The Relevance of the Doctrinal Statements of Earlier Church History for Studying the BFM2000

In this series, we are poking around in search of relevant information that will help us come to grips with the issues of “caveats” and “tiers” in relation to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.  For good measure, I have added in consideration of the helpful analogies of a “canon within the canon” and “canon” vs. “apocrypha.

In the first installment, I considered what the New Testament has to say in these areas.  There wasn’t much to look at in regard to caveats and tiers, or even a canon within the canon (other than how the NT quotes quite heavily from certain books, but not much–or not at all, with Esther–from others).  The most helpful area of consideration in regard to the NT had to do with the emerging canon, in contrast to other books–some even written by an apostle–spoken of in the NT which did not have full canonical authority.  (That, of course, sounds eerily similar to what the NAMB, IMB and Southwestern Seminary trustee boards have done: effectively claim ”canonical” [i.e., BFM2000-like] authority for their “apocryphal” [non-consensus] de facto doctrinal guidelines/policies.)

As we move into post-New Testament era church history, we will endeavor to stick to our stated series guidelines.  I’m going to do my best to keep it: 1) selective (as opposed to boring you with example after example); 2) simple (as opposed to technical); and 3) specific (in application to the SBC context).  Any recommendations as to how I can accomplish these goals better will be greatly appreciated!

So, get strapped in.  We’re going to cover a lot of history in a short span of time/writing.  While that may seem like a disadvantage, the flip side is the advantage of being able to get a quick overview look at similar situations across a sizeable swath of time.

In moving through the period of the church fathers and theologians, there were heresies in regard to several of the core doctrines of the faith that had to be dealt with by church councils (starting with Nicea, in AD 325), which produced important consensus creedal statements.  Alongside those early theological face-offs, the recognition of the NT canon was finalized, with a compressed canon viewpoint partially forcing the church to face the issue. 

Later, corrupt mechanical medieval Catholicism encountered a reform movement that spread providentially.  During the Reformation and Post-Reformation periods, issues like caveats in regard to ever more detailed creedal statements sometimes became very big deals. 

In addition, the Counter-Reformation formally expanded the Catholic canon, after having used the apocrypha for doctrinal purposes (e.g., as the primary “biblical” basis for their teaching on purgatory) for hundreds of years before.  In reality, they were forced to do so in the face of tenacious Protestant agreement on the canon of the 66 books of inspired Scripture and perceptive criticism of Catholic appeal to the unofficial apocrypha. 

The first Baptist doctrinal statements emerged from the Anabaptist movement.  Then came the London Baptist Confessions of Faith (1644, 1689), and–here in the United States–the New Hampshire Confession (1833).  The first distinctly Southern Baptist statement of faith was the Abstract of Principles, originally adopted by Southern Seminary  in 1858. 

For our purposes at this point, suffice it to say that the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message (which we will get to in the next installment) was, for the most part, an adaptation of the Abstract of Principles, which was largely adapted from the New Hampshire Confession.  In each case, the changes had to do with the distinctive Baptist theological emphases of each historical period/geographical setting. 

Now, it is time to ask: what do we need to learn in each of our areas of interest from this “helicopter” view of church history?  We will start with caveats, proceeding to tiers, then the “canon within the canon” issue and, finally, “canon” vs. “apocrpypha.”

It appears that the best way to approach the caveats issue is to note that earlier doctrinal statements did not spread out and cover so much doctrinal ground, but were more detailed in regard to a specific doctrinal area.  So, for example, when Arius expressed his “caveat” about the Nicene understanding of the person of Christ, that point of disagreement was enough to consider him and his belief as heterodox (effectively a heretic).

By contrast, in later centuries, creedal statements had become so much more detailed that a caveat, or even several caveats, might not make any major difference, especially if you could defend your position biblically.  For example, Moise Amyraut was tried three times for heresy by the French Reformed synod in the mid- to late 1600s, because he held to a non-Calvinist view often called “hypothetical universalism.”  Each time, though, he was acquited because he knew both Scripture and Calvin better than his accusers (or the creed, in this case).

In regard to the tiers issue, a couple of situations are worth noting.  Since the church of the early centuries saw fit to hammer out such issues as the person of Christ and the Trinity before what we might consider to be other equally important doctrines, perhaps history is telling us that those should be viewed as “first tier” doctrines.

On the other hand, the huge dispute between the followers of Jacob Arminius and the Dutch Calvinists focused around five points that approximate to the degree of sinfulness of mankind, the divine-human balance in salvation and whether there is security for the believer.  So, you could make a case that the wider issues of the gospel, including God’s choice in the matter, plus the security issue, are the “core” doctrines that deserve to be seen as the first tier.

In looking at the canon within the canon viewpoint, two classic, though significantly different, examples are Marcion and Luther.  Marcion’s hard core stripped down “canon” rejected the entire Hebrew Bible, as well as all the New Testament, except Paul’s Epistles and the Gospel of Luke.  He kept only the “Gentile” part with which he was comfortable.  Luther, by contrast, only questioned the canonicity of James, calling it “a right strawy epistle” and placed it at the end of the German Bible.

Bottom line here: Moving aggressively for a smaller canon gets you labelled a heretic (Marcion).  Just questioning things, and preaching from a reduced canon (Luther) hardly raises any hackles at all, even though 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly says that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable… .”

Finally, on the canon vs. apocrypha front, the fourth century achieved the decisive “consensus” (a term used prominently in the Garner BFM2000 Motion, if you recall), noted clearly in Athanasius’ Easter Letter (367), but most importantly in the vote of the Council of Carthage (397).  At that point, books like 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, which some were enamored with, receded into officially non-authoritative status, after hanging around on the edge of things and being accepted in some quarters (which sounds disturbingly like what has happened with the ”apocryphal” additions of some of the entity trustee boards).

Our final example for this installment in the series is the Catholic tradition for several centuries prior to the Council of Trent (1545-63).  They relied upon the Apocrypha, which had never received official “consensus” recognition as Scripture, as the so-called “Scriptural” basis for their distinctive doctrine of purgatory, which spawned the graft of indulgences.  With that glaring example of what can happen when non-consensus doctrinal positions are allowed to hold sway, should we really be surprised that SBC entity trustee boards are successfully running the same scam right before our eyes today?  After all, the Catholic Church got away with it just fine until the Reformers called their hand on it (i.e., proclaiming sola scriptura).  It is truly sad that it must be asked, “Will the SBC listen to its reformers today, or just continue to follow this terrible Catholic precedent, for no other reason than the completely irresponsible half-truth that trustees are not really fully accountable to the Convention for their decisions?”  Selah and Amen.

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today (Introduction)

When you take the “big picture” historical perspective on what is laid out in regard to belief about the Holy Spirit in the 1925, 1963 and 2000 versions of the Baptist Faith and Message, the comparisons and contrasts are quite interesting, including what is not addressed.  In fact, it is that last area–loud silence–which may the most instructive for the current situation in which the Southern Baptist Convention finds itself.  But, that’s my opinion.  You make up your own mind after we do the following survey.

If you are not aware of the historical reality, it is something of a shock to find out the Holy Spirit is only mentioned in BFM1925–briefly and in passing–in the sections dealing with the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, Regeneration, Repentance and Faith, Sanctification, Baptism and Evangelism and Missions.  There is no separate subsection under the Doctrine of God for the Spirit.  This reflects much the same situation that Frederick Dale Brunner observed in his A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans, 1970): the Holy Spirit had long been the “overlooked member of the Trinity.”

