Questionnaire Edit Update

For those who have been following this story: See this update.

Convention News

As the convention unfolds, you'll have several options for keeping up with events.

1. The Florida Baptist Witness already has special convention-related news on their site. I expect that they will be publishing updates as the convention progresses. BREAKING NEWS: The Baptist Witness has an interesting breaking story on their site that you won't want to miss.
2. The Southern Baptist Texan also has already posted a special convention edition. I recommend it as a helpful resource.
3. Baptist Press's new Instant News Blog is a great idea. You can turn there for some of the most rapid reporting available anywhere.
4. I plan to be pretty busy, but I'll be posting my own observations as time permits. So check here every day or so.

Horserace

For the first time in my recollection, the election of First Vice-President will be the big event, far overshadowing the Presidential election at the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. Nobody will want to miss being there at 5:00 pm on Tuesday. Today, I'm wearing my political analyst hat. The 1VP election does have tremendous personal significance for me. Never before has anyone I have known personally ever run for any office in the SBC. Now, this particular race features not one but TWO men with whom I have become personally acquainted and whom I personally like. That's a little mind-blowing for me. But the historical significance of this election is equally staggering. Privately I had predicted that the Burleson Blogger Coalition would secure the nomination of a Southern Baptist who has cautiously steered away from the controversies of the past two years, much like E. Y. Mullins was snatched out of New England obscurity in the midst of the Whitsett Controversy to lead Southern Seminary. Instead, they have selected a nominee who is very publicly and vocally aligned with one side of the partisan divide currently plaguing the convention. Not that David Rogers is monolithic…not at all, but he certainly is not a fence-straddler. And so, now we have a 1VP election in which each candidate's colors are clear. Two partisan candidates. Frank Page's re-election is a non-event, making this the vote-to-end-all-votes in San Antonio. Setting aside my obvious advocacy role of late, the analyst in me salivates to witness this historic election. Some fascinating observations:

1. Jim Richards is certainly the Cooperative Program candidate. In addition to attending a church with exemplary Cooperative Program support, Dr. Richards has been responsible for re-defining what state conventions can do in supporting national and international missions causes. Twenty years ago, who could have imagined a state convention being so generous as to pass along for missions more money than it keeps for itself? Jim Richards, that's who—he not only imagined it, but he also brought it to pass. Analysis of last year's Presidential election grappled with the question of what caused Frank Page to win so handily. Was it his support of the Cooperative Program? Given the events of the intervening year, that seems likely. This 1VP election may help us to answer the question, as one of the CP's greatest friends stands for election in the person of Jim Richards. If you like the Cooperative Program, you're going to like Jim Richards. (NOTE: Bellevue Baptist Church, David Rogers's home church for obvious reasons, gives 1.02% through CP, although I doubt David had anything at all to do with that decision)
2. It is delicious irony that the self-proclaimed anti-nepotism squad is nominating Dr. Adrian Rogers's son. One of the earlier salvos fired against Dr. Richards came from Marty Duren (see here), who derided Richards's candidacy based upon the fact that Jim Richards is being nominated by Mac Brunson who is married to Debbie Brunson who was selected by the Committee on Nominations (sorry for the convoluted sentence structure…it takes a few phrases to describe such remote connections!) to serve on a board from the state of Florida, even though she has served on the board before and has not lived in Florida, apparently, long enough. Marty has edited away the comment after I objected, and I thank him for that. I opposed to the overreaching connection, but not to his objections to cronyism, nepotism, and recycling of appointments. I agree wholeheartedly with this concern (see #3 on this post). I'm just not as caustic about it as some are. I think David Rogers ought to be able to run for First Vice-President no matter who his daddy was—let him be evaluated on his positions and his exemplary service in a difficult missions field. But you've got to love the irony of the Burleson Coalition asking the SBC to indulge in a little nepotism.
3. The differences between the two candidates extend beyond politics into theology. David Rogers has some publicly expressed disagreement with The Baptist Faith & Message (see here for a reference to that fact with a link to sources); Jim Richards is fully in support of The Baptist Faith & Message. David is, obviously, the pro-Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third-Wave practices candidate, and has blogged extensively (his blog is here). Jim Richards just as obviously is not. David favors a very minimalist ecclesiology, relating warmly to a "city church" concept merging (although not quite formally consolidating) Baptist churches with other non-Baptist churches. Dr. Richards is a firm supporter of Baptist distinctives in ecclesiology. Anyone who has read my blog for more than a week knows that I agree with Dr. Richards, but any objective observer would have to note that this election has become something of a referendum on Baptist theology.
4. The big winner in all of this may be none other than Dr. Patterson. The First-Vice-Presidential election takes place immediately after the Southwestern Seminary report. I have fully expected the SWBTS report to be the key moment when Ben Cole will attempt to make our Annual Meeting his personal vehicle for advancing his personal vendetta against Dr. Patterson. But, with such a critical election for his party coming up immediately afterwards, Ben may find that it is not politically astute to spew too much venom and reflect poorly upon his candidate. I'm not sure whether that will stop Ben, but it is a factor worth considering. Which will win out: vengeance or calculation?

