Theological Triage and Statements of Faith

The following post refers extensively to the framework that Dr. Al Mohler articulated in his own blog post of 12 July 2005 entitled "A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity." You can find that article here.

The official statement of faith for the Southern Baptist Convention is the Baptist Faith & Message. I have signed this document several times. And, in point of fact, not only have I signed it, but I also have read it and I agree with it. My signing of this document has been a matter of informed consent.

And yet, agreeing entirely as I do with the content of our statement of faith, I'd still like to toss out something to consider about the document's format. Although it would make these documents slightly more complex, would it be a good thing to organize statements of faith according to the varying priorities of the doctrines listed therein?

At the very least, one might create a statement of faith that acknowledged Dr. Mohler's three-tiered system of theological triage by organizing the doctrines into three tiers. The document could begin by stating: "These are the essential doctrines of the faith. Whoever does not affirm these truths, let him be anathema. Any so-called 'church' not embracing these truths in teaching and practice is a cult." And afterwards, the statement could give a list of cardinal, tier-one doctrines.

In the next section, the preamble could go along these lines: "Following are the distinctive beliefs that identify a Southern Baptist. Any church not embracing these truths in teaching and practice, although it may genuinely be a Christian church, is not qualified to cooperate within the Southern Baptist Convention." The statement could then go on to list which are these tier-two doctrines.

In the final section, the document could stipulate: "The following can be identified as important Southern Baptist beliefs both in our history and in our current practice, and yet we acknowledge that diversity of opinion has and does exist within our convention on these matters, and that some level of cooperation is possible even among those who disagree. Therefore, although we require that the ministries of this convention be conducted in accordance with and not contrary to these beliefs, we do not believe that they rise to the level of importance that would warrant the breaking of fellowship among sister churches due to differences over these matters." And then the doctrinal statement could enumerate those matters that belong in this category.

Of course, I acknowledge that it would be an absolute political bloodletting in the Southern Baptist Convention actually to work through this process. Nevertheless, I want to make something absolutely clear: I believe that we ALREADY have and are using something like this. It's just that most Southern Baptists didn't get a say in how the tiers were created and applied, and the scheme (or schemes), however they exist in the minds of Southern Baptist leaders, aren't published for anyone's review or correction.

I know that significant discussion and disagreement might ensue in the comment section over which particular items belong where, and that's fine, but I hope that you'll also all make some statement about the overarching concept—whether a tiered statement of faith would be a good idea in general, presuming that doctrines were placed correctly. I think the idea would provide greater clarity than we now enjoy.

As a final note, I should acknowledge my own friendly interaction with Mohler's Triage (which I published here) in which I suggested that triage is a bit more complicated than a rigid three-tier system could accommodate. This being the case, I believe that a local church's statement of faith might include even more levels than these three.

It's Really About Baptism

Lifeway Research is reporting that 52% of Southern Baptist churches no longer really consider obedience to Christ's command to be baptized to be that big of a deal.

That's the true, central meaning of this report. Although the subject of the report is ostensibly the Lord's Supper, the shift in Southern Baptist practice actually reveals movement in Southern Baptist thinking about the OTHER ordinance. It would be different, I suppose, if 52% of SBC pastors had responded that the Lord's Supper should be provided to whomever wishes to participate, but that's not how the survey came back. SBC churches are willing to dictate who should and who shouldn't partake; they just don't think that baptism is all that important—not significant enough to enter into such deliberations.

This is hard evidence of the movement away from being Baptist that is sweeping through SBC churches. What factors have brought us to this point? Here are my thoughts.

1. Cowardice. Going open-communion is easy. On the other hand, anyone who leads a church to make refusal to be baptized a bar to open communion is going to have to be prepared to endure enormous pressure for doing so.

2. Evangelicalism. It is the nature of market-driven evangelicalism to de-emphasize ecclesiology in general and the ordinances in particular. These things are but impediments to the growth of one's market.

3. Liberalism. The flight of paedo-baptists from liberal denominations into SBC churches has filled our churches with people who do not share our core convictions.

4. Pragmatism. Atheological pragmatism—the worship of method and numerical success—bothers not at all with whether Christ has really commanded that we baptize and be baptized or whether ongoing rebellion against Christ's command is reason for one not to partake of the supper. Rather, it simply asks what will be the cost of closed communion in attendance and dollars.

5. Permissivism. The loss of church discipline is an important factor in this downgrade. Really, without church discipline, our Baptist understanding of baptism and the Lord's Supper doesn't make any sense.

I Say We Kick Them Out. I'll Make the Motion

According to the Jackson, MS, Clarion-Ledger newspaper, the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, MS, has denied to allow a couple to get married in the church's meeting space because that couple is black. The pastor of the congregation acknowledges as much.

If something doesn't change between now and then, I personally will make the motion at our SBC Annual Meeting in Houston that we refuse to seat messengers from this church and that we declare them not to be in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention.

Dave Miller has blogged about this, and I'm thankful for that. Our other officers should vocally lead on this one. I'm not saying that President Luter should not speak to the problem as well; rather, I'm saying that it is important for the world to see WHITE Southern Baptists standing up against racist churches.

This church is acting in violation to the clear teachings of the Bible and to the clear text of the Baptist Faith & Message. The Southern Baptist Convention needs to become a confessional fellowship in which actions like this one that are in violation of the Baptist Faith & Message constitute clear grounds for removal from the convention.

I am hopeful that I'll never have to make my motion. The fact that I promise to do so if this church does not formally repent of its actions will, I suspect, make that kind of repentance more likely. They know that they'll lose that vote if the motion ever comes to the convention floor. Perhaps the fear of national shame over this will become bigger than their fear of their racist members who caused all of this to begin with. I'd bet that those members aren't numerous within the congregation, but are just monied and influential.