However, that changed dramatically in BFM1963.  A 113 word subsection on “God the Holy Spirit” was created from scratch:

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. He inspired holy men of old to write the Scriptures. Through illumination He enables men to understand truth. He exalts Christ. He convicts of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. He calls men to the Saviour, and effects regeneration. He cultivates Christian character, comforts believers, and bestows the spiritual gifts by which they serve God through His church. He seals the believer unto the day of final redemption. His presence in the Christian is the assurance of God to bring the believer into the fulness of the stature of Christ. He enlightens and empowers the believer and the church in worship, evangelism, and service.

Now, it may trouble some people for me to do what I’m going to do next.  I’m not going to give the BFM2000 wording, just how it changed from 1963.  Laying it out this way makes a very telling point.  So, bear with me.

The following is the full extent of the meaningful changes to the subsection on the Spirit between the 1963 and 2000 BFM versions:

1. Adding “fully divine” to the end of the first sentence.

2. Adding “men” to the fifth sentence.

3. Adding a new seventh sentence: “At the moment of regeneration, He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ.”

Statistically, what is the extent of the overall changes?  If my tallying is correct, 17 words net were added.  In BFM2000, the subsection is 130 words, some 15.0% longer than the 1963 version.

At first glance, that 15% doesn’t call attention to itself as being odd.  But, think about what happened between 1963 and 2000 that had special reference to the Holy Spirit: notably, the Jesus Movement (with the Charismatic Movement growing out of it), from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s; and the Third Wave (of the Spirit), from the 1980s forward.

Viewed in that historical light, the fact that only one substantive sentence–”At the moment of regeneration, He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ”–was added to BFM2000 is very odd indeed.  It leaves me with the same classic perplexed response as Desi Arnaz: “Lucy, you got some ’splaining to do!”  (For you youngsters, that was from yesteryear’s “I Love Lucy” TV show.)

Yes, that one sentence served to cut off any legitimate possibility of both Pentecostal “second blessing” theology and the view that tongues is the evidence of being baptized with the Spirit.  So, that one highly succinct sentence served a wonderful doctrinal purpose.  But, what about all the other issues related to the Holy Spirit that were not addressed?  (We think immediately of the issues of speaking in tongues and what is usually referred to as “private prayer language [PPL]“, but there definitely are others that could also be named.)

The key question our brief historical excursion has let up to is this: Why were tongues, PPL and other areas not addressed by BFM2000?  And, it appears that only three truly plausible answers are available: 1) to be politically savvy; 2) to be practically flexible; or 3) to be both.

What do I mean by “politically savvy?”  The Conservative Resurgence (CR) in the late 1990s knew they could not afford to anger their Charismatic SBC brethren before the vote on BFM2000, if they wanted their “mandate.”  So, they backed off to achieve a monumental political victory.

What do I mean by “practically flexible?”  The leadership of the CR, in crafting the BFM2000, simply decided to allow those holding diverse views beyond BFM1963–plus the one key additional sentence–to “agree to disagree agreeably.”  In other words, they purposefully avoided the other issues and steadfastly refused to lay out one consensus Southern Baptist view on anything beyond BFM2000.

Which do I think was the case?  Considerable seemingly trustworthy anecdotal evidence, plus reading a relevant portion of Paul Pressler’s A Hill to Die On, convinces me that the first is certainly true.  But, I would very much want to think that there was at least a modicum of wisdom in the loud silence (i.e., what was not discussed in BFM2000).  So, the apparent answer is the third option–both.

The current problem facing the SBC is that the CR, in its second phase, knows that it does not have the votes to add in the restrictive wording on the Holy Spirit by amendment anymore in 2007 than it did in 2000.  If anything, their current negative plight is even more clear.  The Lifeway survey revealed that 50% of SBC pastors are continuationists, rendering the CR cessationist (in attitude, if not exegetically in all cases) position a healthy minority in SBC life.  Thus, their “sidedoor” strategy of getting SBC entities to become de facto cessationist is their only hope to eventually wear down resistance and eventually make the SBC officially cessationist.

By contrast, the continationists in the SBC exhibit no interest in adding a continuationist plank to BFM2000.  They simply ask for a return to the days of “agreeing to disagree agreeably” on tongues and PPL for the SBC.

But, this series will focus on much more than the currently spotlighted issues.  In fact, it is probably not too much to say that these hot-and-heavy areas of debate can only settle into their proper level of significance through a careful consideration of the state of the SBC in regard to both what is said about the Holy Spirit in BFM2000, as well as historically important (i.e., in consensus evangelical Orthodoxy) aspects of this doctrinal area on which there is silence.  That is why this series will do its best to cover the waterfront both where BFM2000 speaks and where it dared not tread.

Coming Wednesday: The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today (II): “An Encouraging Tale of Three Pharisees” 

Issues Inside and Outside the BFM2000: Caveats, Tiers, a “Canon within the Canon” or “Canon” vs. “Apocrypha?” (I)

Well, I never heard anything back from Tim Guthrie by email.  And, Tim, I never could figure out how to get to your blog (assuming you have one).  So, if you responded to my “ground rules” there, and wrote an initial “take” on this subject matter, I apologize and we can still merge this, if you like.

But, if Tim is not going to be involved, I’m going to adjust the subject more to my liking.  Tim wanted to deal with the issue of caveats related to the BFM2000.  I don’t think that’s anywhere close to the main issue in SBC circles right now.  But, it is still worth looking at–and could be easily become significant at some point in the not terribly distant future.  So, I’ll keep it in the mix of things.

 If you read my “Coming Attractions” earlier today, I pledged myself to trying my best to keep these studies: 1) Selective; 2) Simple; and 3) Specific to the SBC context.  I also have said that I’m going try to resist jumping the gun on drawing hard and fast applicational principles for the SBC today before the data has sufficiently clarified (though I will take note of what appears to be promising areas to consider as we move along.)  So, with that having been said, fasten your seat belt and here we go.

What Showeth the Scriptures?

As we begin looking at the New Testament as the biblical “seedplot” for the issues we are facing today in the SBC, a couple of passages in the Pastoral Epistles are very significant.  In 1 Timothy 5:18, the Apostle Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 side-by-side and calls both “Scripture.”  In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul says “All Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching…” (HCSB). 

In these two passages, we see: 1) the canon of the NT growing (in this case, Paul’s quotation of Luke’s Gospel, which probably had not been in existence for more than a very few years at the time he wrote 1 Timothy); and 2) not only an early theological impulse, but a clear statement that God intends Scripture to be “mined” doctrinally by His people.

The remainder of my examples in this first installment are going to be taken from 1 Corinthians.  I will lay out the relevant passages, then draw some tentative ideas for reflection.

Moving consecutively, 1 Corinthians 4:6 warns the Corinthians: “Nothing beyond what is written.”  At the point at which 1 Corinthians was written (probably about A.D. 56), this would probably have referred to the canon of the Old Testament.  Paul was warning the Corinthian believers to limit themselves to what they knew to be Scripture–what had Divine authority.

Next in line is 1 Corinthians 5:9.  There Paul speaks of a previous “letter” he had written this church, but which is not preserved today.  When I have taught NT Introduction, I have made it a point of emphasis that the Corinthian church actually received four letters from Paul: two that we have in the NT (which we call 1 and 2 Corinthians) and two which are not Scripture (the one mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9 and another spoken of in 2 Corinthians 2:3,4,9).  These passages demonstrate that the process of determining what books were indeed Scripture could be tricky.  In this case, we see that not even everything Paul wrote, even to the same church and in related circumstances, was canonical.

