The ghosts of blogging past made some appearances at the SBC Annual Meeting this year:
Dave Miller is the first blogger (to my knowledge) to be elected to SBC national office. That's an interesting and significant development, I think. I don't know that it represents a major change in the way that Southern Baptists view bloggers, since factors specific to this year may have played a significant role. Then again, maybe it does represent a change, since…
Marty Duren was present at the convention as a paid employee of Lifeway. The outsider blogger has now been assimilated. :-) Maybe a history of blogging doesn't really amount to a roadblock for anything you want to do in the SBC.
The (in)famous "Garner motion" made an appearance at the convention, as well. Back in 2007, SBC blogging erupted in interpretive warfare over whether the BF&M was a "maximal" or "minimal" doctrinal statement for Southern Baptists. The "Garner motion" was like a Rorschach test. Some people suggested that it reinforced the "maximal" viewpoint—that the convention was saying thereby that our entities could expect people to adhere to the BF&M, but to no more than the BF&M. Others (including myself) maintained that the motion actually backed up the "minimal" viewpoint—that the convention was saying that our entities must expect their employees to adhere AT LEAST to the BF&M and could have additional doctrinal requirements beyond that minimal standard.
This year's resolution "ON COOPERATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION" made specific reference to the Garner motion:
WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention in 2007 affirmed The Baptist Faith and Message as a consensus confession, but not a comprehensive confession, seeking to unify Southern Baptists, local churches, and other Baptist bodies that may also hold other confessions of faith. (emphasis mine)
And so, now the messengers of the SBC are on record affirming the interpretation of the Garner Motion that I supported all along. The BF&M is our "minimal" "consensus confession" upon which we all agree. Our churches and our entities "may also hold other [additional] confessions of faith." Some of our churches or entities may be more Calvinistic and may affirm the Abstract of Principles or the Second London Confession. Other churches or individuals might affirm something like the "Traditional Statement" as an alternative soteriology to Calvinism. I suppose, if an entity can affirm the Abstract of Principles, an entity could also affirm the "Traditional Statement" and make affirmation of it a requirement for employment, although no entity is going to do that. The point is that, the individual variations of our churches and entities notwithstanding, we are unified by the fact that we all affirm the common core of doctrine that is the Baptist Faith & Message and then we have freedom to go beyond that.
Well, that was precisely what I and others were saying all along about the Garner motion. It was nice to see Southern Baptists owning that view of the Garner motion as their own through the adoption of this resolution.
20 comments:
Bart. And, we were agreeing on so much!
There were probably 10 people in the whole convention who even made the connection. A vote on a statement absent a debate on a particular point can be interpreted many ways. We DID have the debate in 2007 and it was clear - and then the vote. Mohler knew what the vote said. That is why he addressed it the way he did and reinterpreted it. I seriously doubt that a vote on another non-binding resolution 5 years later by another slate of messengers interprets what happened in 2007.
The debate in 2007 was anything BUT clear. The first speaker out of the chute claimed that the Garner Motion was needed to protect the convention from liberal denials of the BF&M. Much obfuscation took place there. At least a part of the background in 2007 was the fact that I endorsed the Garner Motion before the debate ever took place and before we voted on it. The wording of the Garner Motion clearly left room for the "minimal" view of the BF&M, so I saw no reason to oppose it.
What's sort of funny is that when I wrote the original resolution I didn't have the Garner motion in mind. Someone mentioned it at the convention and I had to ask them what they were talking about. This marks one thing I appreciate about the way we do resolutions: the committee is able to improve them and add a perspective (in this case, historical) that the messenger may not have.
And, you've got to admit, the application of this motion to Calvinism supports my viewpoint. The idea with regard to Calvinism is simply that entities like Southern and Southeastern get to be more Calvinistic and have the Abstract and go beyond the BF&M.
That's just not as controversial with regard to seminaries and Calvinism as it was with regard to baptism and the IMB.
So, Chris, was that paragraph added by the committee?
Bart,
To some degree. It echoes (and in some ways goes beyond) what I originally had in a Resolved section:
RESOLVED, that we affirm the autonomy of local congregations in holding confessions of faith which may address matters not contained in, yet consistent with, the Baptist Faith and Message
Whereas mine is specific to local congregations, the version from the committee includes entities, etc, and I think that was a good change for them to make.
Bart,
Interesting comments, especially on the Baptist Faith & Message.
