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”