I read with sadness Chairman Bill Curtis’ open letter to Southern Baptists pertaining to Bill Harrell, Chairman of the SBC Executive Committee and his comments to The Christian Index.

The irony in the context of his exhortation is stark – stop the needless rhetoric in our Convention toward those who differ and just work together. Does Chairman Curtis think things will go hunky-dory now that he has taken the SBC Executive Chair out to the public woodshed? Does he think the two of them may now work better together as a result? If not, could then his exhortation be classified as needless rhetoric? The reader can be the judge.

From my perspective at least, what the two pastors discussed on the phone could have sufficed without going public as did Chairman Curtis, unless, of course, nothing at all was accomplished. It’s particularly interesting to me, for I also had questions about Chairman Harrell’s remarks and called him. When I finished the conversation, I think he had clarified very well where he may have been misunderstood.

Missing from Chairman Curtis’ open letter are any qualifications or clarifications he gleaned from his call to Mr. Harrell. I find that strange, myself. All he quotes in his open letter is what the Index recorded, making no clarifications he received from his lengthy chat with Mr. Harrell.

One must assume either Mr. Harrell offered no clarification (which I doubt, for he certainly did to me) or Mr. Curtis forgot to mention any clarifications he received from the phone conversation. The only other option is that Mr. Curtis purposely left the clarifications out. I choose to think Mr. Curtis is like me; I am forgetting things in my old age.

One final note: I appreciate Chairman Curtis’ views on the BF&M and Southern Baptists’ commitment to it. Fine and good. I agree. Nevertheless, I sense an unfortunate unawareness in Mr. Curtis’ letter failing to reflect not only Chairman Harrell’s concern about divisive Calvinism, but also Mr. Curtis’ apparent neglect of Mr. Harrell’s actual words.

Mr. Curtis writes: “Today, one of the most popular targets is evangelistic Calvinism.” That’s interesting. Where are people shooting this popular target of “evangelistic Calvinism?” Who is shooting? Surely not Mr. Harrell. He doesn’t mention evangelistic Calvinism.

In fact, I try to keep up with the Calvinist debate in our Convention, but, frankly, I’ve never even heard the term “evangelistic Calvinism,” much less it being a common target to attack. Yet in the space of a few paragraphs, Mr. Curtis mentions “evangelistic Calvinism” nine times! Are we coining a new term here?

For the record, Mr. Harrell clearly qualified his remarks about Calvinism. He has absolutely no problem working with Calvinists. His primary concern was/is integrity, not polity. He was referring to Calvinists being open and straight about being a Calvinist before they take a prospective church, a practice with which I stand sure Mr. Curtis would agree.

And the divisive Calvinist remarks pertained primarily to unscrupulous men who do not reveal their theology to a prospective church and consequently cause conflict. What concerns me is Mr. Curtis’ failure to mention that in his letter. I think it needs to be said.

A famous coach recently quipped in response to a depressing loss: “You can’t undo last week’s scoreboard. But you can do something about this week’s.” I think there’s a sermon in that for us all.

My advice is simple: Before SBC leaders start firing public guns at each other, they really need to stop and make sure they are taking a fair shot. It’s much too easy to draw our lots and choose our teams when public correction comes too swiftly – and especially when it seems to others to lack courtesy and fairness.

What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editor addressing this or another subject.