I Will Not Sign the "Time to Change" Statement

And the Baptist world is shaken to its core with this stunning revelation…

Before I go into my reasons why not, let me first say how much I appreciate the statement. After the subterfuge of last year's Garner Motion ploy, it appears that Wade Burleson's movement is finally ready to bring to our convention a straightforward presentation of the key disputed issues. Good for them. We can hold different opinions and still conduct an honest debate. Here are some of the reasons why I hope that they do not succeed.

Reasons Why I Do Not Support the "Time to Change" Statement

1. "Time to Change" really stands for "Time Not to Change a Doggoned Thing." The authors of the statement invite us to take a tour of the Potemkin village that they've erected within the IMB. There we see that the IMB, with thousands of faithful missionaries, has no doctrinal problems whatsoever, even within such a large entity. Every missionary is thoroughly orthodox and is Baptist to the core. The administration of the IMB is forthright and honest. The finances of the IMB are transparent and well-managed. The only problem plaguing the IMB, it seems from reading the statement, is a group of hyperactive troublemakers who have advanced these two problem policies.

   Unfortunately for the authors of the statement, the pasteboard façades on the banks of the Dnieper have long ago fallen down to reveal what is behind:

   • A book produced by IMB personnel and championed by the administration at the highest levels has had to be revised multiple times to restore basic Christian orthodoxy to the book (by removing the Modalism inherent to earlier versions) and to keep IMB evangelistic practice in line with basic Christian ethics (by not lying to Muslims in an effort to convert them). None of these problems were pointed out within the IMB structure, but changes only took place when people outside the IMB pointed them out loudly and persistently enough.
   • Although these former IMB trustees want to tell us what champions of the BF&M they are ("BFM 2000 - a statement that we affirm as conservative Southern Baptists as the standard for IMB missionaries"), anyone who has even casually followed Southern Baptist blogging for the past two years knows that some of these trustees gladly consented to at least one trustee and at least one missionary stating explicit disagreement with the BF&M yet continuing in their positions of service. One of the advocates of this statement was precisely the person in charge of new trustee orientation when the caveat was granted. Where was the fabled and storied commitment of these trustees to the BF&M when those decisions were being made? Where was their commitment to the idea that the convention messengers and the local churches ought to make doctrinal decisions on behalf of the convention? Their real philosophy is revealed in their actions: Nobody but the convention ought to be able to enforce policies beyond the BF&M, but small groups or individuals ought to be able to set aside portions of the BF&M without seeking the consent of the convention or even notifying the convention of what is going on. That's what we mean by the "maximal" view of the BF&M: Nobody can go beyond it, but behind-closed-door winks and nods can waive articles by fiat and murder our statement of faith by the death of a thousand cuts.
   • Just last week the blogosphere was alive with an IMB missionary's controversial statement that Mormon baptism can constitute valid Christian baptism.
   • Louis Moore's book (just out this week) is a troubling revelation of IMB administration efforts to manipulate and circumvent trustee oversight.

   In the light of these items that have taken place in the plain view of every interested observer, it is impossible for me to agree with a group whose goal is an emasculated trustee board of sycophants. In contrast to my friend Alan Cross's beliefs ("IMB trustees should return to their role as the chief supporters of the missionaries on the field, instead of their perceived current role as suspicious managers"), I do not think that a board of trustees ought to be a pom-pom festooned band of cheerleaders. If that's all they are, then they are a complete waste of money. Trustees exist to hold the IMB accountable, and while dysfunction is not necessary or helpful, firm resolve and fiduciary seriousness is a necessary part of the job.

2. I am not convinced by the "Time to Change" statement's assertion that the new guidelines undermine the autonomy of the local church. The authors inform us that the new baptism policy "has placed the board in the position of dictating to local churches what constitutes a legitimate Christian baptism." In their estimation, this constitutes a violation of the cherished Baptist distinctive of local church autonomy, because the IMB is daring to tell a local church that it considers invalid a baptism that the local church has ruled valid. By this definition, local church autonomy includes something like the federal government's "Full Faith and Credit" clause—a local church is not autonomous unless every other local church in the SBC is obligated to accept as valid everything that local church does.

   Of course, even the authors of the "Time to Change" statement don't really believe anything that preposterous—it is just a rhetorical argument that sounds good. In the selfsame paragraph these very authors feel quite comfortable in dictating to local churches that baptism must be by immersion and must take place in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Presumably, even if an autonomous local Southern Baptist congregation were to accept Oneness Pentecostal immersion or, as some local Southern Baptist churches have contemplated openly or have done quietly, were to accept sprinkling of infants as valid baptism, our trustees would nonetheless gladly presume in such a circumstance to override that church's determination and dictate to a local Southern Baptist congregation what is or is not Christian Baptism (Or would they? Two weeks ago I would have made bold statements that we were all agreed on the invalidity of Mormon baptism).

   If the issue at play here is one of local church autonomy, then what is the difference between rejecting local congregational judgment regarding the rightful administrator of baptism versus rejecting local congregational judgment regarding the rightful mode of baptism or the rightful spoken formula of baptism? No valid answer comes to mind. And that's because this question has absolutely not one thing to do with local church autonomy.

   Rather, we must acknowledge that local church autonomy consists of something akin to "freedom of speech" plus something akin to "freedom of association." My local church can affirm, denounce, practice, abstain from, support, or defund whatever we wish, and there's nothing that the SBC or the IMB can do about it. But one function of my church's autonomy is the fact that we get to choose with which churches and how we will partner for various tasks. In the SBC we make those decisions collectively through our annual meeting and the governing structures that we select and authorize through that meeting. Unless and until the SBC gains the authority to hire and fire our personnel or to buy or sell our property, no decision that the SBC or its entities make can ever imperil the autonomy of our local church. And the local churches that constitute the SBC are free to determine both the bounds of their fellowship and their criteria for employment of missionaries or any other thing.

3. I am not convinced by the the "Time to Change" statement's theory of restricting IMB policies to strictly the primary doctrines identified in the Bible. The statement urges us to consider carefully that "the Bible at no point raises [the] issue [of so-called private prayer language] to a matter of primary doctrinal importance." Well, of course it doesn't. That's a tautology.

   The Bible doesn't mention "private prayer language" at all, nor does the Bible categorize doctrines into matters of "primary doctrinal importance" versus other doctrines, unless our sagacious trustees are directing us to 1 Corinthians 15:5-8. And if they are, then they must concede that the list in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 of doctrines "of first importance" is pretty sparsely populated. The doctrine of the Trinity isn't in there. The doctrine of immersion is not in there—baptism isn't in there at all. So, if our former trustees are only interested in enforcing the doctrines listed in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, then we're going to have a pretty minimalist set of guidelines for missionary appointment, but if they have some other list of primary doctrines in mind, then they must concede that "the Bible at no point raises [any of the other issues that our trustees enforce as policies] to a matter of primary doctrinal importance."

