Fridays are for… Newspaper Articles

Again, here is an example of my weekly column in the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian, which is used with permission of the editor.  Some of you could probably write local columns like this and have an evangelistic outreach, or speak a word of encouragement to the wider Christian community around you, if you would contact your local newspaper.

                        Why not take a prayerful shot at it?

                        Boyd

               “Don’t Bust Out, or Stay, Angry”            

One of the most unattractive things that any of us ever do is to get mad.  And, it causes so much hurt and, on occasion, tragic “collateral damage,” especially if your fists or some weapon gets in gear to back up your big mouth.           

So, it is worth asking, “How many really good things have ever come out of somebody getting angry for any longer than a brief instant?”  I can only think of one: Jesus got mad and threw out the money-changers abusing the Jewish Temple (see John 2:13-17).  That’s about it, except maybe for somebody standing up either against a bully, or when something terrible has been done, and then only for a very short period of time.           

That’s because “two wrongs don’t make a right.”  If somebody does something to you, you only have the right to stand up in anger briefly for it to be what people call “righteous indignation.”  If the anger lingers at all, you are just as much in the wrong—even if your “wrong” is not as grievous—as the other person.  To argue otherwise is ego or stubbornness or, most likely, both.           

“Righteous indignation” is possible—Jesus did it.  But, it is much rarer than many people seem to think.  People get indignant all the time, but are nowhere close to “righteous” in the way they conduct themselves.  Even if your side of the argument is right, standing and jawing with someone in anger will quickly turn public opinion against you, if you keep escalating things because the “heat level” of your anger goes way up and stays there.           

Even people with the best of intentions get caught in the web of anger.  They enter a “dispute” with someone who has mistreated/cheated/lied to/screamed at/cursed at (take your choice of one or more that fits) them, starting off with only mild irritation.  But, as things proceed, they get provoked by the other party and begin to raise their voice, in order to, so to speak, “stand toe to toe” in the growing “dispute.”           

Soon, they are as animated and as mad as the other party.  What a mess!  And, at that point, if it doesn’t come to blows, both parties usually finally withdraw, neither willing to take responsibility for things getting way out of hand emotionally, much less apologize and ask forgiveness.           

Then, you go home and try to forget about it.  But, you can’t, because your emotional nerve endings are too raw.  And, the anger still seethes, soon becoming sneaky bitterness, which occupies your thoughts and won’t leave you alone.           

How do I know this?  Shamefully, I have been guilty as charged on a number of occasions in the past, including not being willing to admit when I had gotten bitter.           

Who does it hurt when we allow ourselves to become bitter?  Hardly ever does it hurt the person who made you so mad anywhere close to how much it hurts you.  Other people see the anger/bitterness riding just below the surface of your demeanor.  It hurts your sleep.  The related stress can cause you to have a stroke or a heart attack or eat out your stomach lining and give you bleeding ulcers.           

I’m not exaggerating about any of these effects of prolonged anger, much less making any of it up.  So, with such scary realities potentially lurking just the other side of your next bout of being unwilling to face and deal with your anger/bitterness, what should you do?           

The first thing is to get to the point of saying, “No matter how exhilarated or justified I feel when I first get mad, it’s not worth it.”  Period.  End of discussion.           

But, with anger, the first thing is hardly ever the last thing.  Even if you are fully convinced that anger is as counterproductive an attitude/action as exists, anger is still going to get the best of you at times.           

What do you do then?  The Apostle Paul said, “Do not let the sun go down on your anger” (Ephesians 4:27).  By keeping short accounts with anger—and I mean extemely short—you can keep anger from becoming a nasty “outburst” and, as Paul says, you can even keep your anger from turning into sin (4:26).

Coming Monday: The Holy Spirit… (XI): “The Flesh vs. the Spirit–It’s Your Choice!”

Coming Wednesday: “The Holy Spirit… (XII): “He cultivates Christian Character…”

“A Postscript on Caveats, Courtesy of David Rogers”

Recently, I wrote a seven-part series called “Issues Inside and Outside the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.”  After I laid out my series conclusions, I received a kind comment from David Rogers, which I will cite below.

But, before doing so, I am going to reproduce the final part of the conclusions from the BFM2000 series (in which I also focused on the progression from the 1925 and 1963 versions, to the 2000 reworking):

“Where only a generation ago, the BFM was considered–at least for the most part–a ’still life picture,’ if you will, it is now anything but.  Please carefully ponder the following descriptions of what the BFM2000 has become in the era of increasing Conservative Resurgence (CR) control of the SBC:

1) It is both the voted-in official SBC doctrinal statement and a quasi-negotiated political document that had to face the realities of what the mood of the Convention would tolerate.  In other words, if the CR moguls had thought they had the votes to pass BFM2000 with everything they are currently trying to get in the side door by their entity trustees ‘covert ops’ campaign, they most certainly would have put that up for a vote also.

2) It is also both a past-present and a present-future document.  The past-present angle deals with the continuity (similarity) and discontinuity (differences) of the current BFM with past statements.  The present-future angle has to with being a present tense ’snapshot’ of our belief structure, at the same time that it is a moving picture (video) of how SBC doctrine is alive, ever in the process of changing, even if almost imperceptibly, as we move toward the future.  (I think this last part explains how the same people who were deliriously happy at the new more conservative BFM back in 2000 do not think it is narrow enough just seven years later.)

3) It is at once a descriptive and a prescriptive document.  In one respect, it is a detailed description of what the SBC has come to believe and voted into its authoritative place.  But, it is also a less than subtle attempt to be a leading indicator/influence (i.e., prescription) in either wooing or strong-arming some who opposed or voted against it to come around and embrace the areas with which they disagreed in 2000.”

But, the most helpful analogy of what the BFM2000 has morphed into in the hands of the CR is found in my closing analogy from that post (which was hardly original, but which I developed further):

For about the first century and a half of its existence, the Constitution of the United States was viewed as a static document, to be interpreted by a ’strict constructionist’ approach.  But, with the appointment of a majority of justices who took an activist approach to Constitutional law, heavily utilizing precedent and interpreting key wording as what it could be stretched to mean, not what the authors/framers intended it to mean, things changed dramatically.  And, realistically, the legal landscape of the United States may never recover from the impact of those highly unfortunate–and uncalled for–changes in perspective and hermeneutics.

Question: Is there a nickel’s worth of difference attitudinally and hermenentically with this tragic example of American Constititutional law in the way certain CR reads in their desired meaning to baptism being a ‘church ordinance?’  How about when their ‘covert ops’ campaign creates doctrinal ‘precedent’ beyond the BFM2000 in our missions agencies and one of our seminaries? 

Answer: Honestly, not that I can tell.  Both are stories of a small group of activists finding a brilliant, initially low-profile means to get their way (and, of course, ‘the end justifies the means’ only when it is their end and their means.)

Now, in the light of these conclusions, let’s address David Rogers’ stated area of concern: “… discrepancies between written and duly approved points of doctrine included in the BFM, and wide-spread divergence of belief and practice among the same constituency on the same points (i.e., ‘closed communion’).”

Then, his attached question was: “Is this just an anomaly in the system that should be ‘winked at?’  Should I, as an IMB missionary, who accepts all of the BFM 2000, with the only exception being the ‘closed communion’ clause, continue to serve with a good conscience as a denominational employee?  Why or why not?”

David, this is an excellent question!  If I understand you correctly, your frustration has to do with the fact that, no matter what the BFM2000 says, the SBC at large seems, if anything, at least as diverse as ever in both belief and practice.  That makes you wonder if anybody really completely adheres to the BFM2000 on a comprehensive point-by-point basis.

Well, David, allow me to start this part of the discussion with the day after the current BFM statement was passed in 2000.  At that point, Al Mohler, representing the BFM2000 committee, referred to it as a “regulative document” for all entity personnel to affirm.  So, it was certainly intended to be affirmed jot and tittle, apparently to ferret out any remaining Moderates still squatting in the weeds, so to speak.