In the Town of New Orleans, Part 3

The ghosts of blogging past made some appearances at the SBC Annual Meeting this year:

1. 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…

2. 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.

3. 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.

The Baptist Faith & Message and the "Senior Pastor"

I have long avoided the use of the title "Senior Pastor." Indeed, I once wrote a post about why I prefer not to employ that title. The problem is not that the title isn't biblical; the problem is that the title is biblical ("Chief Shepherd") and is reserved for someone else (Jesus) in its biblical use. Yes, it is a personal quirk, and I do have good friends who employ the title. Use of it is no test of friendship or fellowship with me. I just abstain from the use of it myself.

So, I'm glad to note for you that the title "Senior Pastor" appears nowhere within the text of The Baptist Faith & Message. Look for yourself. So, when Wade Burleson says, "I was not personally bothered [in 2000] by the BFM 2000 prohibition on women serving as 'Senior Pastors,' nor am I interested in amending the BFM 2000," he reveals that he needs to read the document more carefully. The BF&M states that the entire pastoral office is limited to men—as I stated before, there is no distinction in the document differentiating "senior" pastors from plain old pastors.

I thought about posting this before, but worried that it would just be another volley in some shooting war over feminist agendas in the SBC. I didn't want to pour gasoline on a fire, but neither did I want to leave a misrepresentation of the BF&M's text uncorrected forever. Hopefully I have waited long enough for the fervor to have waned so that I can just post this factual correction and move on.

The BF&M: The Consensus Document?

Recently our blogging brother Les Puryear offered a piece of analysis at his blog entitled BFM2K: Not Minimal or Maximal but Consensus. In his post, Puryear strove to discard the language of "minimal" or "maximal" with regard to the application of The Baptist Faith and Message, preferring instead to refer to it as the "consensus" of the Southern Baptist Convention. The ultimate implication of Puryear's post was, contrary to the wording of the title, to make the BF&M both a maximal and a minimal document. Here's that conclusion expressed pretty plainly in the article:

For those who wish to reduce the doctrinal standards of the SBC, which are addressed by BFM2K, I submit that you are in violation of the consensus position of the SBC.

For those who wish to stipulate additional doctrinal standards which are not addressed by BFM2K, I also submit that you are in violation of the consensus position of the SBC.

Puryear buttresses his argument with language from the infamous Executive Committee statement proffered to the convention through the Garner Motion:

The Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible; nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention. (emphasis mine)

Puryear includes in his article a two-point definition of "consensus" that is helpful and from which I will draw in my counter-analysis. I think that much of Puryear's analysis is thoughtful, sincere, and potentially helpful. Certainly these are the most important questions of our time in the SBC, and we do well to clarify them. I am thankful for Les Puryear's efforts in that direction.

I agree with this article and with the EC statement (which I endorsed) that the BF&M represents a consensus of SBC doctrinal opinion. However, I think that it is important to note that, by the definition of "consensus" given in Puryear's article (and it is a good and accurate definition), every decision of the SBC is a consensus decision. Thus, I can accurately say that the current trustees of the International Mission Board, approved by the messengers to the SBC, are the only consensus decision makers regarding doctrinal policies at the IMB. The rest of us can all hold our own opinions about what ought to occur there or at any other entity, but our opinions do not enjoy the gravity that trustee opinions hold by consensus action of the convention.

The BF&M is a consensus document; it is not the only, total doctrinal consensus of Southern Baptists. As "statement[s] of doctrinal beliefs" go—formal documents containing a partial listing of articles of the faith for a group of people—The Baptist Faith and Message is indeed the only one of those endorsed by the consensus opinion of the convention. However, the convention has expressed consensus upon a large number of doctrinal issues not contained in any formal "statement of doctrinal beliefs." As I stated long ago (see here), the SBC now has a consensus opinion upon global warming. Of course, some folks have taken issue with the global warming resolution, but certainly no more than have objected to the latest revision of The Baptist Faith and Message (not even as many!).

So, the Southern Baptist Convention has put its consensus behind a great number of propositions. Puryear's article mentions (even if I would give the idea more attention) what does effectively differentiate The Baptist Faith and Message from other consensus actions of the convention: certainty and importance. Southern Baptists have nowhere hinted that we enjoy no more consensus than the boundaries of the BF&M, but we have stated that we have made an effort to identify critically important items by their inclusion in the BF&M. These thoughts we identify as "those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us," that is, the things about which have achieved a high level of certainty. Further in the preamble we read about the importance of these doctrines in verbiage that Puryear has quoted: "We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice."

Nevertheless, the convention itself has demonstrated by its own actions that it is entirely capable and willing to find consensus on other items of either lesser certainty or lesser importance than the doctrines enshrined in the BF&M. Indeed, should the people of the SBC make any plain statement about the desired role for The Baptist Faith and Message, that action in and of itself would be a consensus statement outside of our statement of faith.

In conclusion, those who lead our entities find themselves discharging their duties within a number of common-sense constraints. They dare not contradict The Baptist Faith and Message where it speaks, because Southern Baptists have demonstrated their consensus behind it as an "instrument of doctrinal accountability." As such an instrument, it is a minimal statement of doctrine (to reject any portion of it is to be in disagreement with the document and to be subject to convention accountability). They dare not ignore other consensus statements of the Southern Baptist Convention, although these lack the full force of the BF&M, since Southern Baptists have not generally declared these as thoughts "most surely held" or "essential." Nevertheless, to contradict the consensus opinion of the SBC as expressed in a resolution or motion is a serious thing indeed. Finally, they dare not oppose the trustees of the institution, because they are the only consensus group of people to make decisions for the institutions which they govern.