   See, I just thought that we were supposed to teach new converts to obey all that Jesus commanded us, not to make lists of Bible doctrines that aren't important enough for us to try to impart them.

   What the Southern Baptist people have to do, I guess, is to decide whether we believe that "Sheelrbaoehatoanta" is a grand utterance of divine origin. And if we cannot, then we'll have to determine whether our inability to achieve obedience to Christ at that point does or does not rise to such a level of importance as to prevent us from working together on those points at which we have reached agreement. The answer to that second question will probably depend upon how aggressive the Pentecostals among us will be in advancing their doctrines and practices. But this will be a practical question, and the adherents to this statement ought to stop pretending that there's some list of primary doctrines in the Bible from which our trustees must not stray.

I expect the East Coast political activists advancing this statement to bring measures to Indianapolis for the Southern Baptist Convention to consider. This is a critical year for them, for they will not have a committee structure and platform stacked so friendly toward them again anytime soon. Action has taken place this year "accidentally" to exclude duly elected conservatives from the governmental processes of the SBC by "inadvertently" failing to send them information forwarded to all other members of committees and boards and other groups until after the insiders had already finalized action. There's a deliberate effort underway at this moment to skew the SBC political process in favor of these measures. Those kinds of actions can only succeed for so long, and next week is the last, best moment of opportunity.

It is important for conservative Southern Baptists to go to Indianapolis. It is important to pay attention. Beware of vaguely worded motions or resolutions. If you aren't 100% sure what the wording of a motion or resolution means, if you aren't 100% sure that you recognize who is bringing forward a motion or resolution and what they are trying to accomplish by it, and especially if you see that any item of business before the convention is being disputed or debated, then you have a responsibility to the church that sent you and the Lord who saved you to inform yourself before you vote. I recommend that you bookmark SBC Today in your Internet browser and check it frequently next week, because this premier SBC informational blog will be providing comprehensive analysis of the convention as it unfolds.

Vignettes from the TBN Appearance: Part 2-b

Here's another variety of the Praisegod Research Poll: Tell us something about the first Southern Baptists you ever encountered who were Charismatics: Were they poor? Uneducated? Rural? I'll start. The first Charismatic Southern Baptists I ever encountered were middle-class and wealthy Baylor students and employees attending Highland Baptist Church in Waco, TX.

Dwain Miller's False Dilemma

Ladies and gentlemen, as promised a few months ago, I have inaugurated a podcast. I've played around with podcasting in private for a few months just to get the feel of it. Here's my first installment over at Podbean, a five-minute video rebutting a false dilemma that Dwain Miller asserted on the now-infamous PTL episode.

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…

Vignettes from the TBN Appearance: Part 2

McKissic: “I think it’s emotional prejudice, because tongues has been associated with poor people…Pentecostal people…sometimes uneducated people. And so, people who… into academia and sometimes put letters above the Spirit and the Word, have decided that we’re…tongues…we’re too embarrassed to deal with the tongues issue."

I was born on the last day of the 1960s as the third of four children to a small household in Lake City, Arkansas. We attended Bethabara Baptist Church out on Cane Island, a used-to-be community less than 200 yards from the East levee of the Saint Francis River.

Bethabara Baptist Church was a typical rural Southern Baptist congregation. The attendance rarely topped 100. The racks contained both the Baptist Hymnal and the Heavenly Highway Hymns. We had Dinner on the Grounds (which sometimes featured Raccoon and Dressing). People said "Amen!" and sometimes they shouted it. The church loved good gospel singing. The preaching was often emotional, pointed, and loud.

Poor and uneducated…these are great adjectives to describe the entire spiritual foundation of my early life. Pentecostal, it was not. No speaking in tongues. No people falling out. No cartwheels. No "Thus saith the Lord" anywhere but in the Bible.

So, imagine my surprise to learn that I am prejudiced against myself, my family, my heritage, and the people who first introduced me to Jesus—that they were prejudiced against themselves!

Pentecostalism will frequently claim that people who differ with its view of the spiritual gifts are operating out of an elitist motivation. I find the argument ironic: It seems like a pretty elitist claim to me when one alleges that the folks across the aisle have abandoned the Spirit and the Word in favor of academia because of embarrassment. It smacks not of emotional prejudice and intellectual elitism, but of charismatic prejudice and glossolalic elitism.

Vignettes from the TBN Appearance: Part 1

Hogue: “How do you respond to [the idea that not all believers will have the gift of tongues]” Camp: “I think you can experience all of the Spirit of God that you want to experience…God is not going to force anything on anybody, but if you are open, if you have a desire, if you have a hunger to go on with God, then you can experience this particular manifestation of the Holy Spirit of God…” Hogue: Do you think that every believer should pray in the Spirit? Camp: I think every believer should be open to whatever God wants to do in their life, and if they are open to this, they will experience it…” Hogue: “So you’re saying that if I’m open to whatever God is wanting to do in my life, I will at least have a prayer language that will be part of my life.” Camp: “I believe that’s probably true…What I would rather do is to talk about the power of the working of the Holy Spirit in my own life…what Jack Hayford calls Heaven’s language, and to say that this is available to every Christian who wants to experience, but…the focus is…on seeking Jesus and a deeper, fuller experience, but I want to tell you, if you do that, then you’re headed down a road where eventually you’re going to cross that bridge.” Miller: “In my own experience…and the fact is, a person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument…I think there are people out there tonight who are watching who have spoken in tongues and don’t even know it…I wanted all of God and I wanted Him to have all of me. Quite honestly, I believe it and I teach it to our people…if you want to use the term baptisms, that there are four: Positional baptism…Personal baptism, water baptism…Practical baptism, being filled with the Spirit…Baptism of power that comes upon one…I had the baptism of the Holy Spirit come upon me in Pensacola…When you get filled with the spirit in a personal yielding, that’s the best time to release that personal prayer language….Why would God give him an ability to be more intimate with Jesus and not offer it to me?”

The message couldn't be clearer: Speaking in tongues is normative for all believers. If you don't speak in tongues, something is wrong with your relationship with God, and people who do speak in tongues are on a higher level than the rest of us and have a more intimate walk with the Lord than the rest of us do.

Must See: TBN Clip Praying for "Pensacola" to Come in the SBC

I'm still grading papers (I sure am slow, am I not?). But during my silence, I call upon you to visit Tim Guthrie's most recent blog article. You absolutely must watch all two hours of last night's "Praise the Lord" show. There you'll see the unvarnished truth of where folks hope to take the SBC.