In any event, we have not seen an election at the Southern Baptist Convention genuinely contested on clearly-defined issues since the 19980s. This is truly historic. My biggest regret at getting so involved in it personally is that I have disqualified myself from ever being able to write about it as a historian. Whoever gets that assignment in the future someday—I envy you. Have fun.

Dissentient Voices and the Fate of Luther Rice

Your labors will be ultimately appreciated and the page of history will do you ample justice, notwithstanding the dissentient voice of the narrow-minded of the present day. -Adoniram Judson to Luther Rice

The true Father of the Southern Baptist Convention (IMHO) never actually was a Southern Baptist.

• The driving force behind Baptists in America ever organizing churches to support mission work in the first place? Luther Rice
• The most aggressive advocate of his time for the convention method over the society method? Luther Rice
• The impetus behind the founding of a gaggle of state conventions, associations, and domestic institutions? Luther Rice

In my opinion, other than the embarrassing support of racial slavery, virtually everything else distinctive about the Southern Baptist Convention can be traced to the mind and work of Luther Rice in some fashion.

Luther Rice's Great Strengths

Luther Rice had a missionary heart. From the very day of his conversion (14 September 1805), Rice resolved to "be willing to give Deity a blank and let him fill up [Rice's] future destiny as He should please." At Williams College Rice (an exuberant Congregationalist) encountered four other young men with a similar resolve for service, and together they formed an informal accountability and encouragement group nicknamed "The Brethren." The group was entirely resolved to pursue vocations in foreign missions, even though no structure existed in North America to support them in the venture. Eventually Rice and other of the Brethren wound up at Andover College with another young Congregationalist, Adoniram Judson. The group brashly approached the Massachusetts state Congregationalist association about setting up a missions-sending structure for them, and they succeeded. When the world opposed Luther Rice's missionary vision, he went about changing the world to suit himself. Luther Rice was a tireless servant of Christ. Rice described his own ministry: "I have traveled 6,600 miles, in populous and dreary portions of country, through wilderness and over rivers, across mountains and valleys, in heat and cold, by day and by night—in weariness, painfulness, fastings and loneliness." Luther Rice really had no home but Heaven. They buried him in South Carolina simply because he happened to be there when he died. He never married. His life in its entirety was given to the Lord. Luther Rice dared to see a bold vision for the Baptist people. Once convinced of Baptist doctrine, he tenaciously clung to it. He was not the kind to dodge confessional statements, issue caveats, or wriggle out of fiduciary responsibility. Rice boldly proclaimed to the Congregationalists, "those persons only, who give credible evidence of piety, are proper subjects; and…immersion is the only proper mode of Christian baptism"—Here is the voice of a man of integrity. Rice believed that missionaries should seek funding from those who agreed with their ecclesiology, so he singlemindedly pursued Baptists in America, daring them to dream with him a dream of what they could do together with the Lord's help. Although Rice founded many Missionary societies, his vision favored the convention plan:

My mind became impressed with the importance of a general combination of the whole Baptist interest in the United States, for the benefit alike of the denomination here, and the cause of missions abroad

In 1814, after a mere two years' work by this thirty-one-year-old, Luther Rice's efforts yielded the famous Triennial Convention, an every-three-years meeting of American Baptists designed to serve as Rice's "general combination of the whole Baptist interest." Notice, by the way, that this former-Congregationalist was quite content with simply a "combination of the whole Baptist interest." Luther Rice loved to see young people called out and trained into the Lord's work. In 1815, Rice recognized the potential of John Mason Peck. In response to Rice's encouragement and tutelage, Peck embarked upon missionary work in Missouri and became the father of Baptist home missions in America. Rice founded Columbian College (now George Washington University) in order to train Baptist laborers for the harvest.

