Yesterday (March 11, 2008) on Ed Stetzer’s blog – EdStetzer.com -Dr. Stetzer commented briefly on the upcoming John 3:16 Conference and posted (with permission) a letter from his friend and conference participant (and my old hermeneutics prof), Dr. Steve Lemke:
Ed, I’m sure you’re aware of my involvement in the upcoming John 3:16 conference scheduled November 6-7 at FBC Woodstock. The conference will begin and end with sermons on John 3:16 by Dr. Jerry Vines and by Dr. Charles Stanley. In between, Southern Baptist scholars will be presenting a Biblical response to the well-known tenets of the Presbyterian Synod of Dort. . . . This conference is intended as a majoritarian Southern Baptist response to the “Building Bridges” and “Together for the Gospel” conferences. The announcement of this conference has already provoked considerable buzz and speculation in the blogosphere. Hope you’ll join us!
Steve Lemke
I have sent the following open e-mail to Dr. Lemke in response.
Dr. Lemke:
I hope this e-mail finds you doing very well. It has been quite some time since I sat in your hermeneutics class at SWBTS. Of course, I was sad to see you leave SWBTS, but felt that NOBTS had made a great gain with your hire. May the Lord continue to bless your work down in the Big Easy!
In your note to Dr. Stetzer, which he published publicly with your permission, you mentioned the speakers at the upcoming John 3:16 Conference “will be presenting a Biblical response to the well-known tenets of the Presbyterian Synod of Dort. . . . This conference is intended as a majoritarian Southern Baptist response to the ‘Building Bridges’ and ‘Together for the Gospel’ conferences.” You also noted the announcement of this conference is already generating interest and speculation in the blogosphere. It certainly is, and your note is adding to it. This is, of course, the reason I’m sending this open e-mail to you.
As one concerned for unity within our denomination, I wonder why a “response” is needed to the Building Bridges Conference? After all, the point of that meeting was to establish open discussion between Reformed and non-Reformed Southern Baptists. Speakers from “both sides” were invited to attend. Why would this conference demand a response? The implication seems to be that those arranging the John 3:16 Conference are not really interested in discussion and cooperation with their “Calvinist” brothers and sisters. Is there any substance to this understanding of the matter?
One also wonders why a response is needed for the Together for the Gospel Conference? There are Southern Baptists involved with this, most notably Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., and Dr. Mark Dever. There are also men who have been “conservative friends” of the SBC with ties to this conference, namely Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. John Piper. The conference is decidedly “Reformed,” but there are Baptists, Presbyterians, Charismatics and others who will attend this conference. Why does a Southern Baptist group need to “respond” to this particular conference?
While you mentioned the Synod of Dort was Presbyterian, I’m sure you meant it was primarily Dutch Reformed, but that is just an historical matter. I wonder, though, if painting Dort as “Presbyterian” goes along with painting Baptists of the Calvinistic persuasion as being outside the parameters of Southern Baptist life? I also wonder if the scholars present will point out that the earliest Protestant missiologists were Dortian Calvinists and that the Canons of the Synod of Dort are evangelistic in nature? I fear that these facts will be neglected. I also fear that this conference will be used to drive a wedge between some “Calvinists” and their non-Calvinist brothers and sisters. I hope you will lay these fears to rest and that the conference will accomplish two things: demonstrate a humble spirit in regard to honest differences over biblically-driven convictions; and, encourage a bold spirit for evangelistic endeavor.
I look forward to your reply, sir.
Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. James Galyon
MDiv, PhD
Thursday, March 20 – UPDATE
Dr. Lemke has replied, but prefers his reply remain a personal conversation between Christian brothers. He does not find blogs to be a helpful means toward the desire for unity that he and I share. I respect his decision, and trust that he and I will both act and speak in ways which are unifying, edifying, and gracious, and encourage others to do the same – whether on blogs, at conferences, or in churches.