New Spiritual Gifts

In the aftermath of our de novo discovery of "private prayer language," Praisegod Research is proud to announce the discovery of an entire new suite of spiritual gifts at work among Southern Baptists:

1. Private Evangelist. An overwhelming number of Southern Baptists report that they possess the gift of being a "private evangelist." They share the gospel, just not with anybody publicly. "Sometimes the Holy Spirit just comes upon me while I'm watching TV and I repeat the Roman Road out loud to nobody in particular," reported one practitioner.
2. Private Giving. An equally impressive number claimed to practice the charisma of private giving. In this practice, rather than giving to the church or to another person in need, the Christian simply gives to himself. The practice of this gift is actually rather robust, with more than half of the practitioners reporting that they privately give to themselves more than 90% of their income.
3. Private Helps. A great many Christians are proficient at helping themselves privately to all manner of things.
4. Private Ministry. "The gift of private ministry is so liberating," one participant elucidated, "because the other people involved were always the real challenge for me in ministry to begin with. Once I was free to minister by myself to myself, I really saw my spiritual gift come into full bloom."
5. Private Prophecy. This gift was popular among many pastors, who reported that prophetic private preaching was much less likely to make listeners uncomfortable than was the actual public utterance of a word on God's behalf.

More research is called for in this area, but this much is certain—it is an exciting day for private spiritual gifts in the SBC.

A Non-Angry Post about the Lifeway PPL Report

As a part of my Mea Culpa, I retract the entire post about Biased Researchers. Unless anyone objects, I will remove it entirely from the blog. Although I would step back from my tone in some of the other posts and comments, I reiterate my other questions about the research as representative of my thought.

Mea Culpa

Since Thursday morning, I have been angry. My anger grew steadily from then through this morning. With each blog post of the past twenty-four hours, I injected more and more anger into my writing. "...the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God." (James 1:20) Although the question of whether the Holy Spirit inspires non-language utterances is a matter of some contention among us, we all ought to be able to agree that the Holy Spirit convicts us quite eloquently when His children are of the wrong heart. I have to give a little narrative to get around to apologizing to everyone. I have to keep the narrative very vague and uncompelling in order not to make matters any worse. Late Wednesday evening, I first learned of an inappropriate (I came to conclude later) circumstance relating to the upcoming PPL report. Indeed, this is how I came to know that a PPL report was even coming out on Friday. Thursday morning I lit up phone lines across the nation trying to get into a position of equity. At points along the way on Thursday morning, I discovered the inappropriateness of the circumstance. Thus a very strange conversation with Dr. Brad Waggoner on Thursday morning—I had called earlier that morning to try to achieve some equity in the situation and had not gotten through. By the time he called me back, I was starting to learn unsettling things about the situation. At that point, I didn't know whether to beg him, accuse him, tattle to him, or what. I simply spoke with him briefly about my admiration for Lifeway Research—which, at that point, was still how I felt. Nevertheless, that obviously was not why I had called him. I misled him. For that, I apologize publicly. I mention this because someone in a comment had made reference to that phone call, and an explanation is in order to whoever that was. As the day progressed on Thursday, I learned positively that the circumstance had indeed taken place, and in a manner that bothered me even more than what I first thought had happened. I grew very, very angry—all the more so because I felt so foolish about my earlier telephone call to Dr. Waggoner (whom I shall be calling and to whom I shall apologize personally on Monday morning). Then the Lifeway report came out, missing any numbers for SBC laity—an absence barely enabling people to claim that the majority of Southern Baptists believe in PPL. I connected this bewildering and convenient feature of the report with "Situation A" described above, and moved from angry to livid. And that, quite obviously, has been the attitude behind my recent posts. But today, during the wedding, while I was preaching to a young couple beginning a life together, talking about the biblical pattern for marriage, the Holy Spirit reminded me of the awesome destructive force of anger. Yes, sir. Guilty as charged. So, I repent of my anger and my angry words. I have spoken with and apologized to a certain blogger. I apologize to all of the other bloggers who have had the misfortune to cross my path in the past twenty-four hours. I apologize to Dr. Ed Stetzer—although I never alleged that he was a part of the inappropriate circumstance, I did mix his name into all of this, highlighting chapters of his life in the past year that he would probably rather forget. I'll be calling him Monday morning, too. I wasn't ever angry at Dr. Stetzer, but I stirred him into a post marked by my anger toward others. I don't think I wrote clearly enough in my anger for a reader to be able to tell that I wasn't accusing Dr. Stetzer of anything other than being a human being in a difficult position (a fact that he himself acknowledged in the podcast). I apologize to Dr. Waggoner. I never got to my final post in this series, where I was going to point out that, even with all my doubts about the Lifeway report, I would be surprised to see the appropriate corrections lower the PPL fraction by more than a 10-point swing. Thus, I think that the "majority" thing is very dubious, but this report still shows the PPL fraction to be much higher in the SBC than I thought it was. So, where does all of this end up? I've lost a little faith in Lifeway Research. The things that I chose to get angry about are inappropriate and still concern me, even though I am putting away the anger. People make mistakes. Other people ought to forgive. I've lost a little faith in the Southern Baptist people. Azusa Street has made tremendous inroads into the Southern Baptist Convention. My opinion of that is clear, and there's no need to deny it. The trend is also clear. I do not think that the 50% figure is accurate today when describing all Southern Baptists (pastors and laity alike), but clearly that is the direction that the statistics are moving. In a century, we may be thoroughly charismatic as a denomination (I hope that Jesus comes back long before a century has elapsed, for reasons other than this conversation). But mostly, I've lost a lot of faith in myself. God's servant may indeed get angry, but it is unbecoming for anger to be in control of God's servant. I apologize not only to a certain blogger, Brad Waggoner, and Ed Stetzer, but also to you, my readers. I realize that, with all the intentional vagueness, this sounds pretty foolish. I feel pretty foolish right now. If you knew the details, it all might make more sense to you. Others know the details, and it makes sense to some of them. But I can't clarify further. Think of me as foolish if you wish, and that way I'll think twice before I write in anger again. Dear friends, we disagree. I'm not going to quit disagreeing—to pretend I believe otherwise than I do just to please men. But I will not be angry about it. Let us follow our polity to resolve our differences. Let us leave what happens in the hands of a sovereign God. Let us be honorable in our speech and deeds. I will be praying that Southern Baptists will see through the "Charismatic Chaos" and stem the tide. Some will pray otherwise. But I will pray what I pray in love for you all.