Luther Rice's Bold Accomplishments

By 1820, Luther Rice had propelled Baptists into cooperative foreign missions, home missions, education, and publication. Sometimes he had worked with amazing diplomacy; often he had pushed projects forward by fiat and bravado. But however he pursued it, the vision he had for Baptists in America was very similar to what Southern Baptists ultimately organized for themselves. Luther Rice was not perfect. I do not offer an unqualified endorsement of everything Luther Rice ever did. But, as I have indicated in an earlier post, I am not so naïve as to ignore the reality of human depravity. I do not expect perfection out of our denominational servants—only a spirit of respectful submission to the expressed will of those whom they serve.

The Luther Rice Slapdown

Many Northern Baptists opposed the convention method, favoring the society plan instead. Those who opposed Rice's ideas and those who opposed Rice's personality coalesced into an anti-Rice, anti-Convention mob at the 1826 meeting of the Triennial Convention. Their strategy was as effective as it was simple:

1. Slander, attack, and accuse Luther Rice personally, thereby emboldening those who disagree with him and demoralizing those who agree with him.
2. Use the momentum from the tearing down of the man to tear down the movement.

They succeeded. The anti-Rice group alleged malfeasance against Rice and Columbian College, ultimately securing Rice's ouster from the employ of the Convention. Even Francis Wayland, previously a bold visionary for Baptists, was cowed by their rhetoric. When the Triennial Convention canned Rice, the anti-Convention forces swept the field, thoroughly reverting the Triennial Convention to nothing more than a Foreign Missions society. By the late 1820s, the Triennial Convention had abandoned home missions, educational ministries, publication ministries—everything that would embody the convention methodology of Luther Rice. Ultimately, many people who favored the convention method wound up in the Southern Baptist Convention. Long after Luther Rice's great Baptist convention had been torn down, the lengthy investigations commissioned in 1826 exonerated Luther Rice of financial wrongdoing. His financial recordkeeping hadn't been the best. He had been daring on some occasions when he ought to have been more circumspect. In no way, however, had he at any time tried to line his own pockets with God's money. The allegations were bald slander, but Rice's vindication came far too late to do any good for the Baptist people of America.