Diane Lytle
March 13, 2008 at 12:31 am
The quote “This conference is intended as a majoritarian Southern Baptist response” makes me wonder if the majority of Southern Baptists, including us plain ‘ol church-folk, even know what true Calvinism is. This would make for an interesting Barna study.
Bill Haynes
March 13, 2008 at 1:04 am
James, your letter is “spot on”. It grieves me that there is a group in the SBC that seemingly is determined to define what is and is not acceptable for SBC theological positions. Of course their’s is the only acceptable one. They totally ignore any historical facts that do not agree with their agenda. Narrow in many cases but not narrow in a truly Biblical case. May God grant us compassion for one another . . . and discussion rather than distention . . . humility rather than haughtiness.
I cannot help but laugh (and then cry) when I hear the contrast made theologically between Charleston and Sandy Creek. Both had very similar confessions of faith . . . maybe more difference in approach, but both loved the sovereignty of God and His work of salvation.
Rev
March 13, 2008 at 1:29 am
Bill:
It’s good to hear from you! It has been a long while since we’ve chatted. Hope things are well with you and yours. BTW, your comment is “spot on” as well.
James
Worship Leader Ron
March 13, 2008 at 4:35 am
I hadn’t heard the entire quote from Ed Stetzer till I read your post today. It’s amazing that he attributes Dort to presbyterians. It blows your mind! I want to have high hopes but it appears that it is as you fear in your letter, that these men are pitting themselves against dialogue and against anyone outside of the majority’s view. The sad thing is that they handle some passages of scripture with the same care as they do their history! I sadly anticipate the day when anyone with reformed theology will be told they can ride on the gospel ship, just can’t steer.
Christ prayed for unity and I will too. May he grant it and the humility we all need.
Let us know if you get a response.
gunny93
March 13, 2008 at 5:13 am
“I look forward to your reply, sir.”
Tell Dr. Lemke, “Ditto from Gunny.”
Well said, brother. Quite irenic, but to the point. I think it helps that you had a prior relationship with him.
Rev
March 13, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Ron – yes, brother, pray for unity (which affects our evangelism – John 17 – amen?!).
Gunny – I hope he responds. We’ll see.
Bill Haynes
March 13, 2008 at 7:20 pm
James, sorry to pipe in again on this same subject, but I just re-read Lemke’s note to Ed both above and on Ed’s blog. The one statement that continues to cause me to grieve is: “This conference is intended as a majoritarian Southern Baptist response to the “Building Bridges” and “Together for the Gospel” conferences.” This is so elitist and is the type of statement/belief that is causing so much trouble in the SBC. I remember sitting in a SBC conservatives meeting in Georgia back in the mid 1980s where [a current seminary president] was speaking to about 250 Georgia Baptists, mostly pastors and staff. He made a statement that stuck in my chest like a knife. He warned the pastors to stay on track; not to be distracted by issues other than inerrancy. He said, “Some of you want to fight the Calvinists, but don’t do that now, there will be plenty of time in the future for that fight.” Has the time come? Wow, what a waste of spiritual energy.
Billy Birch
March 14, 2008 at 1:42 am
I realize you can readily tell from what persuasion I come from. However, I feel the need to add one small comment which is actually a bit negative toward Lemke’s statement which no one has picked up on. This John 3:16 “response” to the Building Bridges conference will be a “Biblical response to the . . . Synod of Dort;” as though the founders of the Synod, or Calvinists in general, have no “Biblical” grounds on which to stand.
Ever since I arrived at Southeastern I have detected that this debate will not cease until it splits the SBC. The non-Calvinists (God forbid that they actually call themselves Arminian!) feel that they have the upper hand in the SBC, and if there are Calvinists among us, maybe they should consider joining the Presbyterians, or perhaps join a Baptist association which is more Reformed; thus Calvinism threatens their non-Calvinist SBC.