But, there is another side to the story: What was trumpeted by Mohler and what actually happens are two significantly different things.  For example, after a careful study of the BFM2000 alongside the Abstract of Principles, I simply do not see how a person can affirm certain things in both documents at the same time with a straight face.

Here’s one of the classic “points of tension” (to put it mildly).  The Abstract reads: … [Adam's] posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law… .”  By contrast, the BFM2000 reads: “… [Adam's] posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin… .” 

Boys and Girls, if you check it out in historical theology, the wording in the Abstract is a fairly standard Calvinistic way of expressing human depravity.  However, the wording in the BFM2000 definitely leans heavily in the Arminian direction.  The point here is that you can’t logically hold both a Calvinist and (an at least semi-)Arminian position on unsaved human nature at the same time.  But, that is the illogical mess that the CR leaders created in 2000, when it was insisted that the faculties at Southern (where Al Mohler is) and Southeastern (where Paige Patterson was) affirm both.

David, what that tells me is that a whole lot of Southern Baptists still don’t take the BFM2000 (or the combination of the current BFM and the Abstract at two of our seminaries) seriously in terms of a word-for-word affirmation.  That means they are, to one extent or another–to use your wording–”winking at” the SBC doctrinal statement.  But, to your credit, you are trying very hard to do so with integrity, which I strongly commend.

One more illustration of the widespread “winking at” the BFM2000.  In the “Peace and War” article, the following wording is found, repeated word-for word from the BFM1963: “In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ [Christians] should do all in their power to put an end to war.”  At first glance, you have to admit that this really looks bad for the SBC leaders who have been in bed with the current Republican administration in regard to the war in Iraq, in terms of affirming one thing in regard to the BFM and then saying/doing something very different.

But, in order to stand by the crucial hermeneutical principle of “authorial intent,” since the wording in BFM2000 was unchanged from BFM1963, I went to Herschel Hobbs’ book, The Baptist Faith and Message (Convention Press, 1981 ed.) to see what the committee chair of that version of the BFM said on this subject.  I was surprised to read that Hobbs could get a “just war” understanding (see pp. 135-37) out of the wording “the spirit and teaching of Christ,” but he did.

Of course, even if much of what has happened since 9/11 does fit within a legitimate “just war” framework, it would appear that an even-handed application of the wording of the BFM2000 “Peace and War” article would require SBC leaders to at least ask the Bush administration very serious questions after the purported reason for the invasion of Iraq (i.e., weapons of mass destruction) proved empty, as well as when no direct link between Saddam and Bin Laden was ever established.  And, if you try to use the excuse “It’s an Arab country in which there were many sympathetic to Muslim terrorists,” I have some very bad news to break to you.  The United States of America has a rapidly increasing Arab population, not a few of which are sympathetic to Muslim terrorists.  So, should we attack ourselves?

Now, let me hasten to say that I am a very conservative Republican.  But, surely you get the point.  Unthinking support of a war like this is not only short-sighted, but very much “walking on thin ice” in regard to the BFM2000.  You might even say that some among us appear to be ”winking at” the BFM2000 in this area.

In closing, let me finally get to the one issue you brought up as being your personal caveat: the BFM2000 view on the Lord’s Supper.  The reason I didn’t repeat your wording “closed communion” is because that is not what the BFM2000 teaches.

How do I know that?  Again, to respect “authorial intent,” our current understanding must square with what the original author(s) meant.  Again, the BFM2000 did not change the wording in that section from the BFM1963 (and thus forfeited their right to claim a different interpretation).

Here’s what Herschel Hobbs said about communion: “Some Baptist churches hold that one should be a member of the church in which he partakes of [the Lord's Supper]… .  Most Baptist churches hold that any member of any Baptist church is eligible” (p. 90).  And, since Hobbs rejects “the charge that Baptists are ‘closed communionists,’” that seals the point that the current wording of the BFM does not teach “closed communion.”  Thus, those who claim that the BFM2000 is teaching “closed communion” are simply reading it into the text (i.e., eisegesis) or stretching the words to what they can be made to mean, a la the Supreme Court analogy I referred to above.

Now, David, this still might not be much comfort, given that I’ve read on your blog that you hold to a ‘modified open’ understanding of the Lord’s Table.  But, it does change the overall discussion on “caveats” in regard to the BFM2000 considerably. 

What do I mean?  Well, all those highly opinionated people among us who have claimed that the BFM2000 teaches “closed communion” are dead wrong–Herschel Hobbs ended the discussion.  So, now, that means that extensive group has only two legitimate choices in front of them.  If they are honest, they will either: 1) change their position from closed communion to the actual BFM2000 position (to be able to affirm the BFM2000 wholly); or 2) they will freely admit that they have a “caveat” in regard to what BFM2000 teaches about communion. 

Of course, there is that other not so legitimate, but, as we have seen, still very widespread, option exercised by a lot of folks in the SBC.  They can just “wink at” the discrepancy and act like it’s not there.  Selah and Amen.

Coming Friday: “Fridays are for… Newspaper Articles” (my weekly local column)

Coming Monday: The Holy Spirit… (X): “The Flesh vs. the Spirit–It’s Our Choice”

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today (IX): “Reversing Our Embarrassing Spiritual Double Standard”

Last Wednesday, I made my case for the often subconscious, but no less tragic, double standard that grips the Southern Baptist Convention in regard to some of its entity heads.  It seems that, whatever they say or do–no matter how far out of biblical character for the way Christians in leadership roles should conduct themselves–they get a “pass” in most quarters.

It’s like deja vu to the Republican Party of the Reagan Era.  What was referred to as the “Eleventh Commandment” of the Party went: “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican (even if it’s true).”  Have things in the SBC really gotten to the point of: ”Thou shalt not admit the wrongs, excesses and sins of some Conservative Resurgence leaders (especially if it’s true”)?  Is the “blood covenant” of the Conservative Resurgence really so tight that no one is allowed to acknowledge the truth about some leaders, even when it is right in front of your face (e.g., Paige Patterson not allowing the details of either the declining enrollment figures at Southwestern [hovering at perhaps 3,000, while he speaks of 6,000 students], or his own excessively generous personal financial package)?

As a result of this vacuum of accountability, these few entity heads have gotten away virtually scott free with: 1) flaunting the flesh in the most public of Southern Baptist venues–the annual meeting in San Antonio–instead of speaking and acting in the power of the Holy Spirit, which is exactly 180 degrees opposite to Paul’s admonitions in Galatians 5; and 2) “lording it over” the Convention, again in that most public of SBC venues, instead of being servant-leaders, precisely 180 degrees opposite to what Jesus requires of his disciples in Matthew 20.

This is nothing other than the most thinly-veiled kind of fleshly abuse of position and power.  What makes it worse, though, is that it is apparent that many in our midst think, “Well, I guess the CR waged the war for biblical inerrancy, won the war and thus earned the right to ‘rule’ the SBC as semi-benevolent dictators and do whatever they see fit.”

I strongly disagree.  Even if it was a secular war, you would have a hard time making that case stick, other than under a totalitarian dictatorship, where there is no voice of the people.  But, to act in the flesh as if it is the normal expectation for a Christian and to seek to utterly dominate our people like worldly leaders in the name of Christ is nothing less than arrogant hypocricy.

So, we must ask: from the standpoint of the Scriptures that Southern Baptist claim to believe from cover to cover, what should be done?  (How it can done is a separate issue that I will address at a different time.)  In answer to that crucial question, the following three aspects are critically important for the kind of reform in the SBC that truly honors the Lord spiritually:

I. Move forward to the application of inerrant Scripture.

II. Elect only leaders whose greatest qualification is being Spirit-led.

III. Respect only true servant-leaders, not arrogant virtual dictators.

Now, let’s explore these three points:

I. Applying, Not Just Talking about, Inerrancy- 

If the Conservative Resurgence was really about biblical inerrancy, as the CR leaders have always said, and not about control, as many others have alleged, it is high time–in fact, way past time–to get on with applying the inerrant Word.  You see, it is glaringly inconsistent to claim a “high view of Scripture” (i.e., inerrancy) at the same time that your attitudes and behavior betrays a very low view of application of the very biblical truths that result from what you claim was “a hill to die on.”