Today's Dissentient Voices in the SBC

Expect this year to see the same kind of attacks launched toward Dr. Paige Patterson. Indeed, it has already begun. I know Dr. Patterson only barely as a person, but I know publicly of his vision for a Southern Baptist Convention that honors the conservative theology of its churches and people. He has taken every opportunity to keep the SBC anchored to the Bible. In that regard, his actions have been consistent with his words. I do not strike any parallels in this post between Rice and Patterson, but between Rice's opponents and Patterson's opponents. Many don't like Patterson's ideas. Many wish the Conservative Resurgence had never happened. Many long for 1978. The best way to tear down the Conservative Resurgence in a hurry is to tear down the people who carried it forward. Ben Cole has revealed to us the alleged dire financial straits of SEBTS in 1999. Here is Paige Patterson's "Columbian College"—SEBTS allegedly on the financial ropes in 1999, and all apparently (according to Bro. Ben) due to poor presidential leadership. But wait a minute: Today is 2007. Did SEBTS go into receivership? Did the professors and staff have to forego their paychecks (not an unprecedented happening for Southern Baptist professors)? Are padlocks on the doors in Wake Forest? Did Dr. Patterson leave Southeastern sitting on the side of a North Carolina street with a beggar's cup? No. No. No. and No. SEBTS was undeniably stronger when Dr. Patterson left than it was when he arrived. Ben doesn't give the whole story. Ben Cole has revealed to us that someone once-upon-a-time sued the Pattersons claiming that they extracted a deathbed request under duress in 1982. But wait a minute: Today is 2007. What was the outcome of that lawsuit? Did the Pattersons greedily fight some poor widow to deny her a living? Was there a misunderstanding? How did the relationship turn out? TCarnes asked Bro. Ben for more information in a comment on the post, but Ben refuses to give the rest of the story. Why? I don't know. And then there was the discussion about enrollment and graduation numbers (see here, here, here, and here). In my posts I hope you see the major components of the story left out by Ben (I hate to pick on Ben, and I'll gladly stop doing so when he stops picking on others). What else does Bro. Ben have to reveal? I don't know that, either. But I expect the most salacious revelations, if there are any, to come very close to the convention meeting—too close for anyone to have time to ferret out the details. When the goal is to find the truth, you give everyone enough time to pursue the quest to its fruition. When the goal is deception, you pull an "October surprise." After all, it worked on Luther Rice. As far as I know, Dr. Patterson is not running for anything this year. I will not hazard a guess at his age, but he's older than I am and probably will not be pursuing another thirty years of denominational service. Why go after him now? Because doing so is the best chance for rolling back the Conservative Resurgence, as anyone would know who's been hanging around with Herb Reynolds, John Baugh, Bill Underwood, Jimmy Carter, et al. Will Dr. Patterson's "labors…be ultimately appreciated"? By conservatives, they will. Thank God for the Conservative Resurgence and thank God for all those who took the tough stands to make it happen. To the degree that Paige Patterson was a part of that, thank God for him. I was a conservative long before our paths ever crossed. If tomorrow's Star-Telegram publishes pictures of Dr. Patterson offering animal sacrifices to the ghost of Harry Emerson Fosdick, I'll still be a conservative tomorrow and the day after that. I don't agree with Dr. Patterson because I like him; I like him because I agree with him. Like Judson with Rice, I'm content to let the "page of history do [Patterson] ample justice." Is it possible that Dr. Patterson has ever done something that would scandalize me? Sure, it's possible. I can guarantee you that I've done things that would scandalize every one of you. We are sinners, brothers. But let us keep the convention focused on ideas, not personalities. Let us not make the SBC a forum for people to pursue personal vendettas. What is the end result of this really lengthy post? First, my stomach churns a little every time I hear Bro. Ben assure us all that San Antonio will be "interesting." I'm steeled against the prospect of allegations and tactics that would make Dick Tuck blush. Second, I'm determined to keep my focus on the principles, not the people. I'm determined that 2007 will not be 1826 all over again. Dirty politics will only work if people knee-jerk in response to allegations. Whatever scandalous allegations or gossip we hear in San Antonio, let us retain a helping of prudence. Knowing the publicly expressed strategy of ad hominem attacks against Dr. Patterson as a diversionary tactic to cloak a push for ideological change in the SBC, let us resolve to remain committed to a conservative vision for the SBC. Knowing all of the half-stories that have been told us this year, let us investigate carefully and thoroughly any allegations that are made, and then let the chips fall where they may only after we have the whole story.

Postscript

To help us keep up with the ad hominem attacks, I have devised something of a new award. I have set up the domain name www.I-Hate-Paige-Patterson.com, which will always point to the blog with the most recent attack upon Dr. Patterson.

Academic-Genius-Slash-Strategic-Warrior

In honor of Ben Cole, who is both smarter than I and better at combat strategy.

Burleson, Cole, and Carter

Wade Burleson, Ben Cole, and others have been to meet with Jimmy Carter. In a post detailing the event, Burleson addresses his concern that people will use the event to "seek to crucify [him] for meeting with President Carter." (See Burleson's post here. See Cole's version here. Marty Duren's version is respectful, but much less giddy about Carter, meaning I like it better. See here.) I think that Burleson worries needlessly. Burleson wrongly suspects that somebody somewhere in the SBC will be shocked, scandalized, or otherwise surprised that he and his group are meeting with Carter and is enthusiastic about what Carter is doing. The headline will come when we find someone leftward of this group who is not acceptable to them. In as non-crucifying a manner as I can muster (Burleson wasn't suggesting that his actions and words are beyond any review at all, was he?), I only wish to point out something I find interesting. The title of Burleson's post is "That Which Unites Us Is the Gospel of Christ." Here are Jimmy Carter's thoughts about the gospel in his own words, given in full context:

