Orangutans in a Cornfield

I wish to clarify that some key members of the Memphis Declaration movement have distanced themselves from McKissic's actions. This post does not apply to any such person. See the comment log for more details.

One of the wisest things I ever heard James Dobson say: "Many parents of teenagers don't know what they want their teenager to do; they just know that they aren't doing it."

It seems to me that there are a great many people out there with their traps flapping these days who don't seem to know what they want the Southern Baptist Convention to do; they just know that they aren't doing it. If Jerry Sutton proposes revisiting the BF&M, he is lampooned because he is an "insider" with whom we're dissatisfied. If Dwight McKissic proposes exactly the same thing, he's a champion because he is not an "insider" and we suddenly like him. Do we want a stricter, more specific BF&M or not? Maybe we don't know. Maybe we don't care so long as whatever process we employ strikes down the people we want stricken and leaves us in charge.

I heard a missionary tell this tale when I was a little boy at summer camp. I have no real reason to believe that it accurately represents the nature of orangutans, because I've grown up enough since then to know that missionaries fabricate as many illustrations as do preachers here in the good old US of A. But it is a good story, so I repeat it with my disclaimer.

Apparently, one orangutan can destroy an entire cornfield for two ears of corn. To hear the missionary tell it, he enters a row of corn, reaches up with his right arm, and plucks an ear, placing it under his left armpit for safe keeping. But then he sees an ear of corn on his left, so he reaches up with his left arm (the first ear of corn, of course, drops to the ground in this process) and plucks the second ear of corn. But wait, there's another ear on the right! And so the process repeats until the orangutan leaves a hundred ears of corn to rot on the ground to walk out with one ear under each armpit. By casually taking whatever he can get, he leaves a wake of destruction behind him, destroying the hard-won labor of those who were there before he came.

As I have said, I have no real reason to believe that this story accurately portrays the nature of orangutans. The nature of orangutans is immaterial to the effectiveness of this story because we can all recognize immediately that it so aptly depicts the nature of human beings. We react so rapidly to charges that someone somewhere is abusing power that people all over the world can, with very little effort, incite rioters to burn down their own neighborhoods and then go home somehow convinced that they have dealt a blow to someone other than themselves.

It seems to me quite destructive to stir up an insurgency with no clear objectives other than change and vague diatribes. The conservative resurgence was easy to define and understand: Fill the institutions of the SBC with employees who affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and who discharge their duties according to that belief. What, exactly, is this new movement trying to accomplish? You won't find it in the amorphous platitudes of the Memphis Declaration—a document that belongs on the next episode of Oprah. Sometimes the objective appears to be the defense of Dr. Rankin. Sometimes it appears to be the reinstatement of CBF folks like Wade, Glazener, Vestal, etc. Or is it about speaking in tongues? I've been watching since this Spring, and I still can't put my finger on it.

Maybe there is no well-formed constructive objective. And in my opinon, that just might be the worst answer of all for the future of the SBC.

If I Were King of the SBC…

Well, we'd all be in a lot of trouble, but here's what I would do:

1. I would make distance-participation in the SBC annual meeting possible, so that it doesn't require a bucket of cash to participate in convention decisions.
2. I would give more money to the seminaries and require them to bring professors' salaries up to a point where our seminary professors were not making less than virtually every other seminary professor in ATS and virtually every Baptist minister in the convention.
3. I would inaugurate a repeating evaluation to take place every ten years to strip out all of the "extras" that we tend to add to our plate and retain our focus upon missions, theological education, and some limited role for the ERLC. Simpler is better. More focused is better.
4. Finally, I would wonder why on earth a 36-year-old is in charge of the SBC when so many capable, older men are out there? At some point we've really got to distance ourselves from this youth-oriented culture that is so clearly contrary to what the Bible teaches. I've known more people than I can count who want to plant a new church for 20s or 30s, but I've never met anyone saying, "God has called me to plant a church for retirees in rural Texas." Hmm. I guess God doesn't like old, poor people.

I offer all of this as my final response to the Memphis Declaration, because it is probably incumbent upon me, having critiqued their work, to offer some positive contribution myself.

Southern Baptist Messengers Asleep at the Wheel?

Memphis Declaration

We publicly repent of our inattentiveness to convention governance by not seeking to hold trustees accountable to the body which elects them to preserve our sacred trust and direct our entities with the guidance, counsel, and correction necessary to maintain the integrity of those entities.