What do I mean by this?  Just look at 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and you are able to see in a nutshell what I’m talking about: “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting in righteousness, so that the man of God is complete, equipped for every work” (HCSB).

The Conservative Resurgence emphasized the “teaching” aspect as its hallmark.  The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, the necessary implication of Scripture being “God-breathed” (Gk. theopneustos), was trumpeted as being of first importance.

But, what has taken place in the years since the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 supposedly completed the drive to formally-stated institutional inerrancy in the SBC?  What has been the (lack of) outworking of the rest of Paul’s sequence of thought here, in regard to the behavior of several of the highest SBC luminaries?  What about the profit of inspired Scripture in regard to “rebuking” and “correcting” and “training in righteousness?”  After all, the Apostle so much as says that “the man of God” is incomplete and not properly equipped for whatever ministry role God has for that person unless all of these “profitable” functions of inerrant Scripture are taking place.

Let’s face it: it has been a one-way street (i.e., a terrible double standard).  If this “lording it over” gang decides to rebuke and correct, the CR rank-and-file screams for blood from the target of the rebuke.  But, nobody attempts to rebuke them–how dare anyone but them actually “tell it like it is!”

Well, let’s do some application and see what it’s like–even if the CR leaders have no interest in application other than to strengthen their own denominational strongholds.  Let’s take a quick, and revealing look, at 1 Timothy 5:19-20: “Don’t accept an accusation against an elder unless it is supported by two or three witnesses.  Publicly rebuke those in sin, so that the rest will also be afraid” (HCSB).  (I have both taught many courses that require instruction in how to do biblical application, as well as publishing specifically on applicational theory and practice, so the following is not “shooting from the hip” at all.)

Very simply put, legitimate application derives timeless principles from Scripture and applies them in a timely manner.  In this case, the passage is applicable to the situation of these specific entity heads because they are leaders, the timeless category to which “elders” (5:19) belong. 

Proceeding with the application: Yes, there are many more than “two or three witnesses” 5:19) here–more like 20 or 30–I talked to in San Antonio or since who saw exactly what I did in Al Mohler’s demeanor there or who are completely convinced that Paige Patterson is stonewalling both the enrollment and his own financial figures in direct defiance to clearly-stated SBC requirements. 

Notice that I have not called Patterson’s actions “sin” because I don’t know his heart, just his actions.  But, Mohler’s sequence of angry demeanor from Tuesday until Wednesday morning in San Antonio clinched the “sin” factor with him (Ephesians 4:26-27).  That is why I called him out (i.e., rebuked him) in the last post.

But, you may say: “What about Matthew 18:15-17?  Aren’t you supposed to privately confront someone first before going public?”

The answer is Yes and No.  Yes, you privately confront if it is just any old fellow believer (Matthew 18:15-17).  But, if you are a leader (1 Timothy 5:19-20), you are to be held to a higher standard (remember Luke 12:48?) than that of Matthew 18:15-17. 

Your position requires that you be publicly rebuked so that you will be afraid and not repeat your unbiblical actions, in abuse of your leadership role (1 Timothy 5:20).

Key Question: How will leaders like Patterson and Mohler ever be repentant of, and afraid to repeat, their wrong actions if no one has the biblical integrity and courage to rebuke and correct them (2 Timothy 3:16-17)?   You already know the answer: They won’t be… unless the deafening silence of the current SBC “double standard” which allows them to hypocritically keep the log in their eye (Luke 6:41-42) and never be told the truth spiritually is decisively broken.

 II. Electing Only Spirit-led Leaders-

What was the first statement of qualifications for leadership beyond being an apostle in the church in the book of Acts?  To be “full of the Spirit and wisdom” (6:4, HCSB).

Is it even thinkable that the standard for leadership ever became lower than Acts 6:4?  No way!  But, what happens is that many people looking at leadership qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 mistake silence about the Spirit overtly with Paul’s not caring about such things with later leadership.

No, instead, this is a classic example of what Walter Kaiser has demonstrated extensively is the case in the Old Testament: “antecedent theology” (i.e., previously existing theology that is clearly assumed, even if not stated).  Thus, the Apostle who made such a big deal about the necessity of walking in the power of the Spirit in Galatians 5 and being filled with the Spirit in Ephesians 5 definitely would not lower his standard for leaders (1 Timothy 3; Titus 3).  So, being “filled with the Spirit” (Acts 6:4) is rightly to be assumed in all Pauline leadership contexts, even if not overtly stated.

Compare this with the way we look at qualifications for leaders in the SBC today.  We look first at their academic degrees, how big the church or institution where they serve is and their publications, broadcasts or other evidence of influence.  But, when was the last time you heard someone ask about an SBC leader: “Where is the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) in his life?”  Or, “Where is the evidence of the filling of the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18-21) in the primary relationships of his life (5:22-6:9)?”  Yeah, I thought so.  Me, neither.

But, now we must… or we are no better than a secular political organization enamored of personalities.  Without the Spirit running the show, all that is left in the Christian’s life is the flesh (Galatians 5).  And, if we don’t make a very big deal about the Spirit in the elections ahead, are we not simply conceding to the control of the flesh?  (You know the answer.)

III. Respecting Only Servant-Leaders-

Jesus insisted on servant-leadership–with the emphasis on the “servant” part–in Matthew 20:25-27, even using Himself as the classic example (20:28).  And, this priority burnt itself into the mind of the Apostle Peter.  In 1 Peter 5:3, in Peter’s listing of leadership qualifications, he echoes Jesus’ words and applies them to all leaders since: “Not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” (HCSB).

Think about it: What kind of “example” to God’s people is it when the greatest of the CR leaders defiantly refuses to provide figures he is required to do so by SBC regulation?  What kind of “example” was set when the leader of the largest SBC seminary stood at the microphone in San Antonio and, instead of giving his seminary report, he angrily pledged his defiance to the Garner BFM2000 Motion in a tone and manner that only the most permissive parent would let a child get away with?  And, yet, Drs. Patterson and Mohler go on their merry way… and the silence of the double standard, especially among their peer leaders, becomes all the more encompassing and eerie.

Before closing, it is worth noting here that the most obvious reason that the little book of 3 John is in the Bible is because of the church leader out of control because he was controlling and exercising dictatorial power named Diotrophes (vv. 9-10).  And, after the Apostle John says that he is coming soon to rebuke Diotrophes and set him straight, he makes this most pointed remark about avoiding this kind of fleshly “lording it over” leadership: “Do not imitate what is evil, but what is good.” 

That is the Lord’s view of this type of ultimate control “leadership.”  When will his people in the SBC join the Lord and the Apostle John in this candid assessment by speaking up and reining in the controlling “Diotrophes” figures among us?

Bottom Line: There will be no significant change in the SBC from the fleshly status quo until: 1) we get past inerrancy as solely a CR political slogan to actually doing consistent in-depth application; and we choose to 2) elect only indisputably Spirit-controlled leaders and to 3) respect only indisputably servant-leaders.

Coming Wednesday: A Break in Series: “A Postscript on Caveats, Courtesy of David Rogers”

AtDA Ground Rules for Re-Directed Comments from SBC Outpost

Boys and Girls (Please let that be a jovial greeting, not a description of immature attitudes and words):

I was unavailable to host comments last night and have been involved in church-related things all morning.  Please forgive my tardiness in getting to the blog today!

As many of you know, my last post here was re-posted on SBC Outpost late yesterday afternoon and I asked for all comments to come here.  I also asked that you read “About This Blog” and respect the fact that, as my blog title and sub-title declare, we are seeking to “Agree to Disagree Agreeably” by “Playing nice while blogging about frustrating issues.”