The final passages we will consider in 1 Corinthians are doctrinal in nature.  In 1 Corinthians 12:3, the compressed confession “Jesus is Lord” is stated.  In 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, Paul lays out the historical side of the Gospel message: “You are also saved by [the gospel], if you hold to the message I proclaimed to you”: Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, which was witnessed by well over 500 people between Christ being raised from the dead and ascending to heaven (15:2-6).  These doctrinal “nuggets” reflect the reality that core doctrines were already necessarily being expressed in independent statements during the first generation of the church’s existence, in order to keep the doctrine pure.  The concept of broader doctrinal statements did not emerge until much later in church history.

So, where are we in regard to our areas of interest as we conclude this initial study?

- Caveats: With the very limited and brief doctrinal expressions seen in the NT, any disagreement at all pretty much branded you an unbeliever, or at least a heretic.

Tiers: It is possible that the doctrinal areas which were developed in the earliest confession-like statements in the NT should still be considered the most important/central.  If so, the reference to the nature of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), the person and work of Christ (e.g., Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:14-20; 1 Timothy 3:16) and the gospel message (1 Corinthians 15:1-11) are crucial for our consideration in regard to the idea of “tiers.”  We will return to consider this again later in our series.

A Canon within the Canon: Certainly, it way too early to see anything like that in the NT, as it was still being written and would not be formally recognized as a “canon” until the 4th century A.D.  However, the NT’s use of the OT is worthy of note in this area.  Although Jesus effectively said that all parts of the Hebrew Bible were equally authoritative (Matthew 5:17-18), it is known from the OT locations of the quotations in the NT that certain books were used much more often than others (and some not at all, like Esther).  So, the phenomena of OT usage in the NT somewhat resembles the way most SBC pastors employ their Bibles in preaching.  All you have to do is look at their Bibles and note the dirty/wrinkled/used parts and you will see our unadmitted “canon within the canon.”  Almost every SBC pastor, though affirming theologically the equal inspiration of all 66 books of the Bible without hesitation, tends to focus on the NT and only certain books there at that.

Canon vs. Apocrypha: I’m guilty here of reading back these much later terms into the NT.  But, knowing I’m doing that, something useful can still come out of it.  How?  As the NT was being written (and passages like 1 Timothy 5:17-18 and 2 Peter 3:16 reveal that the writers and others were well aware that Scripture was being produced), it would have been easy for other books (such as Paul’s two non-Scripture letters to the church at Corinth) to gain a status that was close to Scripture.  But, the early church would not allow it, which displays great wisdom and is to their everlating credit.  Unfortunately, as church history progressed, the ability to resist the lure of apocryphal books lessened, until things got to a crisis point some time before the Protestant Reformation began.

Vantage point as we end this first stanza: Not much has been seen that can help in understanding the “Caveats” issue yet and the only thing of consequence that might be of benefit in discussing the possibility of doctrinal ”Tiers” is to observe what doctrines crystalized earlies in the NT, assuming that might reflect the most foundational/important/ central theological emphases.  In regard to the “Canon within the Canon” question–which may also have significance for the “Tiers” issue–the use of the OT in the NT may provide some clues worth pursuing.  Finally, the dramatic difference between true inspired/authoritative NT books and all other writings (i.e., “Canon vs. Apocrypha”), even if authored by one of the apostles, has been crystal clear since the NT era. 

As I close, is it just me, or is passing odd that, while even believers in the NT era could see the clear distinction between what has historically been called the authoritative “canon” vs. the non-authoritative writings (which could be referred to as “apocrypha”), the SBC in the early 21st century is currently falling prey to a blurring of these most basic, foundational distinctions?  The authoritative “canon” status of the only “only consensus doctrinal statement” passed by the Convention, the BFM2000, is in the process of being subtly undermined by the non-consensus (and, thus, lacking full authority) “apocyphal” de facto doctrinal guidelines/ policies of some of her entities.  If we open our eyes, is this not a big enough crisis of authority to gain our fully-deserved concern and attention, or will we slumber, only to wake up with a doctrinal statement effectively ”neutered” by all the pseudo-authoritative entity pronouncements that have been encrusted upon it?

Next Time: “The Relevance of the Doctrinal Statements of Earlier Church History for Studying the BFM2000″

Friday is for… A Movie Review (This Week) and Previews of “Coming Attractions”

 The following are the initial examples of my weekly local newspaper column, which is intended to be somewhat interesting culturally, thought-provoking and usually evangelistic, though without beating people over the head with the gospel.  These recent columns are reprinted here with permission of the Times-Guardian of Canyon Lake, TX (@2007).  All views expressed are mine and not that of the paper or its editor.

 

“A Review of ‘Evan Almighty’ (I)”

I had the opportunity to see a movie last Friday (which I don’t do much, with the last really good flick I saw at a movie theater being “Amazing Grace”).  And, I chose to pay money to see “Evan Almighty,” a choice about which I was happy in one way, but still have mixed emotions about in another.

Why did I choose “Evan Almighty?”  Honestly, there was nothing else showing besides the latest “Die Hard” installment that I was even remotely interested in watching.  However, I must admit that I was actually interested in seeing how the movie handled the Noah/flood story angle which dominated its trailers on television.

Before proceeding, let me say that I think this discussion deserves two weekly installments.  So, after briefly laying out a few general overview thoughts, I will spend the rest of my space in this column treating several specific things that bothered me about the movie from a theological perspective.  Then, next week, I will consider several things that I thought were worthy of commendation, again from a theological vantage point.

Admittedly, all of these may well be angles that most average viewers would never consider.  But, that just might be the very reason why what I have to say this week and next may be of real value to you: because you would not think about these things, even though it would be definitely be in your best interest spiritually do so.In general, if you have not seen “Evan Almighty,” it does not pretend to be anything other than a clever sequel to “Bruce Almighty,” starring Jim Carrey and Morgan Freeman (as the “God” figure).  There is nothing “almighty” about the Evan Baxter (played by Steve Carrell of “The Office” fame)/Noah-revisited character.  The wording in the title simply plays off “Bruce Almighty.”  If anything, Evan is portrayed as quite klutzy (e.g., some funny physical humor by Carrell), and as a lightweight intellectually and biblically/spiritually (e.g., his clueless attempt at bedside prayer, which is probably about where the average American nominal “Christian” is today).

In numerous ways, this is targeted as a “family movie,” carrying a PG rating.  Suffice it to say that the humor is kept within an acceptable range for children.  It is cast with credible actors and the visual and special effects are quite well done, sometimes eye-popping.

As I said earlier, my problems with “Evan Almighty” are biblical and theological in nature.  First, “Evan Almighty” trivializes God.  But, don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here: Morgan Freeman is my fellow Mississippian and one of my all-time favorite actors.  Yet, there is nothing from any of the scenes in “Evan Almighty” (or “Bruce Almighty,” for that matter) which remotely reminds you of anything that Scripture presents about God revealing Himself to humanity—and that includes God being born into this world as the God-Man, Jesus Christ.  This movie presents God re-interpreted in man’s image, not man made in God’s image, as Scripture teaches (Genesis 1:26-27).