Miscellaneous Roundup

I've left a lot of threads hanging in the breeze over the past few months of blogging. Some of them are significant enough that people are asking me about them. This post doesn't really have a topic, other than an update on some of these miscellaneous items.

First, several of you have kindly inquired offline about the status of the potential adoption that I first mentioned here. To summarize, the adoption did not happen. That's the risk that you run when you get involved in this process. It never gets easy, but you get better at handling it.

Second, the Virtual Stock Exchange competition mentioned here. Ladies and Gentlemen, the winner's wreath goes to Steve Grose, the investor-baron of Australia. In the last couple of days he surmounted my months-long lead in the game. Congratulations, Steve!

Third, I have completed my sermon calendaring web application, and a couple of people have seen it running on my iPhone, but I'm still trying to figure out a way to offer it to people for free.

Fourth, I am building a different blog for our bipartisan effort to produce a clear-cut decision on the role of the Baptist Faith & Message in Indianapolis. I'll give you the details in a few days.

Relevance of the TBN Show

Ever since Tim Guthrie—who, I have from reliable sources, has programmed PTL into his Tivo—broke the story of the TBN interview into the Southern Baptist blogversation, a few people have asked why the program is at all relevant to Southern Baptist life (some in this forum, some in others, some offline). I reply in two parts: First, the people involved in the panel that comprised the last half of the program were all Southern Baptist pastors, capable of sending messengers to our meetings. The thesis of the entire program was that these men were part of a growing segment in the Southern Baptist Convention at the center of a current controversy in Southern Baptist life. So, the program itself asserted that it was discussing matters relevant to the future of the SBC. Second, although I am convinced that many of the current SBC dissidents do not themselves hold the theology of Camp, Miller, Hogue, and Blessitt, they have not convinced me that they would not throw the doors of the SBC wide open to such men. Indeed, some among them have labored hard for years to convince people of just the opposite. Nevertheless, the purpose of blogging is dialogue, not monologue. Therefore, if I have misunderstood our dissident brethren, I invite any of them to compose and post on their blogs an essay with the following thesis: If over the next twenty years the leadership and direction of the Southern Baptist Convention were to change such that Wade Burleson's Statement on (Southern Baptist?) Cooperation were adopted instead of the BF&M as our instrument of doctrinal accountability and the boundaries of our cooperative efforts, I would personally work to oppose the channeling of Cooperative Program dollars to fund missionaries with the beliefs and practices of Dwain Miller and Scott Camp because…

Guest Post: Dr. Greg Welty, Will the Real Gnostic Please Step Forward

I had not intended to have guest posting on my blog during my vacation, but a special circumstance arose. Dr. Greg Welty attempted to post the content of this entry as a comment over at SBC Outpost in response to Alan Cross, "Is There a Gnostic Creedalism Creeping into the SBC?". Dr. Welty offered his comment at 11:47 am on July 4. For whatever reason, eight hours and eight comments later, his comment is still sitting in comment moderation over there at our new bastion of frank and open dialogue. [NOTE: Micah Fries has clarified that author Alan Cross did not have sufficient privileges to approve the comment.] So, I gladly volunteered to yield the unused floor to him over here at Praisegod Barebones. He writes better stuff than I do, anyway: =================== Begin Dr. Welty's Post =================== Alan, Here's why it's extremely difficult for many of us to take your cries of "Gnosticism" seriously. First, if your argument proves anything, then it proves too much. In particular, it proves that quite a few people in your camp are "Gnostics" as well. You *talk* about the BFM as a basis for cooperation, but in reality you don't really believe that. For you and others believe that trustees and entity employees can pick and choose *which* doctrines of the BFM they shall affirm. Wade speaks of dividing up the BFM into "essentials" and "non-essentials". But the BFM says in its own preamble that the doctrines contained within it "are doctrines we hold precious and as *essential* to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice" (emphasis mine). The preamble also states that these doctrines are "those articles of the Christian faith which are *most surely* held among us" (emphasis mine). But you reject all this. Instead of a "Clear Baptist Identity," your camp believes in a "Clear Set of Essentials" that is a *subset* of the doctrines in the BFM. But where has this set of essentials been stated and agreed upon by the convention as a whole? It hasn't. But apparently, you with your Gnostic insight can discern it where others can't. You say: "there are voices of substantial weight in SBC life who are telling us that there is a 'Clear Baptist Identity' beyond what is articulated in the BF&M." But there are voices in *your* camp of SBC life who are telling us that there is a "Clear Set of Essentials" which the BFM does not articulate for us. You accuse others of going Gnostic if they draw a line beyond the BFM. But you are equally Gnostic if you draw a line *within* the BFM. If one line is invisible, so is the other. If one line lacks consensus, so does the other. You say: "many do not want to give up the power to articulate and enforce a Clear Baptist Identity as they see fit." But apparently, many in your camp do not want to give up the power to articulate and enforce a Clear Set of Essentials as they see fit. Indeed, the irony of your side's looking for a canon-within-the-canon in the BFM is that you clearly reject the wisdom of the EC statement, on *your* interpretation of that statement. That statement says that the BFM is sufficient to provide guidance on doctrinal matters. Unfortunately, the BFM itself doesn't tell us which of its doctrines are negotiable for the purposes of cooperation. So in order to ascertain those non-essentials, it looks like you, as a Gnostic, are going to have to look elsewhere for guidance (contrary to what the EC statement says about sufficiency for doctrinal guidance). If you and others don't come clean about these palpable inconsistencies in your position, it's going to be hard to take your criticisms seriously. You want the BFM to be a maximal standard, beyond which no one can go, but you can't even manage to affirm it as a *minimal* standard! Which position shows less respect for the BFM? I'll let you make that call. These are difficult matters, to be sure. But to pretend that they don't even exist precludes meaningful dialogue. Second, historical precedent doesn't bode too well for your side. You or others might say: "But trustees and employees have always been able to opt out of these piddly little claims in the BFM. As long as they're honest about what they're doing, what's the harm?" But if you go down that road, then it defeats your larger argument. As you are no doubt well aware, for the past twenty years NAMB has had a policy of not hiring missionaries who speak in tongues. This is an issue that goes beyond the BFM doctrinally, and yet there was no hue and cry when the Convention met the year after the policy was enacted. (Cf. the first two sections of Emir Caner's paper for details.) That policy certainly excluded candidates who actually subscribe to the BFM, and yet it's been in place for twenty years. So why can't someone say, "Trustees have always been able to enforce doctrinal standards additional to but not contradictory to the BFM. As long as they're honest about what they're doing, what's the harm?" And, in fact, some have made this exact point. In short, neither in principle nor historically does your argument make any sense. Dr. Greg Welty