Added to that the fact that statistically, 1 out of 3 graduates of a SBC seminary professes to be Calvinist: what does the future hold for the SBC except that it will become half, if not three quarters, Calvinist in the next 20 years. Ut-oh! And what will the non-Calvinists do?
Dr. Nathan Finn at SEBTS (who also spoke at the Building Bridges conference, as you all know)keeps preaching, in not so many words, that there is beauty in diversity; Southern Baptists with various theological persuasions can get along–if they want to! It has been done in the past, and by God’s grace and through prayer for unity, it could happen in the future.
My dad once said that the only prayer he knew of that Jesus prayed but did not see fulfillment was John 17–that they may be one. Interesting.
Billy
Rev
March 14, 2008 at 2:12 am
Bill: Pipe in as much as you like!
Billy: I agree with you that the Woodstock Crowd (i.e., John 3:16 Conference speakers) are most likely approaching this issue as though “Calvinists” have no biblical basis for their beliefs. This is a bit disconcerting, but I hope by the time this gig rolls around there is humility mixed with their conviction. I certainly don’t want their deeply cherished convictions to be dissuaded, but I do hope they are held in a manner which is respectful of those with whom they disagree. For that matter, I hope we who are Reformed-minded will consistently do the same.
The ‘non-Calvinists’ do have the “upper hand in the SBC” (as you put it), they are the “majoritarian position.” No question about that. Even with 1 in 3 seminary students being Reformed-minded, there are many more people in the pews who follow the Woodstock Crowd thinking. Of the 6 million or so Southern Baptists sitting in the pew in 20 years, one-third will not be Reformed (despite the high numbers in seminary).
With that in mind, it is my hope that young men such as yourself will throw yourself into a church plant or head outside the US for mission work.
I would concur with Dr. Finn about the beauty in diversity. Strangely enough, it reminds me of my youth when many spoke about “unity amidst diversity” within the SBC. We can get along, but only if we want to do so…Dr. Finn is correct.
John 17 should not only be our prayer, but a solemn realization to us that this prayer of the Lord Jesus is related directly to the task of evangelism.
Rev
March 15, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Just wanted to let everybody know Dr. Lemke responded very graciously and quickly to my e-mail (I heard from him on Thursday). I’m still waiting to find out whether or not he will grant me permission to post his response. Personally, I think what he has to say needs to be heard by my “Reformed brethren.” I’m hoping that the correspondence between Dr. Lemke, myself and others will help in dispelling some false notions and their related animosities (on both sides).
Once again (this shall become a mantra for me in this discussion), both sides need to realize that unity between real brothers and sisters in Christ is essential for reaching our world effectively with the Gospel (per our Lord’s prayer in John 17).
Chris Walls
March 19, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Rev.
This conference troubles me on two fronts. One, if you are going to have a conference presenting “a biblical response” wouldn’t it be courteous if not biblical to allow those who affirm such tenets an opportunity to respond in a counterpoint format. This smacks of a pep rally for one side of the equation. Secondly, since it seems to be a pep rally for one side, all that does is tear down the Kingdom of God in the long run.
As a SBC no-body I find this conference very disturbing for the future of the SBC.
Rev
March 20, 2008 at 12:01 am
Chris:
It would be courteous to hold such a format, but I am fairly certain this event will not be concerned about courtesy. To be fair, that does remain to be seen. A “pep rally”? That sounds like it could possibly be a very accurate description. But, to be fair, that does remain to be seen.
As a fellow SBC nobody, I find the possibilities of what this conference may bring to be very disturbing for the future of the SBC as well. But, to be fair, that does remain to be seen.
Rev
March 20, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Thursday, March 20 – UPDATE
Dr. Lemke prefers his reply to remain a personal conversation between Christian brothers. He does not find blogs to be a helpful means toward the desire for unity that he and I share. He feels blogs are often divisive, critical in spirit, and unkind. I respect his decision, and trust that he and I will both act and speak in ways which are unifying, edifying, and gracious, and encourage others to do the same – whether on blogs, at conferences, or in churches.