Second, it trivializes the purpose of the original biblical Flood.  The account in Genesis clearly states that the Flood was judgment upon the almost entirely corrupt population of the earth, unlike what the movie presents from Morgan Freeman’s mouth.  Yes, there was redemption for sinful humanity in the biblical account, through Noah and his family.  But, there is nothing about the biblical concept of redemption in “Evan Almighty.”          

Third, the movie trivializes what the Bible says is involved in changing the world.  Freeman’s “God” says the world is transformed by “acts of random kindness” (the wording allows the Noah-oriented pun acronym ARK).  By contrast, while Scripture says that we are each to love God and our neighbors (Matthew 22:34-40), the actual means of true transformation is intentional acts of evangelism—individual people sharing the life-changing good news of Jesus Christ with those who have not yet trusted Him for salvation.  As we will see next week, “Evan Almighty” has a great opportunity to make this exact point, but backs off before clarifying what is meant.

“A Review of ‘Evan Almighty’ (II)”

Last week, I began my review of the movie “Evan Almighty” with a positive overview and three stated areas of concern: 1) It trivializes God (i.e., His person, character and power); 2) It trivializes the purpose of the original biblical Flood (i.e., its character as righteous Divine judgment on an almost thoroughly evil world); and 3) It trivializes what the Bible says is involved in changing the world (i.e., we need intentional acts of sharing the good news of Jesus Christ, not just “acts of random kindness” [which words were given the acronym ARK, trying to be clever]).           

However, there certainly were some good things about “Evan Almighty.”  Please understand, though, that this is not a complete list of the good features of the movie—in my opinion, of course—any more than last week’s article contained a full list of its problems.             

 Again, I will list three things and briefly discuss them.  Hopefully, these will provide you, the reader, with some provocative food for thought.           

First, “Evan Almighty” did realistically—even if humorously—depict the sense of confusion caused by God’s unexpected call upon someone’s life.  I’ve seen those strange stares when I tried to explain to people—many of whom were close kin or friends of many years—that God was calling me into ministry for Him.  Particularly troubling to me was trying to explain to my career military father that I was not going to pursue my undergraduate degree in accounting or go to law school, as much of my mother’s family had done—and was expected of me.           

And, like Evan, it was not something that I desired to be “called.”  It was the furthest thing from my mind!  Also like Evan, I initially ran from it, until God knocked me flat on my back and I couldn’t run any more (in the infirmary at Mississippi Sate University, where I finally said “Uncle!” and gave in to God’s will for my life).           

Second, “Evan Almighty” did effectively visualize the kind of ridiculing unbelief that God’s spokespersons have often been greeted with by their hearers.  In spite of much evidence that Evan was a kind of a prophet from God, nobody beyond Evan’s family believed what God was saying through Evan was going to happen.  That was exactly what happened with Noah and his family (see Genesis 6-7): Nobody listened… and then, the Flood, when, sadly, it was too late.           

Third, “Evan Almighty” did accurately use a biblical term that needs to be heard in our day almost as much as Noah’s: Repent!  It even occurred at a key point in the plot: when a Congressional leader was being exposed in regard to massive corruption.  However, the full biblical significance of the term “repent” was not explained—meaning that the average viewer would have only taken it to mean “be sorry for what you’ve done,” if they thought about it at all. 

Here’s where it comes in handy to have written the “Repentance” entry for the Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 Volumes (Doubleday, 1992).   “Repent” is a rich biblical word, which, literally, means “to change the mind.”  At the human level, it always refers to changing your thinking in regard to sin.  In the New Testament, “repentance” is sometimes a capsule of the gospel message, including faith in Jesus Christ (e.g., Acts 2:38; 2 Peter 3:9).  At the very least, it is the first side of the coin of how a person becomes a Christian—repent of your sinful state—with the other side of the coin being faith in Jesus Christ.

Bottom line: “Evan Almighty” opened the door by asserting that mankind needs to repent toward God of our sins.  However, “Evan Almighty” did not walk through that door by defining what repent implies: that every one of us is dead spiritually (and, thus, lost forever; Romans 6:23) outside of faith in Jesus (John 3:16).           

Coming Attractions:

1. If I have not heard anything back from Tim Guthrie by early this evening, I will assume that he is not interested in participating in the dicussion I have called “An Interchange with Tim Guthrie within BFM2000: Cavernous Caveats, Three Tiers or a ‘Canon within the Canon?’”  However, I am going to pursue the topic anyway, just without Tim’s direct input (although he may still participate as a commenter, as long as he observes my two stated standards of decorum [please see 'About This Blog']: 1) Have a balanced take; and 2) Don’t sin).  So, if nothing from Tim is forthcoming while I’m out of the office on business this afternoon, I will post my first installment in that series later this evening, which I would call “What Showeth the Scriptures.”

2. On Monday afternoon (or evening, depending on time constraints), I will begin a series of posts I’m calling “The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today.”  No, it will not just be in regard to the current burning issues related to the cessationism vs. continuationism face-off (which now must be updated and realistically adjusted in the light of the Lifeway survey), though that will come up late in the series.  You see, there is a great deal more about the Holy Spirit that everybody in the SBC needs to think about, even if the spiritual gifts issues are never mentioned–though they will in due time.

What to Expect Method/Level-wise:

Both sets of studies will be:

- Selective: I am only going to treat a few key examples at any point along the way–just enough to get across the point.  Only if the majority of commenters ask for more discussion in an area, will I stack up the examples.  After all, this is a blog, not a doctoral seminar (or even a formal semester course at a Bible college).  My natural style is more rather than less (in case you haven’t noticed!).  So, this is more of a limit on me than anything else.  I don’t want anyone to feel like they are running a marathon just to get through an installment I’ve written.

- Simple: In the comment stream of a recent guest essay I did for SBC Outpost, I got chided by a student named Hiram and it was essentially because of what I’ve heard called “theological shorthand” (i.e., technical theological terminology) in regard to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.  He was right and I apologized.  So, I will attempt to use the K.I.S.S. method in these studies.  (By the way, I do not mean “Keep it simple, Stupid” in this case.  I’m going with “Keep it simple for students (at whatever level).”

- Specific, that is, to the current Southern Baptist context.  Even if it may seem I’m off on a “rabbit trail” at certain points in these studies, I will work hard to draw them back in to this context, showing the helpfulness of why I discussed what I did the way I did.

Blessings, Boyd

“Leading” by Re-educating

At the SBC meeting in San Antonio, Morris Chapman effectively preached a sermon called “Leading by Example.”  In this very candid presentation, Dr. Chapman laid out what the Executive Committee has done and is recommending (i.e., leading by example) that needs to be done to face emerging problematic areas in SBC life–notably, the overreaching of entity trustees in regard to adding de facto doctrinal guidelines/policies without having them voted on as amendments to BFM2000.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if some representative of the small inner circle of Conservative Resurgence, Phase II leadership would step up to the plate and make a similar candid presentation about CR II strategy?  Admittedly, I don’t expect it to happen.  However, I think it is entirely possible to extrapolate/intuit about 90% of what would be said, including a very plausible title (played off Morris Chapman’s): “Leading by Re-educating.”  See what you think!

(Note: I have immense respect for much of what the Conservative Resurgence did in bringing the SBC to the point of passage of BFM2000.  However, I have no respect for their covert strategy currently being played out, apparently because they are painfully aware that the SBC would be in no mood to pass the amendments to the BFM that they really want. So, they had to figure out creative alternative ways to “get it done.”)