I am dead serious about this and it is not because my name is on the line.  Every “train-wreck” at SBC Outpost drug the Lord Jesus Christ’s name through the mud and I am not going to allow that to happen here.

Here is how it is going to go.  Before you write anything, I commend you to the Holy Spirit to ask how what you are writing exhibits “love, joy, peace, patience… gentleness, self-control” (Gal. 5:22, 23, HCSB).  If it doesn’t, I beg you, don’t hit the ‘Submit’ button.  Don’t do it!  If you can’t control yourself, the Spirit can.  Let Him do His job as your Paraklete, who is supposed to fill/control you and bring fruit through your life (Eph. 5:18ff., Gal. 5:22-23).

Second, please abide by my two previously-stated ground rules: 1) Have a balanced ‘take’ (i.e., say something positive, not just critical); and 2) Don’t sin… and anger not dealt with very quickly is sin (Eph. 4:26-27).  So, if you came in with an angry comment last night and, after I release the comments (and I will release all of them momentarily), you come in with another angry comment, guess what: you “let the sun go down on your anger” and, according to Paul, that’s sin.

Why are we so hesitant to admit our sin?  After all, surrounding the promise related to the confession of sin in 1 Jn. 1:9 are these statements: “If we say, ‘We have no sin,’ we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us” and “If we say, ‘We have not sinned,’ we make him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:8, 10, HCSB).  Who do you think you’re fooling?

It was said at Outpost that people like to watch “train-wrecks.”  Maybe so, although I am not among that group.  I also noticed that there exists a certain group of commenters who like to cause train wrecks.

So you’ll know, I’m only releasing comments one by one and I’m not excluding any at this point.  But, I have no intention of allowing a “free-for-all” to break out.  If you try to either hijack the comment stream–which will emerge much slower here–or get angry and come back in later unrepentant, I will not allow you to comment again.  In other words, you will get a second chance, but that’s it.  The Lord’s testimony is much more important than your irresponsible fleshly desire to dominate through a comment.

The bottom line is this: “Civil discourse” is actually a low standard of behavior.  Any unsaved person can meet that standard.  But, only Christians can engage in “Spirit-led discourse.” 

Will you selflessly choose to be part of the answer to the blogging “train-wrecks” problem in the power of the Spirit or will you selfishly demand to “bite and devour one another” (Gal. 5:15) in the flesh?  Selah and Amen.

”Fridays are for… Newspaper Articles”

Again, here is my weekly column in the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian.  Enjoy!

                       “Two Ears, One Mouth”            

As much as would love to think otherwise, I am not always a good listener.  And, as much as I would like to be able to fall back on the convenient excuse that I have Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), that doesn’t wash when you are in the ministry.  In other words, I have no legitimate excuse not to be a good listener.           

That is especially clear in regard to the way that God has made the human body: there are two ears, but only one mouth.  And, the apparent implication of this undeniable anatomical reality is that we all should probably listen about twice as much as we talk.           

Isn’t it interesting to consider how seldom this is the case in life?  Some personalities are much more outgoing and, thus, talk a lot more than others, much more than they listen.  Others are not just soft-spoken, but very reserved, often to the point where they only speak if spoken to and are not comfortable doing so.           

Other people are more complicated, because sometimes they talk a lot and sometimes they are quiet and hardly talk at all.  I can definitely be like that on occasion, sometimes due to the mood I’m in, but sometimes also because of realistic needs of the relational setting in which I find myself.            

Allow me to let you look through my eyes—and hear through my ears—the relational nature of my week as a pastor.  I think you will see how, if I’m at all sensitive to what’s going on, there is an “ebb and flow” to my listening and speaking that, on average, turns out fairly close to what our anatomy seems to be implying for our behavior.           

On Sundays, I preach to our congregation and it is almost always pure monologue.  But, before and after the service, I circulate among our people and do more listening than talking.  That’s especially true on the third Sunday of each month, when we have a potluck lunch after church, followed by a “town hall” question and answer time, in which our church leadership replies to questions anyone in the congregation poses, as well as taking note of whatever comments are made on issues of significance for Comal Country Church.  During the town hall meeting, I often am not the leader fielding questions or interacting with comments.           

Throughout the rest of the week, I am, more often than not, listening more than expressing myself when I interact with people by phone or email.  And, that is particularly true most of the time when I am doing pastoral counseling (though I always have something to say at the beginning and the end in regard to biblical perspective on the issue).             

In regard to the two weekly evening meetings I am part of, there is a marked contrast in how much listening and speaking I do.  Those times are on Tuesday and Wednesday nights.

On Tuesday evenings, our church men’s group—born out of attending a Promise Keeper’s meeting in Dallas in 2006—meets for dinner and a teaching time.  I’ve only been asked–or needed—to provide any kind of leadership for the group just a couple of times.  Accordingly, on most Tuesday nights, I hold my tongue and listen carefully and, after the chatter over dinner, speak only if spoken to, except on the rare occasion when I either know much more than anyone else there about the subject at hand or it is clear some pastoral response is needed.

Wednesday evenings are much different, though.  After a fellowship dinner for anyone in our congregation (and we do have occasional visitors) and an extensive prayer time, I’m the facilitator of an open-ended question and answer time, during which any Bible, theology or church history subject is fair game.  It’s usually a lot of fun, though it can get technical because of the way the question is asked.

All in all, when I’m listening, I truly hope that people know that I do so because I care about them and their needs.  And, when I speak, I very much hope that people can tell it comes from my heart and speaks to their needs, rooted in the authority of Scripture, and is not because I am in love with the sound of my own voice.  In all honesty, I don’t know if that adds up to the biblical standard of “quick to hear, slow to speak” (James 1:19), but that’s my goal.             

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today (VIII): “An Embarrassing Spiritual Double Standard in the SBC”

(Note: What I planned to post today proved to be too lengthy.  So, I will complete this subject with my post next Monday, August 27, 2007.  Thank you for your understanding and patience!)

There is a distressing double standard at work in the Southern Baptist Convention today and it manifests itself in various ways.  Recently, there has been a fair amount of debate regarding the obviously opulent–it’s no longer whether, just how outrageous–lifestyle of at least one Conservative Resurgence leader.  As bad as it is that some take advantage of their positions to live like SBC royalty, I don’t think that sort of thing, though highly embarrassing (at least it should be to the trustees who “rubber stamped” their benefits packages), is the worst part of the double standard.

What is?  The spiritual double standard.  Let me lay it out for you.

The scene was the 2007 meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio.  We will focus on the unintended, but unavoidably stark, contrast between figures at the podium during the latter public sessions of the meeting.

On the one hand, the convention moderator, President Frank Page, was the very model of graciousness.  His demeanor and speech were characterized by the fruit of the Spirit, especially “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness… gentleness, self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23, HCSB).

On the other hand, a number of SBC entity heads stepped to the microphone and chose to abuse the time allotted to give their entity annual reports by, in one fashion or another, railing against the outcome of the Garner BFM2000 Motion, proclaiming that they would not recognize it in regard to the leadership of their respective entities.  Without saying so in so many words, it was clear that they view themselves as “above the law.”  Anyone present not in deep denial saw and heard from these powerful leaders “outbursts of anger” that Galatians 5:20 (HCSB) diagnoses as one of “the works of the flesh” which are “obvious” to the honest observer (5:19).

Amazingly, the scene in S.A. got even worse.  The brash fleshly “outbursts of anger” of those powerful leaders, unbelievably, were cheered by some, as if they were sitting in a pep rally for an athletic event or the nominating convention of one of the political parties.  Despite their fleshly displays, these men were still their heroes and nothing they could say or do would result in anything but adulation from these cheering ranks.  I was appalled, as were many I spoke to in San Antonio or have since.

Now, please understand: I am not angry as I am writing this.  But, I am deeply saddened for the SBC, especially after Thom Rainer’s recent article (and the “Amen” echo effect of several other leaders’ thoughts since), in which he/they decried the level of less than civil discourse on the SBC-related blogs, notably SBC Outpost, and withdrew his earlier endorsement of the new Outpost format.  Thom is generally an even-handed observer of the SBC, but, in this case, his perspective is very one-sided… and it is at least partly because of his “blind spot” regarding the double standard of which I am writing.