The Memphis Declaration alleges that Southern Baptists are not holding trustees accountable. This has been a recurring problem in Southern Baptist life. Historically, Southern Baptists are a people with a pretty severe case of corporate Attention Deficit Disorder. We have so many agencies doing so many things at so many levels that it is difficult to keep up with what they all are doing. Think about it: I'm the pastor of First Baptist Church of Farmersville, TX. Rewind a few years to when our state convention affiliation was with the Baptist General Convention of Texas. I was supposed to keep up with the actions of the trustees/executive committees of:

1. The Baptist General Convention of Texas
2. Buckner Baptist Benevolences
3. South Texas Children's Home
4. Baylor University
5. Hardin-Simmons Baptist University
6. Howard Payne Baptist University
7. Dallas Baptist University
8. The University of Mary Hardin Baylor
9. East Texas Baptist University
10. Houston Baptist University
11. Wayland Baptist University
12. The Texas Christian Life Commission
13. Collin Baptist Association
14. The Southern Baptist Convention
15. The International Mission Board
16. The North American Mission Board
17. Lifeway
18. Guidestone
19. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
20. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
21. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
22. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary
23. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
24. Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
25. The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
26. The Baptist World Alliance
27. And this, my friends, is not a complete list!

Since we have joined the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, that list has slimmed down considerably at the state level, and for that I am thankful. Nevertheless, it remains a daunting challenge. I, for one, think the trustee system is great for the very reason that I cannot and will not commit to keeping up with everything that is happening at that gargantuan list of institutions. I will rely upon the denominational press to keep me up to date on major happenings, and if I have some personal displeasure, I will vent it at the various annual meetings. On rare occasions, I have written letters calling for some action or another to institutional trustees. I think that is fine to for extraordinary circumstances. Here's the difference between me and the text of the Declaration: I really don't see that this system is broken. I submit to you that the trustees of the various entities of the Southern Baptist Convention have done precisely what the majority of the messengers actually present and voting at the annual meetings have instructed them to do. Maybe they've overstepped their bounds in a very few, very recent actions, but we really won't know until Greensboro, will we? If they have, the present system will work fine, and the grievance will be redressed. Since 1979, I really don't think that anybody has been asleep at the wheel. Maybe trustees have had occasions when they really didn't know what to do. If so, maybe we ought to covenant to pray for them rather than to threaten them.

Southern Baptist Uniformity Rather Than Unity?

Memphis Declaration

We publicly repent of having disrespected the sovereign grace of our Lord Jesus Christ by falsely presuming that our strength as a people of God is found in uniformity rather than unity within the parameters of Scriptural authority.

The Memphis Declaration alleges that Southern Baptists have required uniformity. Are we united or are we uniform? I contend that the Southern Baptist Convention has come nowhere close to trying to achieve absolute uniformity. There is today, as there has always been, bewildering diversity in the Southern Baptist Convention: people who think Jesus didn't die for everybody, people who won't read anything but the KJV, people who won't sing anything but a Fanny Crosby hymn, people who won't sing anything but a Charles Wesley anthem, people who won't sing anything but a Maranatha praise chorus, people who won't sing anything at all, people who wear suits, people who wear leisure clothes, people who still wear leisure suits...I could go on, but I won't. OK...OK...I will go on one further: We even still have a pretty large number of liberals still in the SBC whom the masses do not trust as leaders or teachers, but whom we still admit as brothers and sisters. We're pretty doggone diverse. On the other hand, although we have not achieved absolute uniformity, we have accomplished some level of uniformity. EVERY organization enforces some level of uniformity. Without focus, you have no organization. There is such a thing as "strength in diversity" (e.g., Carey translates; Ward prints; Marshman preaches) but diversity certainly does not guarrantee strength. Diversity has a much greater history of tearing organizations apart than of empowering them to achieve great things. So, the question is not this contrived, intellectually vacant choice between "unity" and "uniformity" (which really just amounts to a propaganda soundbyte), but rather "how much uniformity do we really need in order to be unified." To that question, a lot of people will supply different answers. Personally, I'll be glad to abide by the way that thousands of messengers define it at our annual meetings.

Southern Baptists Losing Their Local-Church Emphasis?

Memphis Declaration

We publicly repent of having misplaced our priorities on the building and sustaining of institutions of secondary and far inferior importance than the local church.

The Memphis Declaration alleges that Southern Baptists have Demoted the Local Church. I completely agree. I think that we ought to support the institutions, and I propose strengthening, not weakening our financial and spiritual support of our seminaries and boards, but I think we are in serious danger of losing the Baptist Distinctive of local-church autonomy.