October Surprise

So far, we've explored the fact that, based upon the overall survey of Protestants, the Lifeway report includes with regard to Southern Baptists solely the category (pastors) most likely to yield the desired high number of PPL-endorsers. As a result, the one question that the report cannot answer is "What do Southern Baptists believe about PPL?" We've also explored the evidence that Lifeway Research conducted this research amidst exclusive coordination with pro-PPL bloggers—that, honest, honorable, and faithful people that they are notwithstanding, the folks at Lifeway Research appear to have more friendly connections with pro-PPL than anti-PPL folks in the SBC. The first factor could easily have been remedied by taking some more time and incorporating an actual survey of Southern Baptists—an unlimited general survey of Southern Baptist pastors and laity alike. But Lifeway Research did not take additional time. The time of publication is also an important component of factor two, since coordination of the report's release with pro-PPL bloggers appears to have been a part of the communication between Lifeway Research and bloggers. What is the timing of the report? On the eve of the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in San Antonio. I can imagine an innocent, non-partisan reason for this timing: The report is going to generate a lot more interest if released right now as opposed to September. If Lifeway Research wants to grab headlines and generate interest in their work, then releasing this report at this particular time is just the way to do it. That's one reason why an honest researcher might have chosen to release this report on the eve of the convention. Of course, for the political machine that has been at work throughout the past year, the timing could not have been better if made-to-order. As for my thoughts, the presidential elections of 2000 & 2004 come to mind. Networks came under fire for the practice of using exit polls to declare (wrongly) the results of the presidential election in key states while voting was still underway on the West Coast. For some reason, exit poll errors seem to occur in the favor of Democrats. The more conspiracy-minded among us suggest a concerted effort by networks and pollsters to skew the election. Not me. I acknowledge that the exit polls have recently tended to err in favor of Democrats when they err, but the reasons are likely related either to subtle, inadvertent bias on the part of the researchers or to the fact that human behavior and opinion are difficult to survey with great precision. Also, to borrow from our physicist friends, one must consider the observer effect—when you point a camera at it, it changes. People have this strange habit of sometimes saying what they believe will make a pollster approve of them as people. These are explanations more likely than deliberate political conspiracy, in my opinion. Nevertheless, even though I do not believe that the networks and Voter News Service are engaged in a political conspiracy, I support the severe limitation of the use of exit polls during national elections. Why?

1. Because the polls themselves affect the outcome of the election when results are released before voting is complete.
2. When the stakes are that high, the inaccuracies of the method cease to become an academic footnote and become very, very important. The egg on the networks' faces amply demonstrates that such polls are not reliable enough to be allowed to play such an important role.

And that's not to mention the partisan political polls ordered by and coordinated with a particular candidate's campaign. Of course, the American people have grown suspicious of such partisan hack polls released on the eve of an election. In the case of the Lifeway Research PPL Report, we have a poll regarding a very important question released just prior to the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. It is released at a time when it is inevitable that Southern Baptists will interpret the report to speak to the beliefs of Southern Baptists as a whole, when it does not even purport to answer that question. Just like the polls mentioned above, this report is likely to influence the results of the SBC meeting. This report, due to the inadequacies mention in the preceding posts, is even less reliable than the infamous exit polls. Releasing this report with these deficiencies at this particular time is reckless at best.

Another View

If you are interested in reading the viewpoint of perhaps the only blogger in the SBC who has kept his blood pressure down today, check out Joe Stewart's blog. There you'll find neither triumphalism nor scorn, but more of a yawn. There haven't been many of those today!

Biased Researchers

No...no more biased than any of the rest of us. But I doubt there is a dispassionate soul in the entirety of the SBC right now, as regards these issues. Certainly I think we can show that Ed Stetzer would have to be superhuman not to have personal bias germane to this topic.

1. Entities, blogs, etc., within the SBC have rather strongly polarized over these issues over the past year.
2. Pro-PPL bloggers include people who have tried to advance Ed Stetzer as the man to lead NAMB, people with very intimate connections with Lifeway Research, and the people for whom Lifeway Research initiated the study to begin with (remember the Roundtable?). Some of his most passionate cheerleaders in the SBC have disproportionately been pro-PPL folks.
3. Anti-PPL folks in the SBC, on the other hand, include many people who have been harsh critics of Ed Stetzer and Acts 29. Here I go speculating again, but I'm willing to guess that word of that criticism actually made it back to Ed Stetzer (since it has been reported all over Baptist Press). By the way, please note that today is the first time that Ed Stetzer's name has ever been mentioned on my blog.
4. I don't know Ed Stetzer, but I'm willing to offer once again the bald speculation that he is, indeed, a human being, and as such, vulnerable to being influenced by such things as the #2 and #3.
5. Lifeway Research has publicly stated that they have been in conversation with bloggers throughout this process. I know that Lifeway Research hasn't been in any conversations with me over this (although I think Lifeway belongs to me as much as it belongs to any other Southern Baptist blogger)—could any anti-PPL blogger tell me about having been in conversation with Lifeway Research about this project? If not, then I guess that Lifeway Research has been in conversation with only one side of a partisan divide as this research has progressed. Can anyone think of a good excuse for Lifeway Research to be coordinating this project with vocal participants from one particular side of this debate? Don't such actions call Lifeway Research's objectivity into question? I don't think that Southern Baptists are well served by a research division that gets cozy with one side in a polarized debate that the division is researching.

Please note, I am not calling anyone from Lifeway Research a liar. I'm just calling them human beings with lopsided connections (at least for some of them) in this particular debate. Please also note, I do not use these facts to say, "Throw the research away! I'm right and you're wrong!" No, I simply say this: Lifeway Research's contribution to this debate is hobbled by these and other factors. Let's not settle for this confused state of affairs. Let's commission a survey by an external, professional, objective polling company. Let's let theologians from both sides of the question, working with polling experts, come to agreement on good questions and good sampling and presentation methodology. If this is done, I promise to acknowledge the results as an accurate depiction of the status of the SBC, whether I like what I see or not. Perhaps I'll make a motion to that effect in San Antonio.

A Bizarre Sample

I have drawn two conclusions from the Lifeway Report:

1. The percentage of Southern Baptists tempted by the Charismatic Movement is much larger than I had guessed.
2. The same percentage is likely much smaller than reported by Lifeway Research.

Does anything seem asymmetrical to you about the research sample?

	Pastors	Laity
Protestant Non-SBC	602	1,004
SBC	403	???

Where are the Southern Baptist laity? I raised this question earlier at Marty Duren's blog, and here is his response, presumably from Lifeway Research, unless Marty is otherwise somehow personally aware of the particulars of the research methodology for this survey:

The entire sampling was of 1,000 or so lay people (all Protestant) and 1,000 or so pastors (all Protestant, but with enough SBC pastors [405] to form an oversampling). The purpose of the survey was not to determine what Southern Baptist laypersons believe versus other Protestant layperson regarding the PPL issue, but what Protestants believe, with an emphasis on Southern Baptist pastors (who were oversampled to provide a large enough pool for statistical accuracy).