Q: Your first lesson on Ephesians describes man's reconciliation to God through grace and the sacrifice of Christ. Do you believe that grace ultimately applies to people who don't presently believe in Jesus? A: Yes, I do. I remember two things. One is that in John 3:16, which is probably the best known verse in the Bible - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son." And Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, said we should love our neighbors, but also love those who despise us and hate us and our enemies. So, the opportunity for everyone to be saved through the grace of God with faith in Christ applies to everyone. And I have been asked often, you know, in my Sunday School classes, which are kind of a give and take debate with people from many nations and many faiths - what about those that don't publicly accept Christ, are they condemned? And I remember that Christ said, "Judge not that ye be not judged." And so, my own personal belief is one of God's forgiveness and God's grace. That's the best answer I can give.

So, there is Carter's understanding of the gospel. I ask you, the Southern Baptist people: Does that gospel unite you with Jimmy Carter? As for me, I would have to entitle any post about Jimmy Carter in this manner: "What Divides Us Is the Gospel of Christ"

Interpretation of Statistics

Figures won't lie, but liars will figure. -Charles Grosvenor

I am not saying that my good friend Ben Cole is a liar. In my opinion, he is among the more honest people involved in the debates of the past year. He is the Lady Godiva of Southern Baptist dissent—whatever his thoughts, opinions, and motives have been, we have all seen them in their unvarnished state. Personally, I like that kind of openness, even when there is disagreement. I hope to contribute to the total and unrestrained defeat of whatever shenanigans Ben has in store for this year's SBC meeting, but my desire for his defeat is not a desire for his disgrace or destruction. Ben has conceded (see here) that his comparison between SWBTS and DTS was less than completely accurate. A concession is in order from me. I will concede that enrollment at SWBTS has gone down. Ben's metanarrative, of course, is that Dr. Patterson is the cause of declining enrollment at SWBTS. Here is the point of my initial quote: although statistics are solid and unwavering in and of themselves, it is when people attempt to interpret them that statistics can make liars of us all. Thus, in the interests of the truth (and, of course, out of my love for SWBTS), I offer the following factors other than Dr. Patterson's presidency that must be considered in order to interpret Ben's statistics accurately.

1. Ben's good friend Paul Powell (of Truett Seminary) and the fine folks at Logsdon Seminary and the B. H. Carroll Institute are hard at work every day trying to convince people to attend their schools rather than attend SWBTS. The effects of these schools are relatively new phenomena, and they would be in operation whether Dr. Patterson or even Ben Cole (insert uncontrollable shudder here) were president of SWBTS.
2. Ben's good friends at Baylor University and their colleagues at a wide array of Baptist undergraduate institutions have all but sworn a blood oath to steer students away from SWBTS and to ban the hiring of SWBTS graduates regardless of their personal beliefs or qualifications.
3. All of these folks and their henchmen at the BGCT have gone so far as to deny exhibit space for SWBTS at the BGCT's annual meeting—an unparalleled occurence in Southern Baptist history.
4. What were the enrollment and graduate trends at SEBTS under Patterson? Could Bro. Ben enlighten us with those statistics? As I have already mentioned in another post, the robust growth of other seminaries in the Southern Baptist system cannot help but impact the numbers at SWBTS.

Finally, let me concede yet another point. If I were a liberal, I would not want to attend SWBTS. I do not doubt that Dr. Patterson's presence at the helm of the seminary discourages some people from attending there. I will lose no sleep over this fact. I have no desire for the SBC to subsidize the education of liberals (whatever you believe that word means, you must concede that whoever is a liberal, he would think twice about attending SWBTS right now). But I do not believe that this factor is any more determinative of the enrollment trends at SWBTS than the other factors I have already listed. Ben's statistics are (now) sound; the problem is with his metanarrative.