While my own preaching style is not necessarily that traditional and my own musical ability/training is pretty minimal, I am convinced this message could be done in perfect three-point harmony (get it–the three points below!), so to speak.  The “big idea” and outline would run something like this:

Main Idea- CR, Phase II will further re-make the SBC in their image by re-educating/re-defining the BFM2000, trustee accountability and Baptist distinctives.

I. Re-classify the protected regulative (i.e., maximal) status of BFM2000 to a vulnerable normative (minimal) document.

II. Re-assure key trustee accomplices that they will never be disciplined by the SBC for carrying out the CR agenda.

III. Re-vision Baptist distinctives, even if it takes several years, in keeping with the CR agenda.

In regard to the first point of the outline, I’m not going to re-hash this here, since my post on this process being played out in regard to BFM2000–”The Theological Capstone of the Conservative Resurgence”–is just a couple of days old.  Suffice it to say that the CR had done an outstanding job implementing Point I until notable motions at the Greensboro and San Antonio SBC meetings, clarifying the maximal “canon” nature and status of BFM2000 “in its current form,” since it is “the only consensus doctrinal statement” of the SBC.

In regard to Point II, I’m going to point you to a post I did last Friday: “Trustee ‘Accountability’ and the Reality of Sin.”  Again, this part of the strategy was working like a charm until the last couple of years, when people started waking up.  And, it should be noted that this area has to be watched carefully because you can only push it so far, so fast before a lot of people get absolutely livid at the abuse of the trustee system.  Everything depends on doing it as covertly as possible, so that the Convention at large does not get aggravated enough to follow through on formally closing the massive loophole in the SBC Bylaws that provides no workable means of holding entity trustees accountable to the Convention.

In regard to Point III, I have not discussed anything previously.  So, I will spend a little time here on the CR II implementation in this area.

One of the more interesting aspects of what’s going at Southwestern Seminary is the Center for Theological Inquiry (which I’ve heard referred to as the ‘Center for Theological Inquiry into How to Influence Acceptance of the CR II Agenda for the SBC’), directed by the eminent Dr. Malcolm Yarnell.  Now, it is somewhat over-simplified to refer to CTI as simply a propaganda machine for CR, Phase II.  But, it would not be much off base to say that it could just as easily be named “The Center for Baptist Distinctives.”  In other words, it is no coincidence that the list of “white papers” (or whatever other colors they choose to utilize) flowing forth is, though not exactly, at least fairly close to the key doctrinal/polity areas either being defended (e.g., the SBC trustee system), attacked or re-thought, or pioneer areas in which CTI/CR is on the move to staking out a claim of “true” Baptist identity.

Yes, Drs. Patterson, Yarnell, et al realize full well that there are competing visions of Baptist identity at work in the SBC.  Certainly, they have attended the Union University conferences on that subject.  But, they are confident that their louder insistence and longer persistence will win the day for the CR when the dust from the current “Baptist identity” debates settle.

And, they have another clever angle going for them in this stuggle for the “self-identity” of the SBC: Traditionally, Baptist identity has been considered to be a description of the past culminating in the present (i.e., the way came to be the way they are).  With the CR, it has been re-defined as a present shaping the future prescription (i.e., the way they influence things to be are the way they will be).

Since this is supposed to be “sermonic,” I need to have at least one helpful illustration in here somewhere.  So, drawing upon my limited knowledge of the insect world, I humbly ask that you consider an “exoskelton” as a collective illustration of the CR, Phase II strategy.

If you don’t know what an exoskeleton is, it’s the hard protective plating on the outside of some insects.  But, why would I use this illustration here?  Here’s why:

- CR, Phase I (1970s-2000 or so) utilized the existing “canonical” skeleton of the SBC and defeated the moderates/liberals at their own game. 

- However, CR, Phase II (the last several years) has resorted to creating an “apocryphal” exoskelton for the SBC while it wasn’t paying attention, completely re-defining the rules of the game in order to exercise dominant power over (Matthew 20:25-26) their fellow BFM2000 inerrancy-believing conservatives.

What does the hard plating of the CR II exoskeleton consist of?  (This allows us to review/apply our “as easy as 1, 2, 3″ outline:)

- Rendering the BFM2000 impotent to stop any extra-Constitutional doctrinal additions through the side door of trustee guidelines/policies.

- Resisting trustee accountability by acting as if the big, bad Southern Baptist Convention is somehow overstepping the supposed “legitimate” power of the rebel trustees.

- Rolling out one marginally Landmarkist or narrowing Fundamentalist doctrinal angle after another and–by sheer force of repetiton–beat it into the head of Southern Baptists that these things are SBC “Baptist distinctives,” even though they were, in the bulk of the cases, never held by more than a minority element–usually a cantankerous minority element–before in SBC history.

As I prepare to close, please allow me to give you a couple of well-known historical examples of situations in which such religious exoskeletons were allowed to harden into place:

- Judaism: You don’t have to go very far in the Gospels to realize that, even though Jesus graciously dealt with the “publicans and sinners,” it was just exactly this kind of legalistic framework/ mentality that irritated Him immensely about the Pharisees and Saducees.

- Catholicism: The full-blown medieval Roman Catholic system was the spiritual “prison” from which the early Reformers, including many of the Anabaptists, had to escape through the gospel of grace.  Sadly, the direct descendants of those who courageously sought to reform the church also ended up getting persecuted by the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

Conclusion- The CR really only needs two things to happen for them to push on through to full-blown victory in Phase II over the next few years:

- The Convention must continue to elect hard-core CR presidents, who will enable all the croneyism/nepotism appointments which will guarantee that the entity trustee boards will put in place the CR agenda.

- You and your church must remain “asleep” or apathetic/uninvolved in the Convention while “all the good stuff” is being orchestrated.

As you finish this essay, I challenge you to think about things in the light of this brief imaginary phone conversation:

“Sir, Ma’am, this is your wake-up call.”

“Uh, we think we would like to sleep a little while longer.  Why don’t you call us again later?”

“It’s your decision, of course.  But, let me remind you that you’ve had several wake-up calls already and you still aren’t awake.”

“You’re right, but we just don’t want to face what needs to be done if we wake up.”

“It’s your choice.  But, I must at least tell you that you are responsible and that, before another wake-up call comes, it could be too late.”

An Interchange with Tim Guthrie within BFM2000: Cavernous Caveats, Three Tiers or a “Canon within the Canon?”

In the comment stream related to my guest essay on SBC Outpost, “The Garner BFM2000 Motion: An Exegesis/Exposition,” posted last weekend, I ended up interacting with Tim Guthrie, who has another concern besides the spotlighted issue of the integrity of the BFM “in its current form,” which is currently under external attack by non-consensus de facto doctrinal additions by some entity trustee boards.  Tim apparently believes that the internal integrity of the BFM is also in grave danger from “caveats” (i.e., qualifications and explanations as to why you cannot agree with something).  I had noticed him pursue this passionately on other blogs, so I know this is not a sudden curiosity at all.

Well, to be completely candid up front, I do not agree at all with Tim that what have agreed to discuss deserves to the “front burner” issue in SBC circles right now in regard to BFM2000.  However, I do fully recognize that, as the Apostle Paul cautioned the Ephesian elders, it is always necessary to be vigilant in regard to both external and internal dangers to the Lord’s church (Acts 20:28-30).  So, in that light, let’s go for it, to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).