So, either (and I'm not sure which is the case) some number of Southern Baptist laypeople actually form a portion of the "Protestant laity" group, but have not been broken out to give us their views statistically, or all 1,004 of the laypeople surveyed were non-SBC. Either way, from what I've told you at this point the refusal to give statistics for SBC laity is merely a curiosity. But when you look at the data, you realize that it is not merely a curiosity. In the Protestant category, the laypeople broke decidedly away from a belief in PPL. Indeed, in the podcast, one of the commentators (Stetzer, I think) remarked at how strongly and surprisingly Protestant laity differed from pastors in rejecting PPL. A full 15 points (or 13, there appears to be an error in the slide I have in front of me) separates Protestant pastors and laypeople on this question. So, the very category that moves the statistics dramatically away from support of PPL is the category excluded from consideration as regards Southern Baptists. I note in this regard:

1. Overall, Southern Baptists were far less likely to support PPL than were Protestants at large.
2. If there were SBC laity in the Protestant laity sample, they may well be the explanation for this dramatic separation between Protestant pastors and "Protestant" laity. In which case, if Southern Baptist laity were considered separately (as they should have been), the resulting SBC number would be significantly lower than 50%.
3. If there were no SBC laity among the 1,004 Protestant laity, then we might expect SBC laity to be as different from Protestant laity as SBC pastors are from Protestant pastors. In which case the inclusion of SBC laity would still result in an overall number far below 50%.

Of course, I'm speculating. Of course, I am left in a situation where I have to speculate because the data have not been given to us...because of a strangely sculpted categorization of the sample. I cannot imagine how the categorization could have been accomplished in a fashion more favorable to the pro-PPL group, even if one were trying. If there were SBC laity in the survey, I call upon Lifeway Research to publish the percentages for SBC laity responses to the various questions.

Lifeway Study Analysis: Part 1

I'm performing a wedding. I'll only get bits-and-snatches of time to post over the next 24 hours, so I'll break it into chunks. Perhaps that will be better, anyway. We can all confine our comments to the proper thread dealing with the proper subtopic, and that will facilitate better discussion. There's one big-ticket topic to get out of the way right up front: Knowing how vocal I have been in this controversy, can anything that I would say about this topic be trusted by anyone who disagrees with me? No doubt, many have concluded a priori in the negative. But, since there's not a doggoned thing I can do about that, I'm not going to worry about it. Others will be reasonable listeners. I hope that they will hear me. I am perfectly willing to let the statistics say whatever they actually say. First of all, they confirm what I've said all along—that the preponderance of Southern Baptists do not believe non-linguistic utterances to be the same as the biblical gift of tongues. If our differences are truly over whether God is giving people the gift of speaking Mandarin without having studied it, then I see great hope for resolving our difficulties quickly: Produce for me one of these Mandarin-speaking Alabamans who has not studied the language, and I am indeed disproven. I am open to the possibility of that—God can do whatever God wills. But the practice affirmed by the Lifeway study is talking about a verifiable gift, in which case I answer, "Then let's verify it." So, the study results surprise me, but they are in no way lethal to my position. And indeed, presuming that I harbor the most hostile of sentiments toward the modern practice, I still sincerely desire to know what is the honest state of our convention. I see survey results all of the time that disturb me about our convention, yet without feeling some need to dispute that half of our members are not-to-be-found or that a vast number of our attending members are rather biblically illiterate (results of previous statistical offerings I have seen). If Charles Fox Parham's cheap parlor trick has genuinely infected 50% of the Southern Baptist Convention, I want to know about it. Some want to know in order to dance around in a victory parade—I want to know in order to call a day of fasting and prayer. Whether you believe the true situation to be a positive situation or a negative one, denial is helpful to nobody. So, as I raise what I believe to be valid questions over the next few posts, I know that irresponsible bloggers will raise charges of "crying in the sandbox." I hope that others will at least take the time to listen.

Dr. Malcolm Yarnell's Response to Lifeway PPL Report

I post this on the fly and on the road. I will offer my analysis later tonight or tomorrow morning. Here are the thoughts of Dr. Malcolm Yarnell (please pardon any formatting issues that may have resulted from a hasty conversion into HTML):

Commentary on the Lifeway Research Division Study of Private Prayer Language

“A Perfect and Just Measure Shalt Thou Have”

Prior to recognizing and surrendering to the call of God upon my life, I was a practicing economist and financier. Statistics and accounting—the discipline of mathematics applied to social trends and the management of money—were the focus of my daily thoughts and deeds. The statistical side of economics in comparison with the reporting side of accounting brought greater joy to this former practitioner of the financial arts as economics involves understanding human behavior. Yet, like other social scientists, economists deal with both the measurable and the immeasurable precisely because they are dealing with the attitudes and actions of human beings. The social sciences have long had a mysterious hold on the American imagination, because their scientists are deemed the experts who know the people better than the people know themselves. The mystique of the statistical disciplines—economics, political science, sociology, etc.—is enhanced by a modernist pretense that true scientific disciplines depend upon mathematics, unlike those disciplines that involve more variable factors—psychology, history, journalism, etc. The Enlightenment taught the inhabitants of Western cultures implicitly to trust the mathematical and doubt the non-mathematical. At a popular level, this means, inter alia, that a “scientific” study or statistical survey in an Enlightenment culture carries substantial authority. Yet the mathematical is subject to the foibles introduced by humanity’s created limitations and, even more debilitatingly, by its chosen depravity. These theological truths—humanity’s limitations and depravity—were brought home to me in the field of economics. It quickly became apparent that statistics may be inappropriately constructed or interpreted, whether with or without cognition, by the social scientist. In other words, some studies are worthy of more trust than others, due to the manipulation of the data to which the mathematical tools of statistical analysis are applied. Moreover, no study may claim perfection, simply because social studies are human endeavors involving human subjects, human objects, and human agents. Statisticians are taught to qualify their results by assigning variation measures—for instance, “this study has a 98% confidence factor and 3.2% sampling error”. To the layman, such measures appear to deepen the trustworthiness of the survey, while to the professional, they may serve merely as so much preliminary window-dressing. The Word of God is less confident regarding the ability of human beings to declare themselves possessive of a high confidence factor and low error rate. Of the economist and financier, as of any other social scientist, God demands one set of weights “in thy bag” and a “perfect and just” set of weights at that (Deut. 25:13-16). God commanded his people to engage in, not just honest and consistent math, but perfect and just math. My own experience with statistics taught me that obtaining and utilizing a “perfect and just” set of measures is a very difficult, if not ultimately impossible, task. Every step that involves human decisions opens the door further for the loss of perfection. In a statistical survey, critical decisions have to be made from the very beginning that may obfuscate rather than elucidate the answer one seeks. For instance, one must decide how to ask a particular question for which an answer is sought; whether to accept this stream of data or that; how to filter data properly; when to trust the study of another or commission a new study. When dealing with surveys of human opinions rather than the raw data of sales and purchases, the problems become especially difficult, for the way a question is asked and who is asked the question and who asks the question and exactly what question is asked may skew the results of a survey one way or another. This does not mean that the pollsters that I hired were necessarily untrustworthy, but that human factors necessarily distort, often quite unintentionally. Moreover, the final step in a statistical survey—interpreting the data—introduces non-mathematical factors that cannot be allayed by high confidence factors and low sampling errors. Confidence and sampling error estimates regard only the relation between the sample and the subject population. These estimates, which may be and often are wrong, say nothing about the surveyor’s intentions. Yesterday, the difficulties inherent in the social sciences, especially those that seek to conduct their business with recourse to the apparently unarguable results of statistics, were brought to mind once again.