It's the Text, Stu...Wait, We Don't Use That Word

We didn't vote on the debate. We didn't vote on Morris Chapman's sermon. We voted solely upon the text of the EC statement, and that text is so vague that a dozen different interpretations of it are already floating around the SBC. Please note, before anyone alleges that I am spinning out of sour grapes, the indisputable fact that I endorsed the motion before it ever came to the floor for discussion, and at a time when the messengers had just minutes before (in the announced 1VP results) demonstrated plainly that this body of messengers was not sympathetic to Wade Burleson's movement. What possible reason can you give for me to have endorsed that motion at that particular moment other than the one I have expressed publicly—that I had honestly concluded that I agreed with the statement? Any statement on this topic with which I and Les Puryear both agree is, by definition, a vague statement. (Bro. Les is a great guy, but everyone must concede that he and I represent the two opposite poles on this particular question) David Rogers has an excellent and introspective post about the antipathy between political expediency and plain speech. David, to his credit, is much better at the latter than the former. David the denominational politician obviously wasn't my candidate. David the thinker and plain speaker is much more to my liking. I don't think that David ever gave up plain speaking, but in political life one is always surrounded by people who do much of your speaking for you, as obviously took place with David. Anyway, the post is here, and I highly recommend it. I think that the EC statement on the BF&M is a victim of precisely the phenomenon about which David writes. The statement was crafted for political effect, and somewhere in the process it ceased to say what its supporters wanted it to say. It belongs in the category of political expediency rather than open communication. This reason, I believe, explains why the statement is so vague. I propose that we do something entirely out of the ordinary—let us seek open communication about this contentious issue, and in so doing, let us seek peace rather than political advantage. Let us put up in 2008 a plainly written statement. Perhaps we just ought to take Dr. Chapman's statement in his sermon (lifted from Wade Burleson's site):

(1) Any practice instituted by an entity in the Southern Baptist Convention that has the force of doctrine should be in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message and not exceed its boundaries unless and until it has been approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and secondly, (2) If an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention adopts a confession of faith separate and distinct from the Baptist Faith and Message and it includes a doctrine unsupported by our confessional statement, the entity should request approval from the Convention prior to including the doctrine in its confession.

Now that sermon, my friends, says things plainly (but, unfortunately, we did not vote upon the plainspoken sermon, but upon the vague politically expedient text). Do you notice all the things Dr. Chapman's quote possesses that are not in the EC statement? It is specific and pointed. It spells out the procedures involved. Yes, there is a phrase or two that cries out for meaningful definition ("that has the force of doctrine"???), but Dr. Chapman's statement is leap-years beyond the text upon which we voted. The clear specificity of Dr. Chapman's sermon is precisely the attribute that causes Wade Burleson to want to quote it now, in the aftermath. It is also precisely the attribute of Dr. Chapman's words that made them precisely what our dissident brethren did not want to be contained in the motion. Dr. Chapman's sermon is the kind of plainspoken communication that clearly leaves everyone certain whether he stands in agreement or in disagreement. But, I remind you, we didn't vote upon Dr. Chapman's statements. But we should have. So, let us take a blunt, plainly worded statement like this and schedule time on the platform next year for an even-handed debate of the measure. Rather than give unrebutted time for the CEO to deliver a stump speech, let us have Dr. Chapman and an equally articulate spokesperson from another point of view speak to the concept. I think Dr. Al Mohler might be a great choice, although he may not appreciate an unsolicited nomination to an unanticipated task. Let's follow clear and careful rules of debate and do everything possible to produce more light than heat. Then, let us have a brief time of floor debate followed by a vote. And if the text of the statement actually says something clearly, then we'll all know where we stand, and we'll all need to move forward from there. Those who plot movements according to political expediency will object, but I am confident that there are more of us who are drawn to open communication. That fact is the hope of the SBC.

A Vignette that Says it All

I was sitting on an aisle in a relatively unpopulated area of the convention hall this morning during the Southern Seminary report. Discussion and questioning followed the report. While the discussion was ongoing, I noticed and made eye contact with one of the only other people in the section, a man who appeared to be in his sixties—older than me, but not old by any sense of the word. I smiled at him, but he had a troubled look on his face. He got up and crossed the ten-foot distance between us. Arriving at my seat, with a voice of grave concern he bent down and said to me, "What have I missed? All we did last night was reaffirm the BF&M, right?" I said, "Sir, somehow two different interpretations of last night's vote have emerged." "But all we did was reaffirm the BF&M, right?" "Well, we reaffirmed it as a guide for our agencies." "But all we did was reaffirm the BF&M, right?" He grew more insistent the longer we spoke, and in his concern this simple sentence was all he could say. I couldn't even get his name from him. It is clear to me what HE meant when he cast his vote last night. That makes two of us.

Dr. Mohler's Second Home Run

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's report was NOT just another report. I think that Dr. Mohler has spoken a word that will encourage and unite Southern Baptists. Don't miss it.