The following are the relevant comments that brought us to this point:

(Boyd) “… If this something you are vitally interested in, Tim, maybe you and I could do a recurring exchange of views, much like what David Rogers and Malcolm Yarnell are doing in regard to the Great Commission on David’s blog.

Here’s what I’m proposing: if it could be done in an edifying, iron sharpens iron manner, I am wide open to a dialogue on what you are calling the “minimum”–although I actually think you are talking about theological tiers.

What saith thou?”

(Tim) “Your invitation is accepted. Please email me at tim@winningtruth.com.

I think the whole triage issue is the real debate and everything else is fluff I have been trying to figure out how in the world a layered approach could possibly work.

I look forward to the dialogue.”

(Boyd) “Even though I do not think that the tiers of BFM2000 is the real issue at all, I am certainly willing to talk it through and see what we can learn together.

Tim, I will contact you tomorrow on your blog and see what we can figure out.”

As soon as I finish writing this, I am going to post it on my blog and email what I’m saying here to Tim, to see whether he is in agreement as to whether/how we will proceed.  I hope he is still interested, because, even though this interaction will take time I really can’t spare easily, this is a very important subject and should come up for serious discussion at some point, even if it does not deserve SBC “center stage” right now.

Tim, since we are going to be discussing your chosen subject, I respectfully insist on the following ground rules and progression/ procedure.  If you are in agreement, we’re off to the races:

Progression: So that either or both of us does not lose perspective, we need to keep “A text without a context is a pretext” out front at all times.  In that regard, in discussing BFM2000, I would suggest that we look first at relevant biblical data on a question like theological tiers/caveats, second at the wider historical/theological context and SBC historical/theological context in which BFM2000 has emerged, third at the various numbered (I, II, etc.) doctrine areas of the BFM in an overview sense, and finally at whatever specific specific doctrinal wording you are really troubled about right now (yes, you may have “carte blanche” authority to set the agenda at that point, if you wish).

Procedure: Like the way David Rogers and Malcolm Yarnell are dialoguing about the Great Commission, let’s do consecutive letters which we will both post on our blogs the day received.  Each letter will both answer the last one from the other and lay out additional ideas or questions.  We will continue going back and forth until we both agree that we’re “beating a dead horse” and decide to put the dialogue out of its misery. 

Ground Rules:

1) We will “agree to disagree agreeably” at every step along the way.  We are brothers in Christ and we must not let the sun go down on our anger, or we are making available to Satan a huge “place” to do his thing (Ephesians 4:26-27), at the same time that the Lord’s name is dragged through the mud.

2) We will each field only the comments/questions that come to our own blog, since we have different readers, and we will stay out of the comment stream on the other’s blog–which would just “muddy the water.”  If a (non-political) comment/question comes in that seems worth raising in a subsequent letter, so much the better. 

3) In that regard, we resist the temptation to bring current SBC politics into the discussion, at least until we are right at the end and in a position to make application from what we have learned together.  If we do not do so, things will become emotionally charged and counter-productive.  One thing I have learned over a lot of years of experience in both the local church and the classroom is that, when the heat (emotional) level goes up, the light (insight into truth) level goes way down.

and 4) Both of us pledge to refrain completely from going on anyone else’s blog and commenting about what we are discussing.  This is our dialogue and it is not for “export” (other than through our readers’ comments, who we can’t effectively police) until we have worked our way carefully through the issues.  Point: If we are going to take the time/effort to take on a subject like this, let’s do its right and pledge ourselves to be disciplined enough before the Lord and respectful enough of each other to not “go off half-cocked” and throw out some “half-baked” idea, just because it’s tittilating at the moment.

In closing (for this lead-off stanza): Tim, I very much look forward to getting to know you through this interaction!  Now, if you have any initial thoughts to lay out on how Scripture might speak to the issue(s) of tiers/caveats, the ball is in your court, so to speak.

I’ll pray for you in responding,

Boyd

The Theological Capstone of the Conservative Resurgence

“The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 stands as the theological capstone of the Conservative Resurgence.”  If you weren’t there at the SBC meeting in San Antonio, those were the first words out of Rick Garner’s mouth when he spoke in favor of what is now known simply as “the Garner Motion.”  I was humbled and grateful to have been able to be with Rick for part of the time in which he was preparing for what turned out to be a very well-presented use of his allotted three minutes.  We discussed that phraseology as the lead-off wording for that vitally important mini-speech and I am even more convinced today than then that it was the correct way for him to start: BFM2000 “stands as the theological capstone of the Conservative Resurgence.”

Yet, almost as soon as the Garner Motion passed quite handily (by a 15% margin), the grasping-at-straws attempts to undermine it, ranging from brilliant people playing dumb (and calling SBC messengers too dumb to understand) to “reader response” redefinition of its meaning to angry intimidation by entity heads, proclaiming they would do their own thing no matter what the SBC thought it had passed, began with a vengeance.  And, I definitely had to have to give their proponents credit for energy and short-term creativity, if not any real substance or persuasiveness.   

To me, though, the most intriguing–though still light years away from persuasive for anyone who is not in full denial–is the claim that “the BFM2000 was never intended to be a maximal document (i.e., ruling out adding theological additions by entities without a full SBC vote).”  As will be seen, that viewpoint is, at the very best, a half-truth and not worthy of the sense of history and “legacy” that should be expected from those who made that history and forged that legacy.

What do I mean by those assertions?  As we shall see: 1) the claim that was BFM2000 was not intended as a “maximal” document is false, but that is blunted slightly by the fact that the issue is completely anachronistic (i.e., read back onto a time before it ever even came up for discussion); and 2) the CR leadership is unwilling to face the fact that their overwhelming desire for a winnable medium-sized overhaul of the BFM in 2000 precluded any realistic ability to do more theological tinkering with BFM for quite a while–and this is the tragic part–at least tinkering that was above board and in keeping with accepted SBC protocol.

Let’s now go back and view BFM2000 from the front end, moving forward to when it was passed by the SBC.  The earlier history is very straightforward: the first BFM was adopted by the SBC in 1925.  The first major overhaul came in 1963 and had a major section on “The Family” amended in 1998.  Then, came the passage of BFM “in its current form,” to quote the Garner Motion in 2000.

Obviously, that’s not much activity over a 75-year period!  It’s just that simple: 38 years came and went between the first and second BFM’s and 37 more years before the current version.  And, very significant for the current focus on BFM2000, we find only one smaller amendment along the way.

Now, beyond these bare numbers was the reality of the Conservative Resurgence strategy working its “trickle-down” gradual transformation on the SBC from the late 1970s to the late 1990s.  The passage of “The Family” amendment, a pet project of Paige Patterson’s, was a “gearing up” show of CR strength in 1998.  Then, the top of the mountain (a.k.a. “the capstone”) was in place when the substantial rewriting of the BFM now known as BFM2000 was safely passed.

Please understand–in the Southern Baptist Convention, you don’t go to the well too many times with issues of this magnitude!  So, it had to be done right to assure its comfortable passage (i.e., to be a mandate).  In order for that to be the case, issues were prioritized and only the ones that the CR big dogs thought truly crucial were included.  Even if some of the honchos wanted certain pet doctrinal ideas represented in BFM2000, they did not want to stir up more opposition or raise the slightest possibility of a splintering of the CR coalition.  So, in order to assure their culminating capstone doctrinal ascendance, they “settled” for a winnable BFM, which was not the BFM that some of them longed to put into place.