“For It Is Not Ye That Speak, But the Spirit”

Private prayer languages are a controversial issue among some Southern Baptists at this point in our history. The International Mission Board of Trustees [IMB] and the Trustees of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary [SWBTS] have made it clear that private prayer languages are not to be countenanced among new employees of those institutions. Yet, a leading administrator of the IMB has publicly affirmed private prayer languages and a prominent trustee at SWBTS believes the denial of private prayer languages is unbiblical. And today, the administration of LifeWay, the old Baptist Sunday School Board, released a study by its new Research Division. The study, a statistical opinion survey, is entitled, “Private Prayer Language and the Gift of Tongues: Protestant Pastors and Laity and Southern Baptist Seminary Graduates.” It has been released, most intriguingly, right before the meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention [SBC] in San Antonio, Texas, where the issue of private prayer languages promises to appear on the agenda from the floor. The timing of the study’s release is problematic, but even more problematic is the study itself, both in methodology and in interpretation. For instance, with regard to methodology, some of the questions that are asked are woefully inadequate, and the fact that two surveys were combined into one report further complicates the picture. Methodological Problems with Question Two For instance, question two is the critical one from which the surveyors concluded, “Half of Southern Baptist pastors believe in Private Prayer Language.” Unfortunately, such a conclusion is essentially without substantive meaning. Indeed, the question itself may be affirmed by a person who does not actually believe that ecstatic, unintelligible speech directed toward God is a spiritual gift defined by Scripture.

Q2 Do you believe that the Holy Spirit gives some people the gift of a special language to pray to God privately? Some people refer to this as a Private Prayer Language or the “private use of tongues.”

The question is unclear as to its meaning, first with regard to meaning of “the gift”: (A) Is the “gift” to be taken as one of the charismata discussed in 1 Corinthians 12-14? Or, (B) is the “gift” to be taken as one of the graces that accompany the reception of the Holy Spirit at salvation? Or, (C) is the “gift” to be taken as one of the common graces applied to human beings by the Holy Spirit by reason of their creation? A second problem with clarity in the second question concerns the meaning of “special language”: (A) Is the “special language” to be taken as a heavenly, angelic language previously unknown to the speaker? Or, (B) is the “special language” a learned language that has been heightened in understanding by reason of the Spirit’s guidance? Or, (C) is the “special language” to be taken as the “barking of a dog” or the “croaking of a frog” in emulation of the Toronto Blessing and its rather bizarre manifestations? Although it is public knowledge that Malcolm Yarnell most certainly does not believe a private prayer language as ecstatic, unintelligible speech to be a spiritual gift defined in Scripture, even I could answer the second Lifeway Research Division question affirmatively by opting for B in both of the above instances. After all, I do believe that the Holy Spirit comes at salvation as the gift of God and that he brings to me many graces as a result of salvation (Romans 8). Moreover, I do believe that the Spirit helps every Christian pray to God rightly (Ephesians 6:18) and that the Spirit is promised to help us speak our own language intelligibly in witness of the Gospel, for instance when persecuted (Matthew 10:17-20). Yet, I would vehemently disagree with “special language” being the barking of a dog, and I find the idea of that unintelligible private language is a spiritual gift to be biblically insupportable. Another problem with this question is the terminology of “some people”. Is “some” to be taken as a Christian elitism? Or, are these “people” Christians or not? Finally, perhaps the greatest problem with the second question is its blatant assumption that a “gift” may be used “privately”. Paul is quite clear in 1 Corinthians 12:7 that a spiritual gift is for the common good, and he spends much of chapter 14 arguing that speaking gifts must be used only for public edification. The questionnaire’s equation of “gift” with “privately” may suggest that the surveyor himself (or herself) believes that a private activity is a spiritual gift. Not only is such an equation indicative of either an inappropriately constructed or insufficiently educated survey, it suggests an implied contradiction of the Pauline doctrine of spiritual gifts. Methodological Problems with Question Four Also worthy of consideration regarding the survey’s methodology is question four, concerning the definition of “tongues”. Question four does not directly address the critical issue at stake, but bypasses it in favor of less controversial matters.

Q4 Which one of the following two options best describes your understanding of the term “tongues” used in the New Testament? 1. “Tongues” refers to the God-given ability to speak another language you had not previously been able to speak, 2. “Tongues” refers to special utterances given by the Holy Spirit meant as messages to the congregation with the help of an interpreter.

The question does not even offer the option that is most critical in the current debate. A balanced survey would have given this as a third option: “3. ‘Tongues’ refers to ecstatic, unintelligible utterances given by the Holy Spirit to only certain believers for their private edification.” After all, this is what current proponents of private prayer languages admittedly mean when they refer to “tongues”. If I, as a surveyor, wanted to confuse rather than clarify the issues at stake, I would not directly address the critical issue. Unfortunately, the questionnaire effectively leaves the primary issue at stake unaddressed and opts for questions that may be affirmed without great controversy. Moreover, if I wanted to confuse rather than clarify the issue at stake, I would ask a question that might be answered not as an “either-or” but as a “both-and”. Although I would not personally affirm number two, there are sincere Baptists who are not neo-Pentecostals that would. Perhaps the question’s lack of clarity due to insufficient breadth of options explains why the responses were all over the place. It should be noticed that many opted for a third response that was not even given as an option: “Don’t know.” The fourth question, like the second question, leaves the issue more confused than clarified. It is reported that Ed Stetzer responded to the survey by noting that there are “two sizeable yet contradictory positions among SBC pastors.” My response would be that the contradiction is not with the respondents, but with the questionnaire itself. The survey’s methodology is such that it does not clarify the issue, but confuses it. Two Surveys, Not One Another problem with the methodology of the survey is that it was not conducted by one surveyor, nor was it even a single survey. Rather, LifeWay has combined the results of two surveys that were independently conducted by separate surveyors. This introduces yet further problems that prompted one of the surveyors to conclude that the pastors of the Southern Baptist Convention appear to be contradictory. The problem, however, may be that the surveys themselves are contradictory.

“Be Ye Therefore Wise as Serpents, and Harmless as Doves”

The command of Jesus in Matthew 10:16 is one that Southern Baptists need to take to heart. Engaging in theological discourse demands both wisdom and innocence. The recent survey on private prayer languages conducted by LifeWay’s Research division is a singular disappointment. The survey and its release are alternately methodologically insufficient and denominationally unwise. Whatever the real intent of LifeWay’s administration in releasing such a report at this time, it certainly gives the appearance of theological partisanship rather than innocence. Why did the surveyors construct the second question so that almost anybody could answer it positively? Why did the surveyors not offer a response in the fourth question regarding the critical issue at stake? Why did the surveyors combine two surveys which probably followed different methodologies? There are other questions, but alas, what has been shared with the public is insufficient for a thorough analysis of the survey itself. Unfortunately, few people will look into the methodology utilized, and even fewer will understand that the survey itself is theologically inadequate, perhaps even theologically skewed. What many people will remember is that apparently half of our pastors now believe in private prayer languages. LifeWay should conduct a sweeping review of its research methodology.