Congratulations DTS

Dallas Theological Seminary held their commencement services today, graduating more students than they have ever graduated before (a total of 379). Bill Brown, president of Cedarville University in Cedarville, OH, was the commencement speaker. Dr. Brown was once a youth minister here in Farmersville, and he is staying with members of my church this weekend. It was my pleasure to meet Bill and his wife Lynne yesterday and to get to know some more about Cedarville. It is a shame that this bright day for DTS is for Bro. Ben Cole just another occasion to take pot-shots at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (see here). Before you happen to stroll over to BaptistBlogger, it might help you to know that Bro. Ben is comparing DTS's once-a-year commencement number to SWBTS's Spring-semester-only commencement number. Of course, Ben was careful not to say erroneously that DTS graduated more students than SWBTS, but he was also careful not to say anything that would get in the way of every reader walking away with that impression. Sometimes you don't have to lie to be dishonest. Here are the numbers giving the full picture: SWBTS graduated 263 students in December, bringing the annual total for the seminary to 510, some 35% more than DTS's 379. Not that such comparisons are appropriate or at all helpful to the kingdom, but if anyone wishes to make them, he ought to give the whole story and portray the comparison accurately. But on the occasion of seminary commencements, allow me to suggest that we all need to beseech the throne of heaven to raise up more men called and surrendered to pastor existing churches. We have a very strong youth group here at FBC Farmersville. Tracy Odneal, our associate pastor and student minister, is remarkable at what he does—a man among men. We've seen a large number of students over the past few years give their lives to God for a variety of vocational callings: missions, camp ministry, music, and other wonderful things. But where are the pastors? A chapel service at SWBTS this year included a poll of the audience. Of those who are preparing for pastoral ministry, all but a handful planned to start a church rather than pastor an existing church. So, it is not the mission of SWBTS to have large enrollments. The seminaries do not exist for themselves, but for the churches. SWBTS is no longer the only viable option for conservative Southern Baptists. The broadening of conservative seminary options, although it naturally results in a decline in SWBTS's enrollment, is a good thing for the churches; therefore, it is a good thing. I hope that the enrollment of all of our seminaries grows, but I hope it grows with what our churches need more than anything else—people called to pastor our churches. I'm not saying that is the only need, but it is the most profound need. God bless DTS. God bless SWBTS. But most of all, God bless the churches with the blessing of strong pastoral leadership. May DTS, SWBTS, SBTS, NOBTS, SEBTS, GGBTS, MWBTS, MABTS, etc., etc., etc. all prosper under God's hand, but may that prosperity redound to the benefit of the churches by yielding more and more pastors to lead our churches. That, after all, is one of the big reasons for which churches fund seminaries. Again, congratulations DTS.

Incitatus

When Suetonius recorded the life of the Roman Emperor "Caligula" (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus), he provided one of the more stunning portraits of reckless abusiveness in the history of human leadership. The Roman throne had hosted ambitious manipulators and ruthless generals, but none of them proved to be more dangerous than a self-absorbed, egomaniacal, pampered-from-birth, pompous, dynastic cynic—Caligula. His reign only lasted from 37 to 41, when his own guards assassinated him.

Frivolity and disrespect were the weapons Caligula wielded to try to destroy the empire. Caligula despised the senate for daring not to yield to his wishes, and he reserved the most ridiculous of his acts of disrespect for the senate. He auctioned off the wives of Roman senators, daring them to object. Suetonius even reported that Caligula considered appointing as Consul his favorite horse, Incitatus.

Consul was not the most important office in the empire, but it was an important office. It wasn't the equivalent of a presidency—more like a vice-presidency.

Don't misunderstand Caligula's motives. He loved his horse, but Caligula did not have any high estimation of his horse's capacity for governance. Caligula was not endorsing anything his horse had done or planned to do in public service. Caligula's actions revealed nothing about his agreement or disagreement with his horse on any sort of political platform.

Nevertheless, Caligula's action is historically significant. Although it reveals very little about Caligula's opinion of his horse, it reveals a great deal about Caligula's opinion of all of the Roman government except for himself. He did not take the government seriously. He disrespected it. As far as he was concerned, the senate deserved to have to deal with his horse Incitatus.

(HT: Wes Kenney's latest post and a forum over at BaptistLife)