Recently, I read a fascinating interview of Sam Storms concerning an upcoming Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit, which Sam will be speaking at. Sam Storms is best known for his non-cessationist position on miraculous gifts (learn more at his website EnjoyingGodMinistries.Com). However, he is also an advocate of conservative Biblical theology, Calvinism, complementarianism, and the centrality of the Word in worship. He’s also a Dallas Seminary grad, so as you can see, Dr. Sam Storms is an interesting person to interview.
The interview did not just focus on spiritual gifts, however. Since the conference is being hosted by a prominent Southern Baptist church, the interview (conducted by 12 Witnesses) asked Storms what he thought about the current issues facing the SBC. In his responses, he touched on issues central to the purpose of this blog. He touched on problems with fundamentalism and traditionalism, and the need for unity. So I thought I would reproduce some of his comments here for my readers, and encourage them to check out the interesting and informative full interview over at 12 Witnesses.
Question: Within the Southern Baptist landscape right now, what issues do you see driving our mutual discussion? Is there an overarching issue that relates to all of the things abuzz in the Convention? If so, what is it?
Answer: The issues are much the same as they\’ve been for generations. The things Christians disagree and argue about are fairly constant: the sovereignty of God and human responsibility, especially as it relates to evangelism and missions; the role of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts in particular; the role of women in ministry and leadership; eschatology, spontaneity vs. liturgy in worship, etc. These and a few other issues are almost always at the center of debate, not just among Baptists but across denominational lines.
The one thing these issues have in common is that none of them is central to the gospel itself. They are all, at best, secondary doctrines, or doctrines on which Christ-exalting, Bible-believing Christians can and often do disagree. Sadly, some question the evangelical credentials of anyone who might dare to differ with their view on Calvinism or whether miraculous gifts occur today or the timing of the rapture or the nature of the millennium.
But there is something else that is even more disturbing, and that is the angry and divisive dogmatism that is emerging over behavioral issues on which the Bible is either silent or leaves one\’s decision in the realm of Christian freedom. Perhaps the greatest threat to unity and acceptance in the Church is the tendency to treat particular life-style and cultural preferences as though they were divine law. To be even more specific, it\’s the tendency to constrict or reduce or narrow the boundaries of what is acceptable to God, either by demanding what the Bible doesn\’t require or forbidding what the Bible clearly permits.
My experience has been that this is typically driven by one of three things: either an unjustified fear of being \”spiritually contaminated\” by too close contact with the surrounding culture, or an unbridled ambition to gain power over the lives of others, or a failure to believe and trust in the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ (or all three combined).
I\’m concerned that in certain segments of the Convention there is a mindset reminiscent of the old \”fundamentalism\” that is characterized by isolationism, separatism, anti-intellectualism, cultural withdrawal, and a generally angry and judgmental attitude toward all those who dare to differ on these matters that quite simply don\’t matter; at least they don\’t matter nearly as much as whether or not you believe in the deity of Christ, his substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Whereas conservative evangelicalism has typically drawn the line on theological essentials, this more recent fundamentalism draws the line ever more narrowly on issues such as total abstinence vs. moderation in the use of alcohol, the degree of freedom and the role of affections in public worship, the legitimacy of so-called \”private prayer language,\” etc. Sadly, when one\’s commitment to Christ and the authority of Scripture is judged on the basis of this latter group of issues, rather than the former, the situation is bleak indeed.
Question: How do you see the debate over moderation concerning the consumption of alcohol? Do you see a disparity in the approach to the alcohol issue and other issues under debate?
Answer: Honestly, I\’m weary of this debate. Certainly anyone who embraces the authority of Scripture must denounce drunkenness. But I\’ve never been persuaded in the least by the alleged \”biblical\” arguments for total abstinence. Having said that, I think total abstinence is a perfectly honorable and permissible practice to embrace. Any Christian is free to abstain from alcohol. But they aren\’t free, in my opinion, to insist that others do the same. They are even less free to accuse those who drink in moderation of being sub-Christian. Abstinence per se is neither a sign of spiritual weakness nor of spiritual strength. Neither is one\’s choice of moderation in the use of alcohol a sign of weakness or strength. Whether one totally abstains or drinks in moderation is simply irrelevant to Christian spirituality.