Politics of the BF&M Recommendation

The topic of discussion this morning on blogs is the BF&M recommendation. Please note that the topic is not the greater than 2-to-1 victory of Jim Richards, because some are humble in victory while others cannot resist the temptation to gloat and grandstand even in contrived victories. So, I'm glad to speak about the BF&M recommendation, which I endorsed before it ever came to the floor. Ask yourself, friends—how is it "spinning" motivated out of "sour grapes" when one makes an endorsement long before the item even comes to the floor? By making this endorsement, I have apparently puzzled a large number of people of all blogging persuasions. I have offered an explanatory post that works through the text. Now, I offer a political explanation. Here, in my opinion, is what happened:

1. People who would like to prevent trustees from addressing any theological measure beyond those addressed in the BF&M wanted the Executive Committee to adopt a statement to that effect.
2. These dissidents wanted to craft their statement in such a way that one could not argue against it without, basically, arguing against the BF&M.
3. A strategy was reached to borrow from the recent slogan "sufficiency of the Bible" and speak of the sufficiency of the BF&M.
4. But to make the recommendation fit this strategy, it couldn't really say outright what the dissidents wanted it to say. But political considerations trumped accuracy and the statement went forward in this fashion.
5. Last night, after the 1VP election was finished, I sat down to take a look at this motion and to determine how I was going to vote. SBC motions are too important for us to vote by emotional political reaction. Each vote ought to reflect a carefully reasoned and prayerful choice. When I cut through all the balderdash and read the actual text of the statement, I realized the mistake made by the folks with whom I often disagree—they had nuanced the statement so much for political reasons that it no longer said at all what they wanted to say.
6. I immediately endorsed the measure, right from the floor of the convention.
7. At least one conservative was at a mike last night to speak in favor of the motion from this vantage point, but, like many speakers last night, he did not get to speak to the issue because time ran out.
8. We voted on the actual statement, but now we are being told that the interpretation is what will be enforced.

Many, many people on my "side of the aisle" are apoplectic in their opposition to this recommendation, largely because they know of at least a few people who will bring down yet another year of heartache upon the SBC by ignoring the text of the statement and asserting something else. But I am not bound by anyone else's reading of this. I have yet to see anyone show me where in the text of this statement it contradicts anything I am saying.

The EC Statement, Line-by-Line

I learn upon browsing on over there that Wade Burleson has asserted that the SBC has instructed our agencies and institutions that they "do not have the right to narrow doctrinal parameters beyond [The Baptist Faith & Message]." So, let's just look at the statement line-by-line:

1. "The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible…" Pretty self-explanatory stuff here. Our confession does not address everything, does not function creedally, can be amended, and might be wrong.
2. "… nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention…" Simple historical fact here. Southern Baptists have never adopted any other statement of doctrinal beliefs.
3. "… and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees…" The BF&M needs no other clarifying document in order to serve as a guide to trustees. There is no list of primary, secondary, and tertiary doctrines in the document. The document itself, as it stands, speaks for itself and is sufficient as a guide to the trustees. I should note, some people seem to be asserting it as the only sufficient guide to the trustees. But such a belief would be heresy, and I think that people really just aren't thinking through what they are saying. "Only sufficient" is language that we Baptists generally reserve for speaking about the Bible. Thankfully, the text of the statement says nothing of the sort. So, the BF&M is precisely what this statement says it is: One document that is sufficient to serve as a guide to the trustees.
4. "… in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention…" The statement flatly affirms that trustees are the ones authorized to set the policies and practices of our entities. We as a convention absolutely expect them, when considering any policies and practices, to take into consideration the content of the BF&M.

Here's a Question for You?

Since what Wade Burleson and others have said quite clearly what they really wanted Southern Baptists to say—that the people of the Southern Baptist Convention oppose the adoption of any doctrinal policies that go beyond the BF&M—why didn't the motion just, quite simply, say that? Because that motion could not pass at the SBC...that's why. The interpretative vagueness of the statement was necessary to secure its passage; therefore, it must necessarily govern its application.

Motion on BF&M Passes

[Edit] I should make clear to everyone, this is my read of the voting, not the official report of the convention. The ballot count will not be announced until tomorrow. [/Edit] And I'm thrilled with the fact that the motion passed. I cannot imagine that Southern Baptists would have failed a motion stating that the BF&M is a sufficient guide to our trustees in discharging their duty to set policies and practices. I'm thankful that the statement clearly recognizes the authority of trustees to set policies and practices. I'm thankful that it calls upon trustees to consult the guidance of the BF&M in making those discussions. I doubt that any board of trustees has adopted any policies or practices without at least consulting the guidance of The Baptist Faith & Message, which is entirely sufficient to serve as one guide to our trustees in making such decisions. It was strange to me that, of the discussion offered, none of it dealt substantially with the actual wording of the statement. This morning's speeches charged the issue with a set of extraneous interpretations of the statement that are not actually contained in the text. This should be a statement that all Southern Baptists can come together behind, in my opinion.

Endorsements, Part Next

I endorse the motion to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on The Baptist Faith & Message as the statement of the convention. Although I respectfully disagree with Dr. Chapman's interpretation of this statement, as I also disagree with Wade Burleson's interpretation, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with the actual text of the statement itself. Our confession of faith is a sufficient guide for our trustees. It is not the only sufficient guide. The Bible is also a sufficient guide. Trustess ought to and must consult The Baptist Faith & Message before making any doctrinal guidelines. I have no problem with the text of this statement, and I wholeheartedly endorse its adoption as expressive of the sentiments of the convention.

Informed Consent?