The spiritual double standard in question starts with any substitution of the flesh’s control for that of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.  The control of the Spirit in a person’s life produces loving service (Galatians 5:13), while the flesh’s domination of a person brings about vicious (5:15), divisive and angry (5:20-21) attitudes and actions. 

Worst of all, though, the people who coddle and defend such leaders who act in the flesh totally overlook the fact that “God is not mocked.  … [The one who sows to the flesh will reap corruption from the flesh” (Galatians 6:7,8, HCSB).  In other words, walking in the flesh not only is obvious to any who are willing to see (5:19), but its long-term consequences are “reaping the whirlwind.”

No, the only way to be “above the law” in God’s eyes is to be led by the Spirit (5:16).  But, sadly, to the immature and fleshly human eye, the one controlled by the flesh may be more impressive than the one controlled by the Spirit.  Hence, some people only remember (with favor, amazingly enough) Al Mohler’s angry populist rhetoric and yawned their way through Frank Page’s wondrous Spirit-led patience in the face of provocation.

You may ask why I brought up only Al Mohler’s name as a negative example here?  Well, let me quickly say that it is not at all because he is by himself in his display of fleshly anger.  You see, I don’t disagree with Thom Rainer’s article (or the others)… as far as it/they went.  It/they just did not go nearly far enough to be balanced.  Rainer singled out the blogosphere for this problem, but gave his fellow entity heads a “pass,” even though, if a child of any of my readers acted the way several of the entity heads did behind the podium in San Antonio, you would have grabbed them by the ear and rushed them to their room for “time out” (or paddled their backsides) until they were willing to come out and sincerely apologize to the whole group.

This is another part of the double standard.  In the blogosphere, I have heard several of the chief parties on both sides of the aisle (e.g., Art Rogers and Bart Barber) “come clean” and apologize for their displays of anger.  In addition, I–certainly not far behind Paul in the “chief of sinners” line–have made heartfelt apologies more than once, when I truly was guilty of sinful verbalization (though I also have been wrongly accused of things I did not do).  But, since the June meeting in San Antonio, there has been an eerie silence–an increasingly deafening silence–from the Conservative Resurgence leaders in regard to owning their own sin in this area.  You see, the prevailing SBC double standard allows them to be “above the law” and not have to admit their sin.

But, you say, how do I know what they did in San Antonio was sin?  Very simply: Mohler and the other entity heads in question were already heating up (anger-wise) on Tuesday night even before the vote, got even much more heated after the vote and were fully incensed on Wednesday morning, when the outcome of the vote was made public.  Very specifically, in the way Paul expresses things in Ephesians 4:26-27, that is “letting the sun go down on your anger,” which is sin.

And, although this applies just as much to any of us, considering the expected candidacy of Al Mohler for President of the Convention in 2008 in Indianapolis, it is worth asking: Why should the SBC elect someone who allowed himself to be angrily controlled by the flesh in making his seminary report in San Antonio?  Why would we elect someone to the highest office in the Southern Baptist Convention who gave the Devil a foothold in his life through his anger (Ephesians 4:27)? 

Honestly, why should we respect a man who does not display the spiritual sensitivity and wisdom to responsibly own his sin and humbly apologize to the Convention?  I know that I would very much respect such humble contrition, but not the macho stonewalling on this subject now over two months in duration. 

Who does Mohler–and his fellow entity heads–think they’re fooling spiritually?  Apparently themselves, because they’re not fooling God and the only part of the SBC they’re fooling is the CR rank-and-file, with whom they can do no wrong.

Maybe you’re thinking “Well, yes, leaders should not answer to a lower standard and be granted a ‘pass’ just because they are denominational power-brokers.  But, is it really fair to hold them to a higher standard?”  The biblical answer is “Yes, Scripture does indeed hold leaders to a higher standard.”

How do I support that?  Listen carefully: “Much will be required of everyone who has been given much.  And even more will be expected of the one who has been entrusted with more” (Luke 12:48, HCSB).  And: “It is expected of managers that each one be found faithful” (1 Corinthians 4:2, HCSB), which simply cannot be done in the flesh.  In other words, God clearly holds leaders to a higher standard and we must also.

The other immensely troubling part of the fleshly outbursts in San Antonio was that the demeanor of those leaders radiated arrogance–that they were smarter than everyone else and that they had no intention of giving back any of their power or control to the Convention.  Listen and be convicted by the words of Jesus: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles dominate them, and the men of high position exercise power over them.  It must not be like that among you.  On the contrary, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave” (Matthew 20:25-27, HCSB).

Once again, such attitudes of the heads of some of our entities reflect, tragically, that they are diametrically opposed to the proper biblical perspective.  As a result, we have nobody to blame but ourselves unless we ask–and answer–with all due seriousness the following question: “What can be done to reverse this fleshly, worldly double standard so firmly entrenched in the SBC, which currently allows certain celebrated leaders to operate spiritually at attitudinal and behavioral standards even lower than what would be expected of an immature layperson?”

To Be Continued…

Coming Friday:  ”Fridays are for… Newspaper Articles (my local weekly column)”

Coming Monday: The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today (IX): “Reversing Our Embarrassing Spiritual Double Standard”

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today (VII): “The Spirit’s Sealing: Two Sides of the Coin”

(Prefatory Note: Over the weekend, my dear friend, Rick Garner, lovingly shared with me that my posts were too long and too involved for a lot of people to make their way through.  And, after looking back, I agree.  And, this insight is going to make a difference, starting now.

Please understand: My heart has been in the right place.  I have attempted to lay out all that I believed needed to be said on a subject, so that a post did not, so to speak, slam “Pandora’s box” shut almost as soon as it was opened up. 

But, it is very possible to overstay your welcome–and length-wise, I have.  There can be too much of a good thing–and, even if the writing has been acceptably “good” quality-wise, there has been too much verbage-wise.  So, I will try harder to put myself in your shoes in regard to the length and depth of my posts.  There is no one to blame but myself, and I accept full responsibility.  But, I do want to take this opportunity to thank Rick for caring enough to say something.)

Following the Baptist Faith and Message 1963 word-for-word (i.e., no wording at all was changed), the sub-article on the Holy Spirit of the BFM2000 states of the Spirit: “He seals the believer unto the day of final redemption.”  And, that is all it says about the Spirit’s sealing ministry in the life of the Christian.

But, that is not all the Bible says that needs to be heard at this juncture in the corporate life of the Southern Baptist Convention.  In fact, it could rightly be said that the sealing of the Spirit is a two-sided coin and, as in the BFM2000, it is tragically true that only one side of the coin is receiving much of any notice at all among our people.

The terminology of “sealing” related to the Holy Spirit is only used three times in the Bible.  All three passages are in the writings of Paul: in 2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13-14 and Ephesians 4:30.

The first two of these passages deal with the side of the coin referred to in the BFM2000.  In 2 Corinthians 1:22, we read: ”[God] has also sealed us and given us the Spirit as a down payment in our hearts” (HCSB).  Similarly, Ephesians 1:13b-14a states: “… [W]hen you believed– [you] were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.  He is the down payment of our inheritance… ” (HCSB).  

Together, we find out from these passages that: 1) you are sealed by the Spirit when you believe in Christ; and 2) the Spirit’s sealing is God’s down payment in the believer’s life toward our heavenly and eternal inheritance in Christ.

So, practically speaking, you will never be any more “sealed” with the Spirit than you are the first second you believe in Jesus and are saved.  Also, you can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will be an eternal co-heir in all the heavenly treasures (see Galatians 4:6) because the Spirit has sealed you toward that ultimate end.