• We have come to view the SBC too much as a denomination in the line of other denominations of churches that do not share our view of local-church autonomy. Thus, for example, if the convention doesn't enter church-planting partnerships with non-Southern-Baptists, then Southern Baptists are aloof. If the convention doesn't tell Southern Baptists to stay away from Disney World, then Southern Baptists have their head in the sand. I won't say that any of these things are bad. I merely object to the notion that "what Southern Baptists do" is exclusively or even primarily about what the convention does. I think it has more to do with what Southern Baptist churches do.
• We've got this multi-site hogwash at work in our churches, which amounts to nothing more than pseudo-Methodist/Anglican/Catholic bishops presiding over multiple local congregations.
• Thankfully, we're moving away from the most insidious form of tyranny over the local church—liberal professors and bureaucrats who demand financial support from the local churches while holding in disdain the theology of the local churches.

I can't repent of this one, because I've never been guilty. But I'll gladly applaud from the sidelines.

Southern Baptists Blind to Convention Wickedness?

Memphis Declaration

We publicly repent of having turned a blind eye to wickedness in our convention, especially when that evil has taken the form of slanderous, unsubstantiated accusations and malicious character assassination against our Christian brothers.

The Memphis Declaration alleges that Southern Baptists have turned a blind eye to intradenominational wickedness.

This one is just too vague to comment upon without drawing upon specifics that appear outside the document. In Wade Burleson's personalization of this point, he confesses to "not believing that maliciousness...ever occurred in the SBC." And here I was thinking that he believed in Total Depravity! :-)

In my experience, Bro. Burleson is in a pretty slim minority. Frankly, I think a great majority of Southern Baptists are as cynical of their convention leadership as they are of their secular government. Here I am defending the SBC against this attack, but I've got to admit that I'm a little suspicious of many in SBC leadership. The level of naivete that Burleson describes, "not believing that maliciousness...ever occured in the SBC," just is not nearly prevelent enough to be an item on a reform agenda that addresses the entire convention. Most of us believe that we are all sinners, and even those of us who are conservatives, if my circle of conversation is any indicator at all, clearly acknowledge that conservatives in the SBC are human beings whose fallenness actually shows up in what they say and do.

Unfortunately for Bro. Burleson, the same open-eyed realism prevents me from naively hanging on every word that drops from his lips. Here's a guy making a serious bid for power within the SBC. There's simply no denying it. And he's doing it by making serious and derogatory accusations against other people. The entire "Memphis Declaration" is an accusation. Why is their accusation holy, while those of their elders (whom I thought the Bible taught us to respect) are "sladerous, unsubstantiated,... and malicious"? In fact, my "potential inquisitorial dictator" flag really starts to go up when I read allegations that the Memphis 30 have the Holy Spirit, the rest of us don't, and therefore nobody better have different ideas than these people because THEY SPEAK FOR GOD! (click the link above and read it for yourself).

So, I'll concede that every last individual Southern Baptist has the need to repent for maligning somebody somewhere in their speech.

But does that justify the "cure" proposed in the Memphis Declaration? "Therefore, we commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech."

Perhaps someone can interpret this for me, but this looks to me like a declaration that nobody can describe shortcomings in anybody. Have we focused so much on avoiding division that we've lost sight of 1 Corinthians 11:19 ("For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.")? The Southern Baptist Convention is simply untenable if people lose the freedom to approve and disapprove of theological and methodological options that are presented to them. Disapproval doesn't have to mean that a person is drummed out of the convention, but it must mean that Southern Baptists have the right not to listen to them.

Here's a trivia question for you: In this supposed Draconian tyranny that this alleged cabal has thrust upon the SBC, how many churches have been kicked out of the SBC for being "liberal"?

"Ah...," you say, "...not kicked out, but denied a seat at the table, so they had to leave!"

Well, I grew up in Bethabara Baptist Church in rural Northeast Arkansas. Bethabara has been a part of the Southern Baptist Convention since at least the mid-1800s (the church's origins are shrouded in lost history). To my knowledge, Bethabara has never had a trustee, a member of a board, an agency head, or an elected SBC officer come from her midst. These things simply are not privileges of membership in the SBC. These things you must earn by garnering a special confidence from rank-and-file Southern Baptists. Unfortunately, some big-city or university churches have come to believe that these things are their birthrights. The Conservative Resurgence proved that they are not. And as soon as current leadership steps away from what grassroots Southern Baptists believe, they will learn that it is not their birthright, either. Perhaps they already have. We'll find out in Greensboro. But I think the Memphis Declaration is a far worse barometer of Southern Baptist messengers than, for example, the BF&M.

