You, my brother, are not an “average” Southern Baptist! And I too do not think Dr. Dockery was referring to illiterate cultures, niether was I. The choice of wording is unfortunate perhaps, “practice of baptizing children before they are old enough to read”. I understand Dr. Dever’s point and am sympathetic to it, nevertheless, an understanding of the gospel and confession of Christ as Savior is the prerequiste for baptism, not an ability to read. The two are separate issues.

Well, I think my questions came they way they did because I am not a reporter or interviewer. Actually, this was my first interview, and I didn’t know what questions I was allowed to ask or not ask. That may be what makes the interview unique, and/or it may be what makes it weak. I don’t know. What I do know is that I am your average Southern Baptist sitting in the pew who is sincerely and geuninely interested in the future of our Convention and the progress of the gospel mission we are commissioned with and stewards of. If God can use me to further constructive dialogue around the mission and message of Jesus Christ among Southern Baptists, then I think all efforts are worthwhile.

As you can see, Dr. Dockery was very generous with his time and answers. Regarding my thoughts on his approach to answering my questions, I will share that in my reflections coming Saturday.

I just knew you were not a softball player!!!

Thanks for the hardball questions. To be short, I liked some of the answers, but many were weak for such a scholarly man.

Thanks brother for not dissappointing on the platform that God has providentially provided you to serve Him from.

You’re welcome.

Adam,

Thanks man. I agree. The very idea of calling Calvinism a “problem” reveals the biased nature of those who end up talking the most about it. I would venture to say that the majority of people who hear about Calvinism do so from people who are NOT Calvinists, if not militantly against it. Imagine trying to get the facts about the war on Iraq from Al-Jazeera. Now, I know that’s hyperbole here, but the point is valid nonetheless, which is, we must be careful to be accurate and fair in discussion of all things, especially matters of truth and the gospel. Calvinism is not the “problem”–fairness and truthfulness is.

The challenge of regenerate church membership is a big one and one that we cannot shrink away from. I think part of the problem is demoninational pride. Are we willing to admit to ourselves that over half our denomination is functionally non-existent and unaccounted for? I hope and pray that we as a Convention will have the fortitude and focus to address these matters in this upcoming year rather than expecting to hear resolution number 59 on something entirely irrelevant.

Stephen,

The answer Dr. Dockery gave regarding Calvinism is a fair and reasonable answer. I don’t know any Calvinist in the SBC who wants it to become a Calvinistic Convention. Rather, we are just tired of having to feel like we have to wear a scarlet “C” on our chest (as we talked about earlier) as though we have committed some ecclesiological crime for believing in sovereign grace. It is interesting to note, as you have mentioned, that Dr. Dockery mentioned there is no place for “consistent Arminianism” but there is for “consistent Calvinism.” Some would call “consistent Calvinism” hyper-Calvinism, but this is a misnomer of course. The link I provided (for “hyper-Calvinism”) clearly reveals what hyper-Calvinism is, and contrary to the assessment of Lemke and Yarnell, hyper-Calvinism does not exist in the SBC today (and if it did, it should be denounced with as much candor and clarity as possible). In any case, we must center our attention on the gospel in exposition, in demonstration, and in proclamation.

By the way, anyone wondering what consistent Arminianism is, it is called Open Theism–the hottest heresy in the past 10 years.

I really, really wish he’d addressed the issue of regenerate church membership a bit more directly, but his answer is pretty succinct. This is an issue that I don’t think will go away, and it seems he is trying to be circumspect here, which is probably wise.

I continue to be encouraged that highly respected leaders like him recognize and encourage the place in our convention for Calvinists, “almost-Calvinists,” and non-Calvinists. I also continue to be amazed that more and more leaders like him are stating unequivocally that “consistent Arminianism” has no place within the SBC. Does that mean we might see a return to the culture of the early SBC, which appears to be, if not Calvinistic, then as Calvinistic as humanly possible?

I am in agreement with Dr. Dockery about the church membership matter of the SBC. As committed future pastors, all of us must strive to build upon the established Baptist distinctive of regenerate membership and lead our congregations to make the hard choices regarding discipline, membership admission, and baptism candidates. And, as Dr. Dockery said, it always sounds easier on paper than in practice.

Personally, I believe that when God leads me to pastor a congregation, that the church membership issue will be one of the greatest challenges of my ministry (if not the greatest). Far too many church members blindly accept the old saying that “we can’t judge anyone” as a justification for apathy in regard to the status of non-active members. Convincing them otherwise will be a difficult task equivalent to the labor of Sisyphus… even when dealing with Christians who claim to hold to the authority of Scripture.

And I can’t wait for tommorow’s finale.

Great stuff, Timmy. Thanks for taking the time to do it.

I appreciate your questions on Res #5 and the Ascol Res. It still remains, as Paul Burleson immediately observed in Greensboro, that we are against drinking alcohol, but are ok with lying about the number of church members we have.

Having read the conversations about resolutions since Greensboro, I think your concerns and criticisms are shared among many. I have no idea what the Resolutions Committee goes through or how exactly they go through the choosing of resolutions to pass. It is interesting (to say the least) to see what resolutions did pass (among the many that were proposed). I highly doubt that a resolution on gluttony will make it to the floor in San Antonio.

To be fair, I don’t think Dr. Dockery is referring to illiterate cultures but rather young children who are baptized at a very early age. As I heard Mark Dever once say, to be a denomination that is so against infant baptism, we sure are getting close to it! (my paraphrase) I am pretty confident that Dr. Dockery does not believe that literacy is a prerequisite for salvation. Rather, I think he is saying that a proper understanding of the gospel and what it means to be saved is necessary for baptism.

Regarding our history, Dr. Dockery agrees with you. Earlier in the interview he referred to the “historicla amnesia” prevalent today. Dockery said, “We are a convention that hardly knows Furman, Manly, Johnson, Boyce, Broadus, Carroll, Moon, Armstrong, Robertson, Mullins, Conner, Scarborough, or Dodd. We barely know Criswell and Hobbs.” Indeed, anti-intellectualism is a real challenge today, and my hope is that my blog and in particular this interview will stimulate more Southern Baptists to take a look at our history. Obviously Dr. Dockery knows it well, and we would be much better off to follow his lead. I am optimistic to think that, though there are many who don’t care, they is a new and widening interest in the history of the SBC as well as the Church at large. Four years ago, I couldn’t tell you who Boyce, Manly, Broadus, or Furman was, nor could I share in the appreciation of the conciliar creeds of the early church fathers, such as Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedon. I still don’t think I know enough or have the appreciation of church history that I should, and as I continue to study where we have been and come from, I believe it will give me a helpful and historical perspective to address the issues we face today.