I wonder how many Calvinists would agree that since Southern Seminary has its Abstracts,that, for example, Southwestern could have its Traditional Statement on Salvation?
Good to see you at the Convention.
David R. Brumbelow
Let me refresh your memory a little bit Bart concerning the Garner motion debate which occurred more after the motion passed than it did during the voting for the motion.
As Alan said, there were probably 10 people that knew what the Garner motion was even referencing.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2007/06/transcript-of-debate-at-2007-sbc-over.html
I'm against any entity introducing a more narrow confession of faith. The Abstract is part of the charters of SBTS and SEBTS. It's not the same as another entity introducing a new confession. If there was no abstract, I'd be against SBTS and SEBTS introducing it.
I think that if swbts adopted the traditionalist document it would be an excellent way to increase enrollment...at Southern.
Bart;
The problem is not 'New Calvinism'; the problem is 'New CalvinISTS'. Knee jerk opposition to anything from anyone who isn't a card carrying member of their holy army grows a bit thin. Be very careful when you say 'good morning'; someone will be offended.
Dale
If we can change the name of the SBC, and we can change the way NAMB operates; then surely we can change and get rid of the abstracts at Southern and Southeastern. Why not? Are they a sacred, golden calf, which cant be touched? Of course, we, the people, can tell them to get rid of the abstracts; if we want it that way.
And, if Southwestern and New Orleans adopted the Traditional Statement, I seriously doubt that it would increase the enrollment of Southern and Southeastern.
This thing can cut both ways. If you want the BFM to be a maximum statement, then let it be that... for all the entities of the SBC. If you want it to be a minimal statement, then let it be a minimal statement for ALL entities of the SBC. No one should get a pass. No one should get special treatment.
David
Well volfan, I can't be sure that if Southwestern adopts the traditionalist document enrollment will increase at Southern. I know for a fact that if Southwestern adopts the traditionalist document Southwestern's enrollment will decrease by one before the ink is dry:)
Now, guys…
Being ABLE to do something is distinct from finding it WISE or RIGHT to do something. Any entity COULD adopt the Traditional Statement; none WILL do so.
But the point of the Garner Motion is nonetheless important. SWBTS already has adopted additional statements beyond the BF&M. Professors have to affirm the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, for example.
Southern Baptists have a polity that favors appointing Christians to a ministry responsibility and then TRUSTING that the Christians with the responsibility will be faithful, and that those so entrusted will make better decisions than those Christians who have less involvement in the ministry, and therefore less context by which to make decisions.
That is what Trustees are all about.
I am under the impression that the Convention can appoint trustees, remove trustees (one at a time) or cut funding to the ministry. But that is all the Convention can do.
I would be surprised if any of our seminaries were subject to the annual whims of the Convention.
Are Southern Baptist trustees considerate of the desires of the Convention? Yes, I think so.
Getting a good giggle reading comments in support of a document purporting to state the traditional SB soteriological position by arguing that the doctrinal statement of the oldest SB seminary is too Calvinistic in its soteriology.
Southern Baptists have a polity that favors appointing Christians to a ministry responsibility and then TRUSTING that the Christians with the responsibility will be faithful, and that those so entrusted will make better decisions than those Christians who have less involvement in the ministry, and therefore less context by which to make decisions."
Your views are interesting considering your treatment of Wade Burleson a few years back on the IMB. Maybe we should not be so trusting of our trustees.
"Getting a good giggle reading comments in support of a document purporting to state the traditional SB soteriological position by arguing that the doctrinal statement of the oldest SB seminary is too Calvinistic in its soteriology."
men trained by the Presbyterians who were also pro slavery. Quite the giggle.
Anonymous,
Jerry's treatment of Wade Burleson…
1. Is not known firsthand to me, and probably is not known firsthand to you, unless you were a trustee with them at the time.
2. If it was characterized by disagreement with Wade, was not in tension with his statement above, I don't think, since that would mean that Jerry was in support of the actions of the board, right? Wade was in opposition to the actions of the board of trustees, if I recall correctly.
Here's a thought...from the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 preamble:
(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.
It would seem that Founders could do this if they wish, Traditionalists could do this if they wish, and that the Trustee Boards of our entities have done so.
If someone wants to get the Convention to curtail this inherent right, they should make their point very clearly. Ambiguous language is poor at best and less than honest at worst.
Even if the Convention DOES make a clear statement designating the BF &M as a 'maximal' statement; none of the Trustee Boards need go along.
At some point, people should learn about our polity.
Post a Comment