Before going on, it is worth noting the meaning of the seal here.  In the ancient world, seals were used as symbols of personal power and authority, both by individuals and governments.  As an example of the latter, in Matthew 27:66, the roll-away stone door of the tomb of Jesus was sealed, effectively warning anyone who tampered with the seal that they were messing with the full power of the Roman Empire.

Of course, it was no big deal for Almighty God to break the Roman seal and roll away the door (Matthew 28:2).  However, it is unthinkable that anyone or anything could break the seal of the Holy Spirit on the Christian’s life.

With this meaning understood, it becomes clear that the sealing ministry of the Spirit is one of the oft-overlooked aspects of the security of the believer.  Simply put, it is one of those key reasons that we all need to know, but often don’t think about, for why Southern Baptists believe in “once saved, always saved.”

But, this is where the biblical teaching on the sealing of the Spirit usually stops.  As a result, sadly, we only think about the Spirit’s sealing as something that God has done for us, without considering the other side of the coin at all–how those who have been sealed with the Spirit are expected to treat Him, and at least as important, not treat Him.

We find that second side of the coin in Ephesians 4:30: “And don’t grieve the Holy Spirit, who sealed you for the day of redemption” (HCSB).  In the immediate surrounding context, it is clarified that the Spirit gets His feelings hurt both by our wrong attitudes and actions (4:25-29, 31).  In total, lying (4:25), stealing (4:28), unedifying talk (4:29), insulting talk and slander (4:31) all cause the Spirit considerable grief.  However, it certainly must not be overlooked exegetically that the only repeated element in the context is ”anger” (4:26-27), including its lingering version, “bitterness” (4:31), and its highly intense version, “wrath” (4:31).

What is the apparent significance of this repetition?  Almost surely that sinful anger (Ephesians 4:27), and its, so to speak, “steroid-inflated” cousins, bitterness and wrath, are the worst offenders among the list of Christians’ attitudes and actions that cause God’s Spirit deep grieving.

Why would that be the case?  There is no way to know for sure, but it may be because such angry words and attitudes also deeply wound both the speaker whom the Spirit seals and the hearer whom the Spirit also seals (note the repetition of “one another,” referring to other Christians, at both the beginning (4:25) and end (4:32) of this passage).

You may say at this point, “Hey, I get how the hearer would be hurt by angry words and actions.  But, explain to me exactly how it hurts the angry speaker.”

Well, logically, assuming that the angry speaker is not on a never-ending self-deceived ego trip, that person will, at some point, be highly embarrassed by the angry speech and actions.  Make no mistake: unless you are in total denial, you have to realize that other people do notice when we make angry, “frothing at the mouth” fools out of ourselves or use anger to try to control or bully other people.  In other words, it hurts when you come to your senses and realize that you have taken a serious hit to your personal testimony because of your anger, and–assuming that you are a spiritually mature, responsible person who does not try to blame everybody else for your words/actions–that you cannot legitimately blame anyone but yourself.

But, there is also another very important “hurt” you bring upon yourself through sinful anger (Ephesians 4:27).  The believer is to “Put on the full armor of God so that you can stand against the tactics of the Devil” (6:11, HCSB).  But, when anger extends for anything longer than a short span of minutes, or a few hours at the most (4:27), it is inevitable that the person involved has offered Satan a “chink in the armor,” so to speak–a spiritual “staging ground” in your life, from which to do his bidding.

How do you think the Spirit feels when one of His own willingly allows the Spirit’s arch-enemy, the Devil, free access to that person’s life simply because he or she is too stubborn or too proud to quickly admit and face the anger (4:26-27)?  The answer, obviously, is “very deeply hurt” (4:30).

Next time, I will build upon what I have laid out in this post.  The problem is increasingly widespread in SBC life and not a few are guilty, myself included on occasion. 

However, an incident occurred recently in the most public arena of Southern Baptist life that is a stunningly blatant example of Ephesians 4:30 in context.  It is particularly significant because the offender in question is being touted as a possible candidate for president of the Convention in 2008.  And, spiritually, the situation is doubly tragic because it is part of a wide-ranging biblically short-sighted double standard that has arisen in our midst.  Selah and Amen.

Coming Wednesday: The Holy Spirit… (VIII): “How to Reverse a Backwards Double Standard”

Fridays are for…. Newpaper Articles

 

 

 

Once again, this is a recent column I wrote for the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian, which is used with editorial permission

 

“An ‘Up-Close-and-Personal’ Example of True Humility” 

I once heard a wise person explain that true humility is not emphasizing your lowliness.  That’s either a bad self-image or false humility.  Instead, true humility is seeing yourself as God sees you—strengths, weaknesses, the whole package—and living accordingly.

Is that not true?  After all, who is going to say that Jesus was not “humble?”  But, did he not always display the confidence (not cockiness or arrogance) and self-awareness of knowing exactly who He was and how to act appropriately?  Yes.

It is my joy to report to you today a wonderful recent example I have seen of true humility.  The person I am going to describe is not excited about me writing this column with this slant.  But, that is because she does not like to draw attention to herself.

Cindy Campbell is a beautiful lady from Greenville, TX, who I met in October, 2004 through eHarmony.com (and, yes, I’m a satisfied customer!).  She is a very loving, giving, nurturing person who also happens to be an exceedingly capable medical professional.  Cindy is a physician’s assistant who specializes in pediatric neurology, working at Scottish Rite Children’s Hospital in Dallas.

Because of her superb people skills (i.e., they used to call it “bedside manner”), an area lacking in most medical care today, Scottish Rite is very fortunate to have Cindy on staff.  But, often, she wonders about that very thing, partly because she does not work full-time and partly because so many of her colleagues are driven to move through “cases” (numbers) as quickly as possible, while Cindy is going to pay attention to every child and parent and try to meet them at their point of need, even if that is beyond the immediately presenting medical situation. 

She is constitutionally incapable of doing otherwise.  That is her and the personality and spiritual gifts/abilities God has “graced” her life with in order to serve others.  I refer to her as my human paraklete, a Greek word used of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.  It means, literally, “one called alongside to help.”  And, Cindy has been that both to me and many patients and their families at Scottish Rite. 

But, in the past, the quiet confidence that is part of true humility has been lacking for Cindy.  Fully aware of her limitations and weaknesses, she has not been able to see herself with a ‘God’s-eye-view’ balance.

Then, several weeks ago, a life-changing event took place.  After much prayer, Cindy went as part of a group of 35 medical professionals and over 70 other support staff on a medical mission called ‘TIME for Christ’ (working out of First Baptist Church, Castle Hills, in the San Antonio area) to a town in southern Mexico.  In just 10 days of clinical work, sandwiched in between multiple days of traveling each way, for a total of 16 days gone, the team treated well over 3,000 patients in a number of areas of medical specialty.

Now, all I can say about all the others on the mission is to express my deep admiration.  They paid their own ways to sleep in classrooms on cots and work at least 12-14 hour days, often on very challenging and very sad cases of many extremely poor Mexican people (although, for political reasons within the town, they were also required to treat others who were much better off financially).  If God asked my advice, I’d suggest that they be given very large crowns in heaven.

But, as much as their incredible generosity and productivity made a God-honoring “dent” in the suffering of the world around us, I’m at least as excited about the transformation in Cindy.  When I picked her up in San Antonio, she was glowing!  Where I expected exhaustion and relief at being home, I saw instead the quiet confidence and serenity of true humility.

What a joy for me to look into her eyes and see the change!  And, how convicting for me to get my act together in regard to true humility!

Issues… (VII): “Conclusions Regarding Current BFM2000 Issues in Wider Context”

Well, I have been at this series for three and a half weeks and I’ve learned a great deal in the process.  Without question, I will never view the Baptist Faith and Message 2000–or either of its preceding editions, for that matter–in the same way. 

Gaining a grasp of history and the issues faced over time in getting to where we are now tends to greatly expand your normal–and unnoticed–”tunnel vision.”  At least, it did that for me.  So, as much as this series stretched me time- and energy-wise, I have no real regrets over having to creatively figure out where the time to do the research and writing would come from.