I pose two questions tonight. One looks backwards and has a definite answer. The other looks forwards and asks for prediction:

1. Since 1925, have Southern Baptists ever elected anyone as President or Vice-President who has, as David Rogers has done, publicly stated and demonstrated that he is not in agreement with The Baptist Faith & Message?
2. Will the nomination speech for David Rogers tomorrow afternoon make it clear to Southern Baptists that this is precisely what they are doing if they elect him as First Vice-President? In other words, will Rogers's nomination speech fairly disclose to the Southern Baptist Convention messengers that Rogers has publicly expressed disagreement with The Baptist Faith & Message, or will the nomination be an attempt to trick Southern Baptists into electing someone without their informed consent?

I'll not be available to interact much with the comments, but you are invited to give your answers to these two questions in the comment thread. Of course, those who would rather spin than answer are invited to do that in the comment stream as well.

Holy Spirit Agency in Baptism

While I'm offline in meetings today, I don't want you to be without anything edifying to read. I left my church a guest preacher; I'll leave the rest of you a guest blogger. Welcome Dr. Greg Welty, candidate for the D. Phil at Oxford (i.e., official supergenius) and Assistant Professor of Philosophy at SWBTS. Thanks for your hard work of late to expose the spurious nature of claims being made about The Baptist Faith & Message, Dr. Welty. ======================

Defending the BFM 2000 on the Spirit as the Agent of Baptism

In a recent post at his blog, Wade Burleson has argued that the BFM 2000 is "contrary to Scripture" in its statement that "He [i.e., the Spirit] baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ" (BFM II.C). Burleson cites Sam Storms, who says the following:

The problem is that there isn't a single, solitary biblical text which says that the Spirit baptizes anyone into anything. It is always and in every text Jesus Christ who baptizes believers in the Holy Spirit, the result of which is that we are incorporated into the Body of Christ.

(Before I go any further, I should stress that what follows is simply an assessment of a particular piece of reasoning, not a judgment of a person. I have greatly benefited from many aspects of Sam Storms's ministry over the years, as have many others.) Before I get to my main rebuttal of Burleson's conclusion, I start by noting that in the above Storms follows up a misleading claim by a false one. The claim that "there isn't a single, solitary biblical text which says that the Spirit baptizes anyone into anything" is misleading at best. For, by the same token, there isn't a single, solitary biblical text which says that "The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being." But presumably, Storms accepts this Trinitarian claim at the end of the first paragraph of BFM II. And that's because many claims in the BFM are grounded in *several* texts of Scripture taken together. You don't need "a single, solitary biblical text" which states the entire doctrine in full. The question at hand, then, is whether there is a good, biblical basis (however construed) for concluding that "the Holy Spirit baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ." I submit that there is such a case, if we interpret 1Co 12:3 *in context*, in light of the united testimony of the surrounding verses. Before I make that case, let's consider not Storms's misleading claim above, but the false claim which comes after it. He says that "It is always and in every text Jesus Christ who baptizes believers in the Holy Spirit." Actually, this is false, for 1Co 12 is itself an exception to Storms's sweeping claim. 1Co 12 is clearly speaking about the baptism of believers, but nowhere in 1Co 12 is there the claim that *Jesus Christ* is the agent of baptism. And this points up an interesting issue. *Who* is the agent of baptism in 1Co 12? Jesus Christ is never identified as the agent. Still, there clearly *is* an agent who is identified for us in this passage, and that is the Holy Spirit. As v. 11 points out, "But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills." Here, the Spirit Himself is presented to us as the agent who "distributes to each one individually." And He does this "just as He wills." While v. 11 is about the Spirit's willing distribution of spiritual gifts, the subsequent "gar" clauses in vv. 12-13 help us to understand why we ought to affirm the Spirit's agency here. The Spirit Himself is the agent who distributes the gifts, *for* it is "by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (v. 13). If the Spirit were *merely* the passive means employed by another agent (for instance, Christ) to bring about baptism, then there would be no reason to cite baptism by the Spirit as a reason to affirm the Spirit's sovereign, willing, agential distribution of the gifts. But this is precisely what Paul does. He infers the agency of the Spirit from baptism by the Spirit. And this is because the Spirit is an agent in both baptism and gift-distribution. Nevertheless, I can certainly see Storms's point that Christ is also the agent of Spirit-baptism. As he points out, Mt 3:11, Mk 1:8, Lk 3:16, and Jn 1:33 all testify that it is Christ who baptizes. But doesn't this pose an insoluble difficulty for 1Co 12? If Christ is the agent of baptism, how can the Spirit be the agent of baptism? Or, vice-versa? Doesn't one exclude the other? And here we reach the heart of what is unacceptable in Storms's argument that the BFM's statement lacks adequate biblical grounding: Storms imposes a false dichotomy upon the text of Scripture. (Indeed, even if everything I have said in the preceding paragraphs is incorrect, the point made in the present paragraph stands, and is decisive.) Storms seems to infer from the fact that Christ is the agent of baptism, that therefore *the Spirit is not an agent in that baptism*. But why think this? The Holy Spirit is a *Person*, after all. This much is clear from 1Co 12:11; He distributes to each one individually just as He wills. And while it is most consistent with the united testimony of the rest of Scripture to regard Christ as the agent of baptism, the fact that according to 1Co 12 this baptism is by means of *another Person* is surely significant. Why would the personal agency of the Spirit in baptism somehow be suppressed or excluded simply because the Spirit is the means Christ uses to baptize? Storms himself would reject this reasoning in a variety of other contexts. For instance, God uses *His people* as a means to bring about various results here on earth. Does the fact that we are means in the hands of God somehow exclude our own personal agency in bringing about what is effected? Of course not. Indeed, I believe Sam Storms has been used by God as a means to baptize many people in the churches he has pastored over the years. Does it follow from this that Storms was not a personal agent who baptized many people? Of course not. God the Father accomplished redemption by means of Jesus Christ. Does it follow that Jesus Christ is not a personal agent who accomplishes redemption? And so on. Indeed, the fact that Christ baptizes believers *by means of another Person* -- rather than by means of an impersonal force or substance -- is a reason to *affirm* the personal agency of the Spirit in baptism. And thus, we can quite easily find biblical basis for the statement in BFM II.C that "He [i.e., the Spirit] baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ." All we need is the combined teaching of the Bible that (i) believers are baptized by the Spirit, and (ii) the Spirit is a Person. Contrary to Storms's position, contextually speaking it's far more plausible to see the Spirit as an agent here not only of the distribution of spiritual gifts (v. 11), but of baptism into the body of Christ (vv. 12-13). Again, according to Paul, it is precisely Spirit-baptism which leads us to affirm the agency of the Spirit in gift-distribution. Why would a *passive* Spirit as the means of baptism be a reason for affirming the *active agency* of the Spirit in gift-distribution? Paul's reasoning makes no sense on Storms's hypothesis. But once we affirm the active agency of the Spirit as the means of baptism, Paul's reasoning makes sense. The Spirit's will is involved in both baptism and gift-distribution. A final note. Storms says:

