As you know, we’re now discussing this via email. So I’m happy to let you have the last word here.

I don’t think stubborn is the word I would use.

As to myself, it is a matter of conviction and principle, not stubbornness. I cannot support the Yarnell/Barber resolution because it does not speak to where we have been nor does it speak the need to repent and return to gospel faithfulness. From what I understand, the Yarnell/Barber camp do not accept Tom’s resolution for pragmatic reasons and an unwillingness to include the language of repentance.

Now, did I state that Yarnell/Barber are “the source of the problem?” Did I give them that label?

What I did say is that there have been more than one opportunity to support Tom’s resolution in years past (2006 and 2007) and at least one opportunity to consider Tom’s resolution in concert/merging with the Barber/Yarnell resolution (last week). All three opportunities were rejected. This goes without mentioning the fact that Dr. Yarnell publicly spoke against Tom’s resolution last year. Now would you call that stubbornness?

The principles behind my inability to support their resolution were held prior to the drafting of their resolution. Because I hold fast to what I believe to be consistent with the resolutions of the past does not equate to arbitrariness. In any case, I remain hopeful that the current discussion and emphasis on regenerate church membership will translate into the good of our churches.

Just to add to my preceding two comments.

You say to johnMark:

“Lots of people are asking questions, and wanting to know why Tom and his resolution have been written off and replaced for a more denominationally convenient and correct one, and the $64,000 answer to that question precedes this issue.”

You act as if one side is being needlessly stubborn, and that the whole issue would go away if people would just support Ascol’s resolution.

The problem is that your point is entirely reversible. After all, you say to Bart:

“My sincere concerns are not so much about what your resolution says but what it does not say, especially as it relates to the gospel and our need to repent of our failure to keep RCM as a practice in our churches.”

And you say to Chris Bonts:

“I agree with their resolution in what it says. The fact is, it does not say enough.”

Right. So on your view, their resolution is good as far as it goes, but it does not say everything you want it to say. And even though you agree with the resolution (there is not anything in it that you disagree with), you will not support it *until* it includes the particular issues you want it to include (repentance; ACP stats).

Given this, why isn’t it just as acceptable to conclude that it is *you* (and those who take a similar position) who is being stubborn and unreasonable?

You reject the Yarnell-Barber resolution because it does not contain what you want it to contain.

Others reject the Ascol resolution because it contains what they do not want it to contain.

This looks like perfect parity here. So why label only one side as the source of the problem?

One could just as well say, “Ascol and those who take his view refuse to support the Barber-Yarnell resolution, even though they agree with everything in it.” I mean, one could make the case that it looks *worse* to reject a resolution even though you agree with everything in it, than to reject a resolution because it contains something you don’t want in it.

Of course, in the end, I don’t think *either* side is necessarily being stubborn, divisive, unreasonable, etc. But my point is that your conclusion that only one side is the source of the problem looks, well, arbitrary.

SBTS folks are simply not in the discussion (except maybe private via email). Dr. Mohler started a blog dedicated to the SBC called “Conventional Thinking.” His last blogpost was almost a year ago. His focus, which I do not fault him, is in the larger evangelical life and fighting the culture war. Outside the contributions in books and occasional lectures at conferences, SBTS has a relatively minor role right now in current issues regarding SBC life. The front runner is hands down SEBTS under the leadership of Dr. Akin, followed by the work of Dr. Dockery, Tom Ascol, and Thom Rainer (along with Ed Stetzer and others in the research team).

I haven’t followed these comments close enough to understand this reference. What do you believe SBTS folks are failing to do?

What do you mean “appearance of hypocrisy?” Merely not reporting statistics to the ACP does not a hypocrite make, neither does it fit the appearance thereof. Regarding unwillingness to report the ACP, many churches today are refusing to do it for reasons beyond the scope of RCM. Rather, many choose not to because of what the ACP has become and what it has been used for. Have you ever considered the fact that ACP is actually used to perpetuate unregenerate church membership?

You are drawing more conclusions that I have made in your comments, conclusions which are best considered speculations. I do not know why Yarnell’s church has 98% of their additions in church membership not reflected in their attendance growth. But somewhere in the mix are issues like church covenant, church discipline, discipleship, shepherding, etc.

What I said, and the point I was making, was that I find it hard to take them seriously given the current state of their churches. My point was not to “demean them,” nor did I “dismiss” their resolution. To the contrary, I agree with their resolution in what it says. The fact is, it does not say enough. Furthermore, I did not “blast a brother publicly”, except perhaps you have somehow confused me with Malcolm Yarnell.

When you saw “we,” who are you talking about? Are you representative of a caucus in the SBC?

Chris, for future reference, it would be best to not state, “please do not take this as a personal attack” at the beginning of a comment, as though that would be a disclaimer for you doing the very thing you hope I believe you are not doing. If you can misread my post so terribly to come with your conclusions, then I don’t think we can have meaningful dialogue. I just hope that you do not read into the papers you grade as much as you have read into my article here. I am afraid that you have responded more to what you are convinced I have said than what I actually wrote, and that, I find to be a most ungracious thing.

Additionally, your assertions that Barber and Yarnell don’t believe in RCM because their churches don’t reflect some unpublished Brister acceptability ratio, lends at least this reader to believe that you are unaware how LONG it would take to transition an existing church that has never considered RCM to practice it consistently. To do so in many churches in the SBC would take years, unless of course you were unconcerned with church splits, etc. One sermon on RCM and church discipline will not reverse YEARS of neglect. Reform and the “unlearning” bad theology and bad praxis takes time. Remember, genuine RCM will never exist apart from good theology, committed leadership, AND authentic relationships. Authentic relationships that involve mutual accountability in the spirit of Galatians 5 and 6 do not happen over night. The larger the church, the more difficult the transition is. Perhaps in the future, you will exhibit the GRACE in which you claim to so strongly believe.

The next time you choose to blast a brother publicly about the practice in their church, you should do more than just look at statistics. Perhaps you should give them a call and discover what is really going happening in their church.

Chris Bonts

Sadly enough, what you said speaks to why his resolution was not supported. Many non-Calvinists are afraid of being publicly aligned with Tom. It is a common understanding that, being affiliated or a supporter of Founders, causes you to be written off in certain circles of the SBC, especially in the seminary world and Nashville.

But the fact is, the resolution Tom has submitted for the past two years is not a Calvinist issue. It is a biblical issue, and yet, because of politics, personal allegiances, and fear of being stigmatized, people have refused to get on board. Not until the “right people” present their own resolution does things “work” in the SBC.

Lots of people are asking questions, and wanting to know why Tom and his resolution have been written off and replaced for a more denominationally convenient and correct one, and the $64,000 answer to that question precedes this issue. There have been encouraging signs of change, that is, with the cooperation and efforts of men like Danny Akin, David Dockery, and Thom Rainer, but as Southern Baptists, we have a long way to go. It would be great to see folks from SBTS step up to the plate as Drs. Akin and Dockery have, but I don’t expect that to happen anytime soon.

This is a great idea, but why not just get on board with what Tom has already done instead of creating a whole new “idea”? Why not show a united front, pick-up with what Tom has already started and make a website like the Convictional Baptist one?

Want practical? Had all this work been done starting with what Tom had already started it would say much about the working relationship with the Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC since many people are going to look at it in those terms anyways. We could say – look folks, here is a Calvinist who cares about our Convention let’s get on board and work together on this.

This would say much! Now, I’m afraid, this may say much in the wrong way.

Saddened,

Mark