In fact, I would have to say that I think the conclusions expressed below may be the most important insights I have gained in regard to what is going on in the SBC right now.  I have no idea, though, how you will view them and you are the judge of significance.  All I ask is that you be willing to consider the “bigger picture” and fit the following thoughts into your mental re-orientation of the wider context.  If you do that, I have accomplished “exceedingly abundantly more” than I expected at the onset of this series.

When I began this series (originally intended to be a dialogue with Tim Guthrie, who never responded again after initially agreeing to the interactive approach), what got Tim heated up (though I did not share his fervor then and nothing I’ve found out in my study has suggested that it is going to become a “big deal” soon, though it certainly could at some point) was the issue of “caveats” related to the BFM2000.  As you may or may not know, some Southern Baptist personnel must sign the BFM2000 with complete “jot and tittle” agreement.  With many others, though, there is definitely room for disagreement at certain points, given that a word-for-word affirmation is not required for them.  What of consequence has been learned about this sticky area?

Next, the issue of what constitutes “first-tier” (i.e., supposedly what it means to be a Christian) versus “second-tier” (i.e., what it means to be a [Southern] Baptist) doctrines in the BFM2000 has buzzed around from time to time in the last year or so.  Has there been material that has been studied that helps clarify these slippery, but significant, distinctions?

Finally, in an attempt to make this a study that did not suffer from being conceieved in an overly narrow and focused manner, I dragged two more areas into the mix: 1) a parallel to the practical concept often called “canon within the canon,” which refers to the unofficial, but very real, ongoing avoidance of certain books or entire sections of the Bible; and 2) a parallel to the very official theological concepts of “Canon” vs. “Apocrypha,” notably in Roman Catholic circles leading up to and into the era of the Protestant Reformation.  Both areas are definitely worth pursuing for insight, especially since a Reform movement of a sort notably related to the last topic has begun in SBC circles.

And we’re off to the races:

Caveats (regarding the BFM2000)- After working through the Abstract of Principles and the 1925, 1963 and 2000 BFM statements, I have a lot more sympathy with those who express reservations in regard to BFM2000 wording in several areas.  Notable among them are aspects of Calvinism and those who believe in elder-led church government.  In both cases, later editions of the BFM moved away from those viewpoints.  And, the people in those admittedly minority camps in the SBC today have the right to protest: “You moved.  We didn’t.” 

Doctrinal Tiers (within the BFM2000)- I had to plow through quite a bit in the area of preconceived notions in this area to get to the following perspective.  So, I freely admit that I was a “slow learner” in regard to the doctrinal tiers of BFM2000.  But, I think I finally have a pretty good grip on things.

Here’s what I have come to understand as we have moved from the BFM1925 to the 1963 edition and the current 2000 edition.  In 1925, because it was the first BFM, both the first tier (what it means to be a Christian) and the second tier (what it means to be a Southern Baptist) doctrines were being teased out.  Because Tier One doctrines were placed first in the order of the articles, it might seem that Tier One was given more emphasis.  However, I do not think that order particularly constituted emphasis to the detriment of Tier Two doctrines placed toward the end of BFM1925.  In other words, BFM1925 did a pretty good job of balancing the sense of both “Christian identity” and “Baptist identity” for the SBC as its first official doctrinal statement.

Then, in 1963, the signficant re-shaping of the BFM was focused largely on the Tier One (“Christian identity”) doctrines.  With the exception of a couple of areas, the Tier Two (“Baptist identity”) doctrines were reworked only lightly.

In 2000, though, with the exception of the Doctrine of Scripture and one or two other core areas, it was mostly the Tier Two (“Baptist identity”) areas that got re-cast to any significant degree.  In effect, the amendment on “The Family” in 1998 had served as a forecast that a major re-defining of SBC identity was in the works as the CR progressed toward its goals.

In looking at the “big picture” here, it now seems quite clear that the current CR “covert ops” campaign of getting entity trustees to add de facto doctrinal policies/guidelines is simply “more of the same” beyond what the CR could reasonably expect to accomplish through BFM2000: forging an even “clearer” sense of Baptist identity for the era ahead (i.e., a narrower, more fundamentalist Baptist “identity”).

A Theological “Canon within the Canon”- At first glance, it may seem preposterous to some that this would even be discussed.  After all, the BFM2000 is a “seamless fabric.”  You can’t just take what you like and are comfortable with and overlook the rest, right?

Maybe.  But, what do we do with the “Peace and War” article of BFM2000?  Is the SBC, in fact, “In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ,” doing “all in [our] power to put an end to war,” as the wording in Article XVI stipulates?  Or, since some of the power-brokers among the CR wing of the SBC have been comfortably in bed politically with the Republican Party at the policy level for years, including their thinking on the current war in Irag, are the rest of us supposed to just accidentally on purpose ignore Article XVI? 

Now, please understand: I have never voted other than Republican in my life.  But, when I read the BFM2000, Article XVI, I get very uneasy about what sure looks a lot like “a canon within the canon” problem among CR muckety-mucks.  I think it’s the old “if it quacks like a duck and it walks like a duck” thing that I just can’t seem to get out of my mind.

Confessional “Canon” vs. “Apocrypha”- In my opinion, this is an analogy whose time has come.  The BFM2000 is the “doctrinal canon” of the SBC, simply because it is, to use the wording of the Garner BFM2000 Motion, “the only consensus (i.e., voted on by the Convention at large) doctrinal statement” of Southern Baptists.  Simply put, that means that anything else claiming to exert the power of “doctrine” among us is outside the canonical bounds and is, thus, “apocryphal.” 

The trustees of three SBC entities have put those entities at odds with the SBC “canon” by passing doctrinal additions thinly disguised as policies or guidelines.  And, since the passage of the Garner Motion, in tragically arrogant non-compliance with their expected  direct accountability to the Convention (see SBC Bylaw 18), none of the three trustee boards has indicated that they intend to bring these “apocryphal” policies/guidelines to the Convention for a vote, as recommended by Morris Chapman in his Convention address, “Leading by Example.”

Where does that leave things?  Like Martin Luther and the other Reformers who took their stand on the principle of Sola Scriptura, forcefully excluding the Catholic use of books of the Apocrypha as a “scriptural” basis for purgatory (and, thus, the corruption of indulgences, in regard to purgatory), the SBC must gather her courage and stand up to these blatant “doctrinal flanking maneuvers.” 

In the Reformation Era, the Catholic Church was forced to call the Council of Trent and take an official vote on their Apocrypha to provide them canonical church status in the face of Sola Scriptura.  Will the CR finally come to their senses and realize that they are no longer fooling anyone with their “covert ops” and that the intramural squabble that they started with their trustee strategy is not going to end until they submit their “apocryphal” policies/guidelines to an official Convention vote? 

The answer is: “Probably not, since they are well aware that they neither have the votes or that the Convention is in the mood to monkey with the BFM anytime soon, given that a major overhaul took place less than a decade ago and inertia has again set in for the foreseeable future.”  So, we are likely in for a “Mexican standoff” until something happens that breaks the impasse.

As I prepare to close this series, it seems an appropriate juncture at which to lay out what is my biggest conclusion of all: how the CR has almost imperceptibly done a “make-over” on the very nature of the BFM in recent years.  Where only a generation ago, the BFM was considered–at least for the most part–a “still life picture,” if you will, it is now anything but.  Please carefully ponder the following:

1) As I said in an earlier installment, the BFM2000 is clearly both the voted-in official SBC doctrinal statement and a quasi-negotiated political document that had to face the realities of what the mood of the Convention would tolerate.  If the CR moguls had thought they had the votes to pass BFM2000 with everything they are doing by “covert ops” now (and probably other doctrinal minutia we haven’t even seen yet), they would most certainly have rolled that out too.