Question: What are your thoughts on the Traditional church, the Missional church and the Emergent church?
Answer: …My primary concern for the Traditional church is that its customs, rituals (yes, even Southern Baptist\’s have rituals; they just don\’t call them that), habits, and accepted patterns for ministry and worship are so deeply entrenched in the spiritual psyche of a people that the Bible itself is not allowed to critique what is done or provide direction for new expressions of life as the body of Christ.
There is also the potential threat of a Traditional church losing touch with the surrounding culture. They can often create a \”fortress\” mentality, circle the wagons, hunker down so to speak, and rarely engage with the developments in society or the unsaved who populate it.
Too often, in the name of tradition, freedom in worship is stifled, the power of the Spirit is suppressed, age old \”doctrines\” are immune from biblical scrutiny, and what makes people \”feel comfortable\” is the decisive factor in evaluating fresh proposals or efforts to reach the lost and more effectively communicate with the saved… [note he does go on to criticize the Emergent church as well]
Emphasis was added in the above excerpts. Be sure to read the whole interview. And please let me know if you think Storms is off on some of his assessments here.
The cessationist vs. continuationist debate continues very strongly in the SBC. I viewed the website of the church that is hosting the conference, and it appears that there will be some ‘debate’ and discussion over the topic, and I’d be one who would like to attend if I could. The ‘fundamentalist’ tendencies in the SBC are wrongly divisive in that it is causing the breaking of fellowship over this issue. Not that cooperation is necessary for either faction, fellowship and unity is something we ought to strive for despite our disagreements over revelatory and miraculous gifts. I for one would heartily disagree with Dr. Storms (on revelatory gifts; ‘healing’ does occur today, but not in the way that the miracles that attested to the Lord’s and Apostles’ ministries), but I don’t think that it would bar me from having fellowship with him. This is akin to the fundamentalist attitudes that are inherent in IFB Fundamentalism. They break *fellowship* over secondary doctrinal issues, which is a mistake at best.
Larry said: “fellowship and unity is something we ought to strive for despite our disagreements over revelatory and miraculous gifts”
You know, it goes beyond this one issue, too. We need to unite around the Gospel Truths, the Big Things. The problem is that this issue is just one of several over which people are ready at the drop of a hat to fight over and separate.
And so people understand here, Storms is not a Pentecostal. He is like Wayne Grudem and C.J. Mahaney and even John Piper in theology.
I really don’t want to major on this issue here though. The points in the quotes above are worth noting. He spoke of a “fortress mentality” which “circle(s) the wagons” and “hunker(s) down”. This is prevalent in many sectors in fundamentalism.
He also pointed out how people question the “evangelical credentials” (i.e. they question you are even saved) if you differ from them on quite minor issues. This is sad. The small issues are blown out of proportion to where we suspect people aren’t even saved, when they disagree with us. (By the way he put his finger on what could very well be the problem–pride).
One more thing: do you (speaking to all my readers here), agree or disagree with Storms’ sentiment here:
“Perhaps the greatest threat to unity and acceptance in the Church is the tendency to treat particular life-style and cultural preferences as though they were divine law.”
I would agree with that, and you are correct in asserting that the centrality (ahem, fundamentals) of our historic Christian faith should motivate us to seek unity in fellowship. We are brothers/sisters in Christ, not enemies, even if we have disagreements over secondary issues. I think that many people confuse fellowship and cooperation, and having fellowship doesn’t necessarily mean that we must cooperate with another whom we disagree. I think that this distinction is often missed. For example, an Arminian dispensationalist might not want to cooperate in ministry with a Calvinist covenantalist, but that doesn’t mean that they also have to break fellowship with each other. This is what hackneyed fundamentalism since the 1950/60’s, and it is posed to cripple the SBC as it has Independent Baptists. Divisions over alcohol, Bible versions, cessationism/continuationism, and many other nit-picky issues have forced many to ‘take sides’ and separate fellowship. This is completely unnecessary, and some of the schismatics on either side should be ashamed.
Thanks for noticing this interview. I would wholeheartedly agree with the points that Storms makes.