"Some have argued from 1 Corinthians 12:13 that Paul is describing a baptism "by" the Holy Spirit into Christ or into his body. Part of the motivation for this is the seemingly awkward phrase, "in one Spirit into one body," hence the rendering, "by one Spirit into one body."

I'm not sure why Storms feels the need to speculate on "the motivation for this" translation. It's not because of a "seemingly awkward phrase." Rather, the fundamental reason to translate 1Co 12:3 as baptism "by" the Holy Spirit is that the preposition "en" is used, and clearly -- as Storms himself notes later -- "en" is quite adequately translated by the English "by". I close this section with the balanced assessment of Jimmy Draper, who recently wrote an article for Baptist Press on "Baptism of the Holy Spirit." Draper says:

"The phrase "baptism of the Holy Spirit" does not appear in Scripture. Christ is always described as the baptizer in the Gospels (see for example Matthew 3:11) and Acts, and then the Holy Spirit is His agent in the epistles."

A bit later, Draper says:

"It is a misunderstood experience. We actually have misnamed it. We refer to the baptism "of" or "in" the Holy Spirit as if He is an impersonal substance. From Scripture it should be "by" or "with" the Holy Spirit. First Corinthians 12:13 is a good example. The Greek preposition "en" can be translated "in," "by," "with" or "of." Here it is clearly instrumental and should be translated "by."

Notice how Draper does not fall into a false dichotomy. On the one hand, the Spirit is the "instrument" of baptism. We are baptized "by" the Spirit. But on the other hand, the Holy Spirit remains an "agent" in baptism. The instrumental status of the Spirit as He relates to baptism does not in any way exclude his status as an agent in baptism. The Spirit is *the agent by which* Christ baptizes. In fact, the double-agency of Christ and the Spirit with respect to baptism parallels quite nicely the double-agency of Christ and the Spirit with respect to the bestowal of spiritual gifts on believers. According to 1Co 12:11, the Spirit is the agent who bestows spiritual gifts. But according to Eph 4:7-8, Christ is the agent who bestows spiritual gifts. The reconciliation of these two claims is easy: the Spirit is *the agent by which* Christ bestows the gifts. So, far from being "contrary to Scripture," the statement in BFM II.C is what Scripture would lead us to affirm. To be sure, the BFM does not state *everything* that could be stated on the topic of baptism by the Spirit. But what it does state seems to be eminently biblical.

Important Things I Support

Because of events that transpired yesterday, this single post really represents the contents of posts two and three of a five-part series, greatly abridged. Part one was I Support the Cooperative Program. It is the purpose of this series, apart from going out of my way to disparage anyone else's views, to provide a heartfelt exposition of the issues that have motivated me for a year of blogging and still motivate me as I go to San Antonio. An outline:

1. I Support the Cooperative Program.
2. I Support Our Southern Baptist Convention Polity
3. I Support the Conservative Resurgence
4. I Support a Renewal of Baptist Identity (next post, later today)
5. I Support Biblical Christian Unity (next post, later today)

I hope you will all appreciate the (very difficult for me) effort made to remain brief. I'm sure that some of the material I left out will show up in the comments eventually.

I Support Our Southern Baptist Convention Polity

Indeed, I wrote a white paper detailing attributes of our convention polity that I appreciate and support (see Why Southern Baptists Need the Trustee System). I depending upon you clicking the link and reading the paper—I won't repeat any of that material in this abridged post. Wade Burleson has hosted a recent debate over whether The Baptist Faith & Message contains so-called "tertiary doctrines." As it regards the topic at hand—to wit, in the sphere of convention operations, fiduciaries, and employees—Wade Burleson's opinion of the matter is entirely irrelevant. Furthermore, Dr. Greg Welty's opinion is irrelevant. So is the opinion of every other person commenting on the blog. So is mine. I'm not saying that each person involved isn't entitled to his opinion—he is. I'm not saying that each person involved hasn't labored hard to reach an opinion. I'm saying that all of these opinions are irrelevant because our polity follows the opinion of the convention messengers duly assembled. The people of the Southern Baptist Convention have already spoken to this issue, identifying The Baptist Faith & Message as "those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us" and as our "instrument of doctrinal accountability." The whole "primary"/"secondary"/"tertiary" question is an anachronism—nobody was discussing Al Mohler's "Theological Triage" when any revision of The Baptist Faith & Message was adopted. Nevertheless, the Southern Baptist people have clearly stated what connects the various doctrines within the BF&M. These are our most surely held doctrines to which we expect our fiduciaries and employees to remain accountable in their service to the convention. To include any doctrine in The Baptist Faith & Message is ipso facto to declare it either a "primary" or a "secondary" doctrine. By including these doctrines in The Baptist Faith & Message, the Southern Baptist people have already proffered their collective opinion that none of them are "tertiary." Wade Burleson disagrees…fine. Some others disagree, too. The question is, who gets to decide? The Southern Baptist people, assembled as messengers at the annual meeting. I have no heart for imposing my opinion upon anyone else. I do, however, have a passion for defending the right of the convention to have an opinion and to expect it to be followed by those who serve on its behalf. That is how our polity works. For this reason, I have offered and fully support my resolution "On the Role of The Baptist Faith & Message." The resolution does nothing more than embody my passion for our polity as expressed in my white paper. My resolution supports this polity; the IMB report on PPL and baptism exemplifies it. We make our decisions not through random samplings determined by someone else, but by considering the opinions of thousands of Southern Baptists in a forum which affords every Southern Baptist church the opportunity for input. Certainly, some of these issues are contentious. All the more reason to arrive at our decisions through a polity that has worked well in dealing with difficult issues for more than 150 years.