2) It is also at once a past-present and a present-future document.  The past-present angle deals with the continuity (similarity) and discontinuity (differences) of the current BFM with past statements.  The present-future angle has to with being a present tense ”snapshot” of our belief structure–the way it had been viewed previously–at the same time that it is a moving picture (video) of how SBC doctrine is alive and, thus, ever in the process of changing, even if almost imperceptibly, as we move toward the future.  (By the way, that is the best way I know to account for the fact that the BFM2000 seemed very conservative to a whole lot of people just seven years ago and does not seem that way at all to many of those same people now… although, admittedly, most in that category seem to be lockstep CR clones.)

and 3) Again, it is at once a descriptive and a prescriptive document.  In one respect, it is designed to detail with reasonable accuracy what the SBC has come to believe and voted into its authoritative place.  But, in another way, a careful reading strongly implies that it is also a somewhat less than subtle attempt to be a leading indicator/influence in either wooing or strong-arming some who opposed or voted against it to come around and embrace the areas with which they disagreed in 2000.

Bottom line: Apparently the CR honchos learned a trick or 12 from the legendary E.Y. Mullins, architect of BFM1925, who developed the concept of “soul competency” and steered it into the BFM.  Largely because of Mullins and his influence through BFM1925, a huge number of Southern Baptists were dramatically impacted in regard to the idea of “soul competency.”  And, the CR cadre behind BFM2000 has employed a similar influence in several areas.

But, Mullins’ example is not enough to explain the breadth of the changes in the way that the CR views and employs BFM2000.  So, is there an obvious example on a grand enough scale in our wider cultural context that can adequately explain the changes?

Possibly.  For about the first century and a half of its existence, the Constitution of the United States was viewed as a static document, to be interpreted by a “strict constructionist” approach.  But, with the appointment of a majority of justices who took an activist approach to Constitutional law, heavily utilizing precedent and interpreting key wording as what it could be stretched to mean, not what the authors intended it to mean, things changed dramatically.  And, realistically, the legal landscape of the United States may never recover from the impact of those highly unfortunate–and uncalled for–changes in perspective and hermeneutics.

Is there really a nickel’s worth of difference attitudinally and hermenentically with this example of American Constititutional law when the CR reads in their desired meaning to baptism being a “church ordinance?”  How about when their entity trustees “covert ops” campaign takes action to create “precedent” in our missions agencies and one of our seminaries?  Not that I can tell.  Both are stories of a small group of activists finding a brilliant, initially low-profile way to get their way.

Will they “get their way” long-term?  Those employing such a strategy and approach certainly did in regard to the Supreme Court for a long, long time.  The verdict is still out in the SBC.  Amen (prayerfully).

Coming Tomorrow: Fridays are for… Newpaper Articles (i.e., my weekly local column)

Coming Monday: The Holy Spirit… (VII): “The Spirit’s ‘Sealing’: Two Sides of the Coin”

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today (VI): “What is Meant by ‘Fully Divine?’”

In the Baptist Faith and Message 1963, the sub-article on “God the Holy Spirit” began: “The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.”  In the BFM2000, the wording was changed to: “The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, fully divine” (italics mine).

Since very little else was changed in the entire sub-article on the Spirit, this two-word addition does raise a point of curiosity.  That is especially true since the two words added seem to be fairly clearly implied (i.e., at least within even the most sketchy of orthodox Christian theological frameworks) in the brief sentence to which they were appended.

Nor was there any explanation given in the “window dressing” introductory statement or the published statements by the BFM2000 committee in which many of their actions were laid out with rationale.  So, while it was a significant enough addition to be made, it was apparently not a big enough issue to discuss.

What are we to make of the addition of “fully divine?”  It is hard not to think that the BFM2000 committee was concerned that some Southern Baptists do not think the Holy Spirit is deity.  What else could it be?

Now, if that is truly the case–meaning that the addition of “fully divine” was not just theological overkill or paranoia–the SBC has got a lot bigger fish to fry in regard to getting its doctrine of the Holy Spirit squared away than worrying about speaking in tongues or private prayer language.  Think about it: if there are Southern Baptists who believe that the Spirit is less than “fully divine,”  then the core of the unquestionably first-tier doctrine of the Trinity may be up for grabs in at least some sector of the SBC at the very time that the Conservative Resurgence has decided to expend its energies on getting third-tier doctrinal areas related to the Spirit put in place as ”apocryphal” (i.e., beyond the “canon” of BFM2000) doctrinal guidelines or policies in several SBC entities.

Now, I am not going to invest the time here to prove that the Holy Spirit is God (although, if any readers doubt that, or have no idea what biblical data exists to make that case, please let me know and I will gladly lay that out in either a comment or another post).  It seems more helpful at this point to consider what the sub-biblical/sub-orthodox view of the Holy Spirit might be that could have “spooked” the BFM2000 committee into making the addition they did.

Suffice it to say here that the most common general view throughout church history that has held that the Holy Spirit is less than “fully divine” is some form of Subordinationism, or viewing the Spirit as subordinate to the Father and the Son (a term which, on occasion, has also been applied to a deficient view of God the Son in comparison to the Father).  But, frankly, I never heard a peep about any such heresy spreading in the SBC, or other evangelical circles, leading up to the year 2000.  So, I have a tendency to discount that there was a serious problem of heterodoxy (i.e., heretical belief) in regard to the Spirit brewing in SBC circles at that time.

However, it is very clear that, in some parts of the SBC, there is a big problem in regard to heteropraxy (i.e., heretical practice).  Without question, there is an encroaching practical Subordinationism when many leaders and churches can say “I believe in the Holy Spirit confessionally”… and that’s the last you ever hear of the Spirit. 

If you think this is reaching, let me ask you this: What else can you call it when you are in a setting in which the Father is constantly invoked in prayer and Jesus is talked about very frequently… but there is a deafening silence about the Holy Spirit? 

Yes, you could try to say that simply reflects a “minor spiritual imbalance.”  But, is it “minor?”  After all, we are talking about the Trinity here.  Whether it be Al Mohler’s “theological triage,” or any other approach to ranking the importance of various doctrines within a wider systematic theological perspective, the Trinity is always right up there at the top of the heap–unless, of course, you are not Trinitarian in your belief.

Here’s where I’m going with this: In the wider CR/Cessationist alliance that currently precariously holds power in the SBC, the factors of fear (mostly by laymen), fleshly actions (more by leaders) and a general disregard–if not disdain among some of the more adamant Cessationists–have brought into being a form of what can be best described as “practical Subordinationism” in regard to the Holy Spirit.  Simply put, the Spirit is, at best, a “second-class citizen” God in those circles.  In this lengthening silence about almost everything related to the Spirit except, of course, what they are against–tongues and private prayer language–the CR/Cessationist alliance is revealing that they “hold to a form of religion, but deny its power” (see 2 Timothy 3:5).

In conclusion, let’s adapt Jesus’ well-known words about Himself to the (lack of) relationship to the Holy Spirit by this wing of the SBC today: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven… .  On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophecy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?” (Matthew 7:21, 22, HCSB; italics mine).

What might the CR/Cessationist folks say to the Spirit on the last day?  How about: “Spirit we say is God, didn’t we say we believed in Your divinity every time we affirmed the BFM2000, didn’t we say that we believed that You indwell us–although we hardly ever troubled You for help–and didn’t we spare no effort to wipe out the pox of Continuationism in the Southern Baptist Convention?”

What was Jesus’ response?  “I never knew you.  Depart from Me…” (7:23).  Now, exactly why should the Spirit’s response to the SBC “practical Subordinationists” be notably different from Jesus’? 

Certainly, I do hope the Spirit will be merciful to this hard-nosed anti-Spirit faction in our midst, in spite of all their efforts to ”quench” or ignore Him.  But, I honestly couldn’t blame Him much if He just “seconded the motion” on Jesus’ answer.  And, behind closed doors, in the privacy of the moment in which you read this, if you are brutally honest with yourself and the Lord, could you blame Him?  Selah and Amen.

Coming Tomorrow: Issues… (VII): “Conclusions Regarding Current BFM2000 Issues in Wider Context”

Coming Friday: “Fridays are for… Newspaper Articles”