today. Think of the First & Second Great Awakenings and the Great Century of Missions, the persuading of General Baptists who were neither evangelistic nor missionary to become Regular Baptists who were both even because they believed in election and particular redemption. And then there was the union of Separates and Regulars in 1787. They also secured religious liberty. All of this was done while believe in the five points with the only exception allowed in the period, namely, that the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to communion which meant that the majority view was particular redemption or limited atonement which really ever one believes - even a Universalist cause his view is limited by the fact that it can't get its converts to confess in this life. Some limitation: A powerless redemption. Every point of the tulip outline is the most intensive, compassionate, utterly winsome invitation the world could ever see. As the lady said to Rev. Spurgeon (one of our Spurgeons in the SBC who according to one individual is kin to CH) 40 years ago, when he asked her why she responded so readily to his presentation of the message, she said: "O, it was so wonderful that I couldn't resist it." Forty years or so later he came to the conclusion that she was right. You fellows wake up! This can be the precursor to the Greatest Awakening of all, the whole earth in one generation and even a thousand generations (count Abraham's descendants by faith, if you can)(remember the sand by the seashore and the stars of heaven). The affair could be exceedingly joyful. Remember Phillip Doddridge's hymn, O Happy Day. Yes, it could be hard, if one considers C.S. Lewis' sci-fi novel, That Hideous Strength, where one says of the conspiracy against God, "They pull down deep heaven on themselves." Lets quit fussing. Look at how George Whitefield sought union with Wesley and the latter's response, recorded in his journal. Also look at how Edwards took Whitefield to task for his approach to Harvard and an unregenerate ministry and how later Whitefield would use his great influence to help Harvard. Wake up. This whole event might well be the most wonderful,so wonderful no one can resist it as the lady said. Yes, we might have to suffer, but the end will be worth it all. And who says we have to correct someone else's theology. I want people to believe as I do, if the facts of Scripture pesuade them, freely. I despise theological manipulation. God is not helpless, the last time I checked. And He can be and is more attractive than any thing in this world. I was an atheist before my conversion, because I had no sense, no experience, nothing that convinced me there was a God until the night of December 7,1957, when I saw Jesus (whether in a vision or a hallucination or ?) standing before me, with his hand raised, like he was knocking at a door. That night for the first time, I tasted the joy of which Lewis wrote. Any thing that can bring joy like that is surely worth it all! And we don't have to play this superior-inferior game. Just be faithful in our witness. Having lived in Hell as a child and having seen that Hell change for the better, I believe we do not have to play the intimidation game or anything like that. There is something to Christ and His love for sinners, for lost, fallen, disabled, despairing wretches. Read the two hymns cited. They say it better than my feeble remarks. Pray that we might see such joy cover the whole earth as the waters cover the sea. Gloria in excelsis deo.