Holy Spirit Conference Reflections

Pastor Dwight McKissic has forwarded to me the audio CDs of the conference to which he graciously invited me. Having had some opportunity to review them, I can now intelligently comment on the conference. Thanks, Bro. Dwight. Now...in no particular order:

1. My biggest regret is that I so flagrantly violated the time scheduled for my session. That was rude of me. It was not intentional. It bothers me still today.
2. My most cherished attribute of the conference was the opportunity to meet in person so many of the people with whom I have swapped electrons over the past year.
3. I was treated with the utmost of respect and courtesy, even during the infamous "panel discussion" Q&A time.
4. I think that Robin and I may have frustrated some of the folks involved by not tailoring our presentations to some sort of a preconceived concept of "cessationism/semi-cessationism." It is possible that we did not live up to our assignments, but if that is the case (and I do not know that it is), then I think what I actually did was better than what I was assigned to do. It seems to me that sometimes the folks who have tended to argue the other side of our contemporary issues would like for folks like me to step neatly into a theological box, perhaps because their arguments address the box better than they address who we really are? I do not fit into the box, nor do the Southern Baptists I know.
5. I detected very little actual difference in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit among most of the presenters (although I'm not so sure that biblical glossolalia derives from the Holy Spirit speaking "frog" and "locust"). Our differences relate to how we apply our doctrine of the Holy Spirit to the specific phenomena around us. Are the specific Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third-Wave practices in view to be equated with and accepted as the genuine biblical gift of tongues, or are they counterfeits? With fear and trepidation, I violate the Art Rogers Rule and offer my bald speculation that, from my experience, most Southern Baptists do not believe that the ecstatic utterances (oh, wait, we've been forbidden from using THAT terminology now), just make that "the kind of utterances that are not known languages"…that most Southern Baptists do not belive that these kinds of utterances are what the Bible actually means when it refers to the gift of tongues.
6. People who believe in non-communicative tongues struggle between two poles—on the one hand, they wish to avoid portraying tongues as useless; on the other hand, they wish to avoid portraying tongues as something that gives the modern-tongues-speaker any advantage over the non-tongues-speaker. In this conference, if there was a danger of stepping over one of those boundaries, it was the danger of presenting tongues as a gift conveying special advantages to the possessor. By a very few presenters and by many of the participants in the audience, tongues were referred to as a breakthrough-gift for spiritual advancement to the next level, that which empowers one to speak to cancers or demons to be able to effect healing or exorcism, etc. I think that the majority of the presenters deliberately wanted to avoid this kind of approach, but I think that the difficulty is inherent to the question—there is a reason why such a large number of people who have advocated the modern practice have come to endorse it as a distinguishing mark between healthy Christians and less-healthy Christians.
7. I appreciate Jack Maddox, who—unlike many unnamed souls among you—actually did come and participate as a conference attendee sympathetic to mine and Robin's presentations.

Overall, it was a great privilege to be able to participate in the conference. Nobody has ever asked me to do anything like that before, and as far over time as I went, nobody ever will again! So, I'll just have to bask in this experience as long as I can. :-)

But Some of the CP Money Is Ours!

In the present debates over SBC matters and in past debates during the Conservative Resurgence and before, one popular argument against SBC standards-setting has suggested that, since some of the money given through the Cooperative Program comes from people who disagree with SBC decisions, the SBC has an obligation either not to make such decisions, not to abide by its decisions, or not to accept any CP money from those who disagree. I think this will be quite simple to explain: The SBC works exactly the same way that your church works (if it practices Congregationalism). Your church freely receives contributions from any member (and probably some other people) who wish to give it. Your church receives that money with no strings attached. Your church fairly makes decisions regarding how that money will be spent. Every member has an opportunity to voice an opinion in that process of making decisions. Not every member has equal influence in your church (because the congregation gives more credence to the opinions of some), but every member has equal opportunity to influence your church. At the end of that process, the result of the decision-making process solely determines how the money will be spent. The fact that a person contributed part of the money to the budget does not mean that the final decision must accommodate that person's desires. I cannot come to church and say, "Our Sunday School class wanted nine-foot ceilings instead of eight-foot ceilings. Although the majority of the new building may have eight-foot ceilings, some portion of the facility must have nine-foot ceilings to respect our wishes, since, after all, some of that money came from us." No, we don't receive money that way and we don't make decisions that way in our churches. Neither do we do so in our conventions. Your church probably has a lot of members who would not be eligible for the various employed positions of the church. You may even have entire Sunday School classes or Bible study groups without a single qualified member. Yet your church still receives the offerings of those people and does not in the least consider itself to be violating the rights of those members to do so. The SBC is not a church, but in this particular case it operates just as churches do. If it is fair for our churches to operate this way, why not the SBC?

Splinting Theological Triage

Dr. Albert Mohler's commentary "A Call for Theological Triage" (see here) is a fine, thoughtful, timely piece of writing. I agree with every word. I do not agree with every way that it has been applied by others. I observe three ways that this article has been used improperly IMHO:

1. It has been misquoted and misapplied by those who need to go back and read it more carefully. We all ought to make sure that we understand what each tier represents. Also, we ought to acknowledge that only Mohler's third tier is designed to contain doctrines that ought not to be matters of division within the SBC.
2. It has been heralded as a solution, when actually it is only a description of the problem. Don't get me wrong: It is a great description of the problem. The tension in the SBC today is, essentially, a difference over what belongs in "tier two" and what belongs in "tier three." But knowing that this is the nature of the conflict does not provide any help whatsoever in deciding what belongs in what tier. I don't think Dr. Mohler was even offering this as such.
3. It has been elevated to a level of precision that it does not deserve. In medicine, "triage" is a pretty blunt tool, generally reserved for catastrophic situations. In the course of day-to-day business, medical professionals like to take their time to assess and treat every case individually. In the same way, Mohler's three-category approach, while accurate, is very general.

I think that this concept, accurate and appropriate as it was in its initial offering, has been broken by misuse and misapplication. I would like to apply a splint and put it back out there.

First, let us recognize that these three categories describe ranges on a continuum. For example: I am

1. A Christian.
2. A Protestant (sorry, Bro. Graves).
3. A Free-Church Protestant.
4. A Congregationalist.
5. A Baptist.
6. A Missionary Baptist.
7. A Southern Baptist.
8. A Southern Baptist Inerrantist.
9. A Southern Baptist Inerrantist A Posteriori Cessationist.
10. A Southern Baptist Inerrantist A Posteriori Cessationist Premillennialist.

Obviously, this list represents more than just three tiers!

