Break in series (III): “An Exercise in Careful Application…”

Several weeks ago, I wrote a reply to the then growing stack of withdrawn endorsements of SBC Outpost by SBC leaders because of purported un-Christlike and non-Christ-honoring content on Outpost.  All were well-intended, although, as I’ve heard from multiple sources since, more than one was done under duress from the biggest SBC power types behind the scenes.  Anyway, the unintended consequence of those pleas for “civil” dialogue was only to make the double standard intended to protect the major SBC power-brokers from any criticism at all just that much more obvious.

To make a longer story short, in that piece, I cited the following New Testament passages as examples of clearly Christ-like (because said by Jesus) and Christ-honoring speech which rebuked and corrected, in certain cases, some of the highest-profile leaders of the New Testament era: Matthew 23; Acts 5 and 7; Galatians 2; Philippians 4; and 3 John.  In addition, I pointed out that the proper New Testament standard for dealing with sinning leaders is not Matthew 18, but 1 Timothy 5.

Among the widely varying responses of my readers were those of Scott Lamb and Peter Lumpkins.  Scott accused me of saying all kinds of things about Paige Patterson and Al Mohler by the use of the above passages which I did not say in any way, shape, form or fashion.  (At the very most, I left only the vaguest dangling implications.)  In the comment stream, I said that to Scott, then Peter came along and in “We’re not going to let you off that easy” mode, challenged me again on it–although, thankfully, in a more much charitable tone.  As a result, I promised to do the following ‘careful application’ study as soon as possible–and, with everything that has been going on, this is as soon as I could get to it, guys.

Why do I use the terminology ‘careful application?’  Because so much of what is around in our pulpits–and even some classrooms–is anything but careful application.

Here is my background in this area: For about 10 years, I taught–at both the seminary and undergrad levels–either required hermeneutics or Bible study methods courses.  In addition, either though it was never published, I wrote the “How to Interpret and Apply the Bible” essay for what was planned to be the New American Standard Study Bible, which got tied up in copyright issues and never saw the light of day.

What I am going to do for the remainder of this post is to lay out: 1) an overview perspective on the movement from interpretation to application; and 2) compact applicational treatments of each of the passages listed above.  I trust that, even though many may disagre strongly with the applications I will draw, they will at least see that they are not forced or reckless, but legitimate applicationally (i.e., careful).

Why did God give us our inerrant Bible?  Here’s the one-sentence summary I developed for my courses and discussed in much more depth in that unpublished essay: “God gave Scripture into historical time that we might draw timeless principles for timely application.”

The “time” part is why we study the historical background issues in Bible survey or introduction courses.  Each book was written in specific historical circumstances that, in many cases, signficantly affect its interpretation.

The “timeless” part is the drawing of general principles that are just as true for believers today as they were when the passage was first written.  Also, it is “timeless” doctrinal truth that is expressed as theology.

Finally, “timely” truth is specific application of the general principles developed in the last step.  This is done on the basis of what is often called “genuinely comparable particulars.”  In other words, instead of application being a sprayed around scatter-gun blast, it is supposed to be a rifle shot aimed carefully at the bulls-eye of a legitimate target.

O.K.  Here we go:

Matthew 23-

Timeless principle: Hypocritical arrogant religious leaders are worthy of strong public rebuke. 

Timely application: (I’m going to stick to one small area here, because, with everything in this chapter, I could go on for quite a while and stir up a hornet’s next in the process.)  “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (23:12, HCSB).  Applicationally, there can be little doubt that the consolidation of more and more power over time by Drs. Patterson and Mohler reflects their self-exaltation.  Thus, applicationally, they must be lovingly, yet firmly, challenged to humble themselves before the Lord, before they are somehow humbled before Him.  If they do so, the specific promise is that He will exalt them–but, instead of on their terms, it will be on His terms, in His way, in His timing.

Acts 5-

Timeless principle: Christians who are not honest about reporting figures deserve rebuke and judgment.