Without question, it was a time of great joy in the triumph, as well as a time to quickly consolidate the unquestioned authority of the brand new BFM.  All SBC entities quickly adopted it as their doctrinal standard (although Southern and Southeastern seminaries have the historic “Abstract of Principles” in place also).  And, Al Mohler, speaking for the BFM2000 committee, called the new doctrinal statement “a regulative document,” which, from his Reformed background, strongly infers that nothing is to be added beyond its parameters.  That perspective seems even more certain, though, from the fact that Mohler referred to the passage of BFM2000 by all entity trustee boards as acts of “faithfulness and accountability” to the Convention.  How else can that be understood other than that BFM2000 was intended to be a “maximal” document, since it would be faithless and unaccountable for any trustees to alter (by de facto doctrinal additions) this “regulative document” which they had pledged to uphold?

Thus, from the vantage point of moving forward through the years to the passage of the current BFM in 2000, it is so incredibly unlikely as to be practically unbelievable that any CR leader ever even thought any further down the line than getting the new BFM–the theological capstone of the 20-plus year SBC Conservative Resurgence–in place and functioning to secure the new era of biblical inerrancy.  If any of the CR leaders–and especially any entity trustees–ever did think of adding anything doctrinally to BFM2000, it would have been by some distant constitutional amendment process, since that is the only way it had ever been done in SBC history (i.e., the existing precedent).  But, mostly, they were willing to give up their doctrinal ideals for a vastly improved BFM that could be assured of passage, all involved believing it was well worth the sacrifice to safeguard the crowning victory.

Let’s stop for a moment here and set forth a midstream conclusion by the use of a helpful analogy with how evangelicals view the 66 books of the Bible: as the complete biblical canon, to which nothing is to be added.  Just as the Bible is a closed canon consisting only of books recognized by the clear “consensus” of the churches, so was BFM2000 accepted as the “only consensus doctrinal statement” of the SBC.  No, it certainly does not have the same authority as inerrant Scripture, but that does not in any way lessen the fact that it is the only legitimate “consensus” doctrinal authority for the SBC.  It is, if you will, our doctrinal (closed) canon and can only be legitimately changed by formal amendment, which, so to speak, reopens our “doctrinal canon,” then closes it again around a “consensus” duly amended BFM2000.

But, along the way in the time since, someone in the CR camp came to the point where they were no longer content with the BFM2000, viewing it as an incomplete doctrinal legacy.  Why?  There probably is no better psychological insight available than the following well-known story: “How much money is enough? a reporter asked the fabulously wealthy John D. Rockefeller.  His famous answer: “Just a little bit more.”

But, in seeking to modify BFM2000 in the direction of their personal preferences, they faced a major hurdle: it would be unthinkable to the SBC at large to re-open the “canon” of BFM2000 after such a short span of years and, therefore, an unwinnable battle for 10-20 years, if not longer.

So, what’s a group who doesn’t want to wait that long for a “greater doctrinal legacy” supposed to do?  How about a covert flanking maneuver on the BFM2000?

What a brilliant strategy!  Get entity trustee boards to pass doctrinal guidelines and policies beyond the parameters of BFM2000 and create the situation which can be called–to play off the “canon” analogy discussed above–a doctrinal “apocrypha” over and beyond BFM2000.  No, these entity guidelines do not in any way, shape, form or fashion carry the “consensus” force of legitimate SBC passage.  Still, like the Catholic Church’s use of the biblical apocrypha prior to their official acceptance into the RCC canon at the Council of Trent, the entity trustees in question are using them much as Catholicism insisted on “purgatory” long before there was any consensus authoritative institutional basis for doing so.

Talk about an ironic situation!  CR leaders who have most opposed the idea of Southern Baptists dialoguing with Catholics are now relying on the clever vehicle of a doctrinal “apocrypha” to leverage things toward changes they eventually want made in BFM2000, but know they can’t realistically get passed through the formal amending process anytime soon. 

As has been seen, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 does indeed stand as the theological capstone of the Conservative Resurgence, and that remains true, whether some of those most responsible for its passage as our only “consensus” doctrinal statement “in its current form” are now willing to own up to the actual history sketched above or not.  Thus, it appears that recent complaining in the CR camp is mostly because they have been caught trying to change the rules of the game (i.e., in regard to the BFM) at halftime (i.e., after viewing things the “maximal”/canon way all the way through the passage of BFM2000 and beyond), so to speak, without seeing any necessity to tell anyone outside their inner circle. 

What would that sort of behavior be called in any athletic setting? From an ethics standpoint, nothing more or less than cheating!  But, how does the CR view it?  Apparently as a centerpiece of their creative winning strategy for the CR, Phase II.  Does anybody else detect both serious ethical and credibility problems here?

Trustee ‘Accountability’ and the Reality of Sin

“The Executive Committee shall not have authority to control or direct the several boards, entities, and institutions of the Convention.  This is the responsibility of trustees elected by the Convention and accountable directly to the Convention” (SBC Bylaws 18E[9]; italics mine). 

“Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves” (Baptist Faith and Message 2000, V).

How does the above wording in the SBC Bylaws in regard to the accountability of entity trustees to the Convention relate to the above wording of the SBC’s consensus doctrinal statement in regard to the reality of sin in the life of believer?  Frankly, I do not know the answer to that question, and that is the crux of a huge disconnect between confessional SBC theology and SBC polity.

Why do I say that?  Simply put, the SBC Bylaw here presumes entity trustee accountability, but short-sightedly provides no workable way to hold trustees accountable, whenever they choose not to be faithful in honoring their expected direct accountability to the Convention.  You see, it is obviously not workable to remove a trustee, since it has never been done in the long history of the system, no matter how grievous the failings and crimes of some trustees.

In other words, even though our confessional position is that believers do in fact “fall into sin through neglect and temptation” and ”bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves,” our trustee-related Bylaw reads as if it’s assumed they can’t–or at least won’t.  And, that, my friends, is, at best, naive and, at worst, out of contact with the theological reality that Christians sin.

How can things go astray in such a leadership context without adequate accountability?  It often follows a subtle progression like that in James 1:14-15: “Each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desires.  Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin… .”

Consider the following common examples of what happens when there is authority with insufficient accountability (in no particular chronological order):

- When true accountability is not present to properly hold your actions in check, your ego expands and you take on a false sense of power.

- When your ego swells, you think you are smarter and wiser than you really are.

- When a Christian begins to think he/she is smarter than everyone else, they begin to equate their desires and decisions with God’s will.

- When a person gets to the point that he/she consistently thinks their will/way is God’s will/way, they lose touch with anything but the “reality” provided by those who stroke his/her ego.

- When anyone seeks to hold you accountable, they are automatically viewed as in opposition to God, because, in your mind, you are God’s representative who is beyond questioning.

- When a threat to your “power” is perceived, the defense of power becomes more important than anything else, since power is the “throne” for your ego.

- When you are challenged to be open and above board in your dealings, out of paranoia, you go behind closed doors and demand confidentiality of all involved.

My dear readers, in describing such a progression, I am simply reminding each of us of two things here: 1) that pride can lead a Christian to do otherwise unthinkably self-serving things; and 2) that pride always puts a prideful person on the wrong side of all issues with the Lord, according to 1 Peter 5:5: “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (HCSB).