It is, I think, fairly easy to see that the first item belongs to tier one and the last item belongs to tier three. Everything down through 'A Baptist" definitely falls into tier two as employed by Dr. Mohler. But what about the rest of the list? What is the difference between a "Southern Baptist" and another "Missionary Baptist" of a different stripe? Do those differences belong in tier two or tier three? Ought those differences to preclude cooperation? I'll propose my answer later.

For right now, let us simply agree that the whole situation is vastly more complex than three categories can exhaustively describe.

The Tier in Question

Tier one is pretty airtight. Nevertheless, there are complexities and nuances even within it. Some things in tier one you must affirm to be a Christian. Others you merely must not deny. I was not thoroughly acquainted with the doctrine of the Trinity when I received Christ at the tender age of five, but once I became acquainted with it, I affirmed it.

Tier three is vast and multifaceted, but I think we all know what to do with adiaphora.

Tier two is the tier in question.

Mohler defines tier two descriptively, not prescriptively. These second-level issues are those which "will create significant boundaries between believers." That, ladies and gentlemen, is the voice of history rather than theology. How do we know which issues are the ones that will create significant boundaries between believers? We look to see which ones have created significant boundaries between believers.

Yet (in spite of how much I obviously love history) I'm not sure history is a good place to look for the answers here. Things change. Issues that were historically important have a way of fading into relative obscurity. New issues arise that the churches must address without the benefit of precise historical precedent.

Here are two examples:

In the seventeenth century, Baptists were all a twitter about "laying on of hands." This had nothing to do with ordination. Many (most?) Baptists allowed for the practice of laying hands upon a newly baptized convert to pray for Holy Spirit guidance for that believer in the life of the church. Some Baptists not only allowed for this practice; they required it. Congregations split over this practice. Denominations formed around this practice. It was, in the seventeenth century, definitely a tier-two issue.

Today, only boring old academics (and a few adherents to an obscure surviving sect) even know that the controversy existed. Most decidedly tier-three.

Today, Baptists face the various manifestations and daughter movements of the Pentecostal movement. This movement began around a century ago. Spiritual gifts were a tier-three issue in the seventeenth century. The Pentecostal movement has made this a tier-two issue in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries (even though some of our readers will differ as to which parts of this movement belong in tier two or tier three, I think all of our readership will concur that the subject as a whole has components or implications that are unavoidably tier-two).

So, this second tier grows, shrinks, and otherwise readjusts as Christian history marches onward. I think that we are in the midst of just such a realignment today. And neither Dr. Mohler nor anyone else has given us any formulaic criteria by which we may predict where the boundary between these two tiers will land when we are done.

Better Than Tiers: Cooperative Expediency

Here's how I view the whole idea of cooperative parameters:

First, I am a strong believer in the primacy of the local church. I am much more concerned about intracongregational unity than intercongregational unity. It seems to me that the former is much more difficult to achieve than the latter and that the absence of the former is much more damaging to the body of Christ. Associations and conventions are, in my view, only slightly above the level of being a vendor to the local church. In no way do I regard the Southern Baptist Convention as a church.

The existence of the Southern Baptist Convention is not necessary. My church can preach the gospel, disciple believers, pursue missions, and do every necessary function of a church while remaining an entirely independent congregation. Furthermore, without one iota of institutional connection with any other church, my church can exist in Christian unity with other churches and other believers. Consequently, what the SBC does or does not do has no bearing, in my mind, on the concept of unity in Christ or the validity of my church.

Second, I approach SBC decisions with a sort of pragmatism. I believe that affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention helps my church to perform its tasks more effectively. The SBC is not necessary, but it is helpful. The SBC is not a church; it is a tool for churches. What doctrinal constraints ought we to have in the SBC? Those that make the SBC a better tool. Those that improve its effectiveness. Those that are cooperatively expedient.

Theological laxity is a danger to the effectiveness of the tool. If our institutions stray from orthodoxy, they will begin to harm our churches rather than to help them (e.g., by supplying them with pastors who do not believe the Bible). Also, if our institutions become seedbeds for the promotion or distribution of minority views, there is the danger of offending and driving away the majority of churches that provide support for the institutions.

Theological micromanagement is also a danger to the effectiveness of the tool. If the theological requirements for employment become too severe, churches may find that their pool of eligible denominational employees is so small that the SBC cannot employ enough quality employees to provide value to the ministry of churches. A seminary that cannot find and hire qualified professors is of little utility to anyone. A mission board without missionaries is less effective than an independent congregation.

Finding the right spot to mitigate these two dangers is an exercise in constant adjustment. The whole enterprise involves constant theological thinking, yet the final arbitrer is a sort of pragmatism. Often it boils down to political pragmatism.

In Southern Baptist life, the great complicating factor is the fact that the vast majority of people involved will not participate in the formal decision-making process. Most of the churches are unrepresented. Denominational employees are much more likely to participate. Thus, the inherent trend is toward laxity rather than micromanagement. We live in an exceptional age that has witnessed a strong push away from laxity. That age will not last forever. Some view the current troubles as a rescue of the convention from micromanagement. Others view it as the beginning of an inexorable return to laxity.

Dr. Mohler avoided specifics in his "Theological Triage" paper. Because of his position, he needed to do so. Lacking any position, I might as well go ahead and be specific.

Baptism is the ultimate tier-two issue. We ought to have our beliefs about baptism nailed down pretty concretely. I think that the IMB regulation really needs work, but in no way can I say that any serious aspect of the doctrine of baptism is a tier-three issue.

"Private prayer language" is a manifestation of the Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third Wave movement. Using Dr. Mohler's framework, this certainly is an issue that has created significant boundaries between believers. New denominations have arisen. Countless congregations have split. History suggests that this movement belongs in tier two. People will differ over the idea of including every aspect of the movement in tier two. I'm not sure that I include every aspect of the movement in tier two. But the alleged "gift of tongues" has been the core of this movement, and anything having to do with that concept clearly belongs in tier two, IMHO.

Using my framework, I think that the SBC is more useful to my church when it holds clear views on baptism. I also think that it is more valuable to my church when it remains clearly outside the Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third Wave movement. We are outside that movement, and we have no desire to subsidize it.

What If?…

…the IMB rescinded the rule on baptism but kept the one on "private prayer langauge"? Would that be a compromise that would bring peace? The preponderance of Southern Baptist churches do not practice speaking in tongues, nor do they advocate or acknowledge so-called "private prayer language." Southern Baptist thinking with regard to tying eternal security to baptismal validity is much less uniform. One might argue that one of these restrictions is more reflective of the Southern Baptist people than the other.

So I'm wondering, how many of you who support the baptismal rule would consider the preservation of that rule a hill on which to die?

And I'm wondering, how many of you who oppose the baptismal rule would be ready to lay down your weapons if the baptismal rule fell without the PPL rule?

And finally I'm wondering, how many of you who oppose both rules will settle for nothing less than total capitulation to your demands?