Timely application: As Peter held Ananias and Sapphira accountable for lying to the Holy Spirit by making themselves look better, how can we in the SBC hold Paige Patterson to a lesser standard when he will not report the dropping enrollment at SWBTS, in order to make himself look better.  Before anybody gets self-righteous, though, how can the SBC continue to say we are 16 million, when we only have 6 million we can account for?  We are collectively guilty on that one.

Acts 7-

Timeless principle: Religious leaders get angry and react in a fleshly manner when something they need to understand is told them directly by God’s chosen party.

Timely application: Certain powerful SBC leaders, notably Dr. Mohler, reacted in clearly fleshly anger when the vote on the Garner BFM Motion, a clear voice from the Convention to rein in entity unaccountability to the Convention, had been heard.  His defiant statement that he would not obey the Convention’s wishes took the place of what was supposed to be the SBTS seminary report, meaning he usurped the proper use of his time to spew anger.  Why is that any different from the attitude of those Sanhedrin leaders with Stephen, except that Dr. Mohler didn’t pick up any rocks?

Galatians 2-

Timeless principle: Even the biggest name Christian leader must be publicly rebuked when they are leading others into narrowed belief/behavior.

Timely application: The SBC standard for what is agreed-upon belief and behavior is the BFM2000.  Yet, when the IMB trustees instituted their narrowing “apocryphal” guidelines, Dr. Mohler instructed his faculty not to speak against them–though they are not part of the BFM2000, our only official doctrinal statement.  Similarly, Dr. Patterson pushed for the SWBTS trustees to institute an “apocryphal” policy that effectively placed a gag order on his faculty even though it is not part of the BFM2000.  And, why is this not like the Apostle Peter having a double doctrinal standard in Galatians 2?

Philippians 4-

Timeless principle: It is permissible to name names of believers whose personal differences cause disunity in the body of Christ and urge them to heal the differences.

Timely application: It is no secret that several of our SBC entity heads do not like each other very much for whatever reasons.  Yet, when Ben Cole (and others) have pointed that out, their loyal supporters cry “Foul!”  But, why is such naming names today any different than Paul calling out Euodia and Syntyche?

3 John-

Timeless principle: Christian leaders who elevate themselves and try to run everything are to be rebuked, because what they are doing is evil (verses 9-11).

Timely application: It is no secret that both Patterson and Mohler are arrogant micro-managers who do not listen much at all to those around them who are better qualified to handle certain key responsibilities.  Their trustees should be the ones to step in and curb their egotistical tendencies of loving to “have first place” in everything (verse 9).  But, they are nowhere to be found when it comes to accountability, whether their presidents to them or them to the Convention.

1 Timothy 5-

Timeless principle: On the basis of two or more witnesses, Christian leaders are to be publicly rebuked for sin, to scare other leaders from engaging in similar sin.

Timely application: It is Patterson’s and Mohler’s contention that women cannot teach in seminaries because of 1 Timothy 2:12.  That means they see their seminaries as being run on the same principles as local churches, since that is the context of 1 Timothy 2.  That also means that all of Patterson’s and Mohler’s male professors–including themselves–must meet the qualfications for local church leadership in 1 Timothy 3:1ff. (as well as the parallel passages in Titus 1:5ff. and 1 Peter 5:1-3).  If that is the case, then Drs. Patterson and Mohler should be handled one of two ways: 1) Dropped from faculty status because they can’t qualify according to these passages because both are arrogant (Titus 1:7) and both are bullies (1 Timothy 3:3), plus Patterson’s opulent lifestlye reveals his greed (3:3) and Mohler is a very angry man (Titus 1:7); or, 2) if they retain faculty status, they must be publicly rebuked (1 Timothy 5:20) for habitually flaunting these behavioral standards to qualify to be a leader.

Interesting point here: You can’t have it both ways.  If you are going to exclude a Sheri Klouda from teaching in a seminary because, as a woman, she can’t meet the standards imposed on church leadership, then you must make the leaders you do have live up to those standards.  If you don’t, and particularly if you are unwilling to allow your highest leaders to receive “church discipline” specifically designed for leaders (1 Timothy 5:20), that incredibly inconsistent behavior is the very definition of a double standard.

And thus ends our exercise in careful application.  Selah and Amen.