No, none of us want to think that our trustees, seminary presidents, pastors or missionaries sin (and, as seen above, become prideful and paranoid).  But, every one of us sins on a very consistent basis.  And, to ever think otherwise is to, at the practical level, assume the Church of the Nazarene doctrine of sinless perfection (a view which, by the way, even many of the best-known Nazarene theologians are currently calling into question).

So, on the one hand, the Southern Baptist Convention  is fully orthodox in its view of sin in the life of believer expressed in BFM2000. On the other hand, though, its unconscious dependence on “sinless perfection” in its trustees has left the Convention completely defenseless against any self-willed trustees who choose not to do the expressed will of the Convention (with the Garner Motion, passed in San Antonio, requesting trustee boards to operate within the bounds of BFM2000 in making entity guidelines/policies, currently emerging as a telling test case).

Interestingly, the trustees in question say: “Trust us.  We know what we’re doing.” 

Yes, indeed.  They do know exactly what they’re doing.  They know that it is not the expressed will of the Convention, to whom are expected to be directly accountable… yet they keep doing it anyway. 

In that light, why should we trust them?  Trust is earned by proving to be trustworthy, something that’s not currently taking place–in fact, just the opposite.  They are the “stewards” and “managers” of our SBC entities and, in that role, “it is expected… that each one be found faithful” (1 Corinthians 4:2), in this case, to the will of the Southern Baptist Convention, whenever that is expressed.  To do otherwise is to be unfaithful and untrustworthy. 

Sadly, that is the diagnosis of a mounting groundswell of Southern Baptists: They no longer trust the trustees of several of their entities to faithfully represent them, because their trust has been shattered.  However, their hands are currently tied by the SBC Bylaw from taking any action (short of the radical solution of de-funding an entity, of course) to bring back into line, or discipline, rebellious trustees. 

Where is this headed?  The SBC may be picking up momentum toward a Constitutional crisis (unless, of course, some even-handed intervention in the form of a realistic reorganization of the trustee system can be achieved).  It is not completely unlike one of the major issues that brought on the Civil War.  The South demanded “states’ rights,” while the North insisted on the rights of the United States over the individual states.  In the current situation in the SBC, some renegade trustees and administrators stubbornly insist on what could be called “entity rights,” while the majority of the SBC at large expects those trustees/administrators to fall in line with the expressed will of the Convention.

How does this stack up on the “what’s fair and balanced” front?  Hmmm!  Let’s see–the SBC: 1) elects the entity trustees to do their will and be directly accountable to them; 2) has sole ownership of the entities; and 3) provides the bulk of the funding for the entities through the Cooperative Program.  So, in “gratitude” for these realities, certain entity trustees (and administrators, in some cases) do whatever is right in their own eyes (Judges 17:6; 21:25), with no concern that they will ever be held accountable.  What’s wrong with this picture?

And, yet, is is also not “fair” to completely blame those haughty trustees and administrators for this situation.  The SBC Bylaw in question naively provides more than enough room for any leaders with ego problems to play out the rope until they hang themselves with self-serving decisions out of keeping with the will of the Convention.  When there is no actual accountability, over time, the theological reality of sin in the life of the believer should alert us that unfettered human ego will exploit any blind spot available to personal advantage.

This is why I am convicted that the current difficulty has got to be dealt with on both fronts: somehow figuring out a way to 1) truly hold those uncooperative trustees and administrators accountable for their decisions which are out of step with their responsibility to represent the whole SBC, at the same time that 2) the blind spot in the SBC Bylaw is corrected, not just as a quick fix, but to protect future SBC entity trustees and administrators from potential egotistical excesses born out of unaccountability.

Several months ago, we had a problem in our church that forcefully brought this truth home to me.  Because of a big need in a certain area, I had asked someone to take over an area of ministry without setting up proper controls and accountability.  The person in question was definitely gifted for the role, but not mature enough to handle the spotlight of leadership.  And, as could have been predicted, it ended badly.  When some problems in regard to this person being an unaccountable “loose cannon” arose, ego and anger brought about a very bad scene, complete with unwillingness to take any responsibility for what happened and blaming everybody else.

Well, that irresponsibility was dead wrong.  But, I had to share in that responsiblity also.  I had not set up the accountability on the front end.  So, in a very convicting sense, I had unwittingly set this person up to fail.

In closing, will the SBC continue to set up its entity trustees and administrators for potentially very painful and far-reaching failure by not having adequate accountability built into its Bylaw?  Hopefully, all who take seriously the biblical doctrine of sin reflected in BFM2000 will move to plug this expanding hole in the SBC dike at the earliest opportunity.  If we really care about our entities and their proper governance, we cannot do otherwise.

What’s in a Name?

 Our church has published a one-page summary of what we believe for visitors, so that they don’t have to wade through our whole doctrinal statement.  At the end of that summary are these words: “There is room for a variety of views in many non-essential areas in our congregation.  We agree on the central points of the Christian faith and our commitment to the unity of the Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:1-3) convinces us that it is making mountains out of molehills to argue over lesser issues.” 

 

Now, it would be a serious misunderstanding if you concluded that there are not consistent friendly, or even passionate, discussions over points of disagreement beyond our stated doctrinal position among those in our body.  But, we strongly resist the tendency for the interchange to get heated.  We are of one mind that, if you will, we will “argue” over our differences only with a cool head and a loving heart.

 

What’s in a name?  In this case, the name of this blog sums up what I have grown to understand to be the believer’s proper responsibility to blog (posting and commenting) in such a way as to honor our Lord.  In these past months, I have witnessed many otherwise godly people say absolutely vicious things to those with whom they disagreed and I have been guilty of overstating some things for effect myself on occasion, in the flow of my typical stream-of-consciousness writing style.  As a result, I have been occasionally offended, and always embarrassed, by the out-of-control statements or allegations, whether by someone else or myself.  Sadly, what Jesus’ half-brother concludes because of the potential for the tongue to cause incredible damage is at least as true in regard to blogging: “My brothers, these things should not be this way” (James 3:10, HCSB).

 

So, our mission in the time ahead–should you choose to accept the mission of interacting with my posts by commenting–is to do all to the glory of God, and make no lame excuses for why we acted like the unbelieving world in the way we communicated.  I, for one, am completely convinced that we will accomplish a lot more of the “iron sharpens iron” positive rubbing off on one another this way than lobbing written hand grenades at each other.  Now, it’s time to put our Spirit-controlled words where our current good intentions are… and agree to disagree agreeably.

 

For whatever it’s worth, it is my plan to post three times per week most weeks, with the Monday and Wednesday posts being essays specifically for this blog audience.  On most Fridays, though, I will post my copyrighted weekly column in the local newspaper here in the Texas Hill Country, The Canyon Lake Times-Guardian.  It will give you some idea of how I write for a more popular–and partly non-Christian–readership.  It has been my joy to write this type of weekly column for six and a half years, and I would urge those of you who are local pastors to seek out such an opportunity in your area.  It allows the sowing of the seed of the gospel in some interesting creative ways (e.g., through recent reviews of the movies “Amazing Grace” and “Evan Almighty” and presenting Christian perspectives on all our cultural holidays). 

 

This Friday, however, since I’m launching the blog mid-week, I will do my first substantive post: “Trustee ‘Accountability’ vs. the Reality of Sin.”  I invite your thoughtful reading, as well as your comments, but with the two provisos that I have discussed under “About This Blog”: 1) Have a balanced “take“; and 2) Don’t sin.  In other words, let’s agree to disagree agreeably.