I Support the Conservative Resurgence

In 1988 I left home, went to college, and encountered rank academic theological liberalism for the first time. People debate how many actual liberals were in the Southern Baptist Convention before the Conservative Resurgence. Wade Burleson has offered his opinion that there really weren't that many. See his post here for how he would have handled things. To read many of the blogs these days, you could only walk away with the impression that the Conservative Resurgence was, whatever it started out to be, in the long run a colossal mistake. Indeed, Burleson has opined that the whole thing would be much harder to accomplish today:

I regret that blogging was not availiable 30 years ago at the beginning of the conservative resurgence in the SBC. I truly believe that had blogging been available then, some of those who were hurt, disenfranchised and falsely accused of major doctrinal or theological error could have shown through their writing they were in reality theological [sic] conservative.

So, how many liberals were there? Was the Conservative Resurgence an unfair inquisition—a bloodthirsty purging of those "hurt, disenfranchised and falsely accused"? Or was it the providential action of God to rescue our denomination from the oblivion of hetereodoxy? Whatever the frequency of liberals among rank-and-file Baptists (and I think it was relatively small), the frequency of liberals was very high among the employees of our Southern Baptist agencies. They were furthermore hard at work producing even more liberals through our seminaries. I invite you to look at this document, authored by a person very unfriendly to the Conservative Resurgence, and come to your own conclusions about the frequency of liberalism among women training at SBTS pre-CR. Today, things are different in the Southern Baptist Convention. I thank God for that. I will not quietly march back to 1978. Yet support for today's SBC dissent quite demonstrably includes a large contingent of people who would undo the Conservative Resurgence. On Wade Burleson's blog just a few posts ago, he stated in his original post just the kind of language designed to reassure people like me who support the CR—indicating that he has no intention to seek reconciliation with the CBF ("nobody is advocating for the reunion of the CBF and SBC—it shouldn't happen.") However, in the very first rush of comments, two people challenged Burleson for distancing himself from CBFefs. He immediately retracted, saying,

Good point and I agree—I was not clear. Anyone should be welcome back.

Well, I'm sorry, but I have no desire to reverse course and become the pre-CR Southern Baptist Convention. My gratitude to God for the Conservative Resurgence will motivate my voting this year. We need Southern Baptist leadership who remain committed to the direction of the Conservative Resurgence. Not everyone will agree with what I've written here, and I've always made my blog a place where liberty reigns to express contrarian opinions. However, please understand that I have written these things in an honest, transparent effort to demonstrate what is motivating my words and actions these days. Here is an opportunity for the reader, if not to agree, at least to understand. The final installment—later today.

Resolution On the Role of the BF&M

I think that the most important issue that we face with the longest-lasting implications is the question of the appropriate role of The Baptist Faith & Message in our convention. I have submitted the following resolution out of my related concerns:

On the Role of The Baptist Faith & Message

WHEREAS, The various entities of the Southern Baptist Convention operated for the first eighty years of the convention’s existence according to their own internal theological parameters, including the Abstract of Principles at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; and WHEREAS, The messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Memphis, Tennessee, May 14-15, 1925, shaped the modern Southern Baptist Convention by adopting The Baptist Faith and Message as ”those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us”; and WHEREAS, The Baptist Faith and Message did not become the statement of faith of any of the various entities of the Southern Baptist Convention until it was adopted as such by the boards of trustees that govern the entities; and WHEREAS, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, upon its adoption of The Baptist Faith and Message, nevertheless retained the Abstract of Principles as a body of additional binding theological parameters for the operation of the seminary, setting the precedent and demonstrating the propriety of individual Southern Baptist entities adopting and following additional binding theological parameters beyond The Baptist Faith and Message; and WHEREAS, Various trustee boards have made the wholehearted affirmation of The Baptist Faith and Message a minimum theological requirement for trustees governing those entities; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June 12-13, 2007, regard The Baptist Faith and Message as the “instrument of doctrinal accountability” which we encourage all of our entities to employ as the minimum theological standard by which they operate; and be it further RESOLVED, That we acknowledge the appropriateness of entities adopting and enforcing additional theological standards such as the Abstract of Principles as a part of the unique responsibility of the board of trustees of each entity, operating in conscientious accountability to the convention, to govern the entity in its charge in all matters theological and otherwise; and be it further RESOLVED, That we consider public disagreement with The Baptist Faith and Message to constitute suitable grounds for the removal of trustees from service upon those boards which have made affirmation of The Baptist Faith & Message a minimum requirement for service; and be it finally RESOLVED, That we affirm the unabridged liberty of any individual who has not voluntarily entered a fiduciary or employee relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention or any of its entities to accept or reject, in part or in total, the tenets expressed in The Baptist Faith and Message.