In his 2000 book, Trouble with the TULIP: A Closer Examination of the Five Points of Calvinism, current Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Page strongly challenged the Calvinist perspective on “limited atonement.”

“Can you imagine Jesus, God’s son, saying, ‘Come to me all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest, unless you are of the non-elect, then get away from me!’” wrote Page.

“The true nature of God is not shown by Calvinistic theology that presents a God who selects one to be saved and another to be lost,” he added. “… That teaching portrays a God with who I am unfamiliar!”

Limited atonement, the “L” in the Calvinist TULIP of beliefs, states that God’s grace is extended only to those chosen by God (“the elect”) rather than made available to all through Christ’s death on the cross.

With the recent growth of Calvinism (or Reformed theology or Doctrines of Grace, as adherents like to call it), fueled primarily by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary leaders, Page’s strongly worded opposition seemed to be a major obstacle to the SBC presidency when his nomination was announced in the late spring.

Wisely, Page made a public pronouncement that he would not exclude those from SBC leadership with whom he disagrees on the doctrine of salvation. More recently he called the Calvinism debate a “family argument,” suggesting those with different views can stay in the same house.

Page, who seemed genuinely shocked and humbled by his first ballot election in June, breathed some fresh air into his initial presidential press conference. He was kind and gracious, and spoke positively about broadening SBC involvement.

Some have interpreted Page’s surprise election as not only an affirmation of strong Cooperative Program support (his church gives 12 percent of its undesignated gifts), but also as a growing concern over the ever-narrowing circle of acceptance in Southern Baptist life.

In his first Baptist Press column as SBC president, Page opened the door a bit wider saying individual churches should deal with charismatic issues “as part of their own autonomous structure.” So far, so good.

But then Page quickly and easily affirmed the revised Baptist Faith and Message that — among other troublesome things — states the pastorate is limited to men and that women should “submit graciously” to their husbands.

The denominational doctrinal statement — previously used to explain generally accepted Baptist beliefs — was intentionally and significantly narrowed in 2000 and used to enforce doctrinal conformity, harass missionaries and further exclude non-fundamentalist Baptists. It trounced on the decisions of local churches — such as calling a pastor — an area once considered off limits to denominational hands.

The selectivity of Southern Baptist leaders in affirming autonomy of the local church is baffling. The independence of churches to decide their level of support for denominational missions was cited as the primary reason for the SBC Executive Committee backing off “suggesting” that elected leaders come from churches — like Page’s First Baptist Church of Taylors, S.C. — that give 10 percent or more to the Cooperative Program.

Likewise, debate over whether churches should be congregational led or run by elders is considered a local church prerogative. But choosing pastoral leadership is not?

So there is room in the SBC for a dramatically different view of atonement than Page’s deeply held belief that Jesus died for all persons? And a local church’s autonomy is respected when it comes to Charismatic theology and practice?

But Baptists cannot cooperate in missions if they have differing scriptural interpretation about women’s roles? And a church is not granted the autonomy to call a pastor as the members feel led?

Page has clearly addressed concerns over limited atonement in his earlier book. As SBC president, he would do well to examine the inconsistent and flawed view of limited autonomy at work in Southern Baptist life as well.