To say that someone is too liberal to preside over a seminary, draw an SBC paycheck, or serve on a board of trustees may hurt their feelings. Nevertheless, it is not the same thing as saying that they are too liberal to be my friend, to be a Christian, to share the gospel, to be a good missionary when paid by people who really want to spread the ideas that they are teaching, etc. To say that they are too liberal for me to vote for them or write them a check is not to deny them any fundamental right of Christian or Southern Baptist brotherhood. If the Memphis 30 plan to confront everyone who seeks to make a judgment like that, then they are unrealistic and wrongheaded. Since they themselves are hard at work making the same sort of judgments, I don't think that's what they really mean. Instead, I suspect that they mean that everyone making judgments different from theirs have to stop making judgments.

Indeed, it does matter whose ox is gored.

Southern Baptists Unwilling to Reason Together?

Memphis Declaration

We publicly repent of having forsaken opportunities to reason together with those who share our commitment to gospel proclamation yet differ with us on articles of the faith that are not essential to Christian orthodoxy.

The Memphis Declaration alleges that Southern Baptists have forsaken opportunities to reason with other orthodox Christian groups. I really wish I knew what this means. When I read "reason together" I guess I imagine my Methodist brother down the road and me sitting down over cookies and discussing our differing views over sprinkling babies. I'm willing to do that, and I have done it (without the cookies and with this pastor's immediate predecessor), but I've got to tell you, not much new came out of that. I already knew the unscriptural Methodist error at this point, and he already knew what I believed. Personally, I think that Southern Baptists have pretty much plumbed the depths of our theological interactions with other denominations. Are we under some obligation to rehash the same old thing on some sort of a regular schedule? Count me out of that. If there is some sort of a change and an opportunity to convince other denominations of biblical truth, then we certainly ought to seize those kind of chances. But why don't I think that's the kind of dialogue that this document has in mind? But maybe the declaration is barking up a different tree. The commitment part that follows the repentance here speaks not of reasoning together, but of "building bridges", "listening more and talking less", and "extending the hand of fellowship." Trying to think this through, I can come up with four broad categories that this point may be trying to address:

1. Maybe the Memphis 30 think that we aren't friendly enough to non-Southern-Baptists.
2. Maybe the Memphis 30 think that some of our doctrinal convictions are offensive to non-Southern-Baptists.
3. Maybe the Memphis 30 think that we are too organizationally aloof from non-Southern-Baptists.
4. Maybe this point is not about our relationship with non-Southern-Baptists, but with Southern Baptists whose views diverge from that of the majority.

So, not knowing which charge they are levelling here, I guess we'll need to address them all. Are we unkind toward other denominational groups? Well, what constitutes unkindness? Presbyterians are great folks, as far as I know. I would love to have dinner with a good, devout Presbyterian family. I think an envigorating discussion about where on earth they came up with the idea of a divided presbytery would be a lot of fun with an astute Presbyterian. But if kindness toward a Presbyterian requires that I...oh, I don't know...hire one as a missionary, then I'm unwilling to rise to that level of kindness. If the local church is the primary instrument of the Kingdom (as the Memphis Declaration affirms), then missionary activity has to be focused on planting and sustaining local churches. Presbyterians build bad churches...unbiblical ones. I will not pay a Presbyterian to plant a Presbyterian church anywhere. Period. Paragraph. It will be great if they win a lot of people to the Lord while they are planting their Presbyterian churches. I'll cheer with them. Let them do it with Presbyterian money. I don't think that makes me unkind; it makes me Baptist. Are our doctrinal convictions offensive to non-Southern-Baptists? If so, they need to learn about religious liberty. Live and let live. I don't hold any grudges against the UCC folks for being so enthusiastic about gay marriage. They're dead wrong, but they have the right to be dead wrong. Christ's removal of their lampstand will take care of their heterodoxy. That's not my job. I defend their right to be whatever they want to be in their own churches. I merely expect them to extend the same courtesy to me. I'm sure that SBC doctrinal convictions do occasionally offend other Christian groups. That's their problem. I care about my relationship with them, but I care about my relationship with God more. Are we too organizationally aloof from other denominations? I'll refer you to the previous post on Arrogance, where I discuss the folly of official entanglements between the SBC and other denominational entities. I also refer you to the post on Triumphalism and Narcissism, where I disabuse us of the notion that Southern Baptists are isolated from the remainder of Christianity. Have we forsaken opportunities to reason together, build bridges, listen instead of talk, and extend the hand of fellowship with other Southern Baptists? I imagine that there has been some unreasonableness in our recent turmoil. I've witnessed some on both sides. We ought to do better. But I would stipulate an important principle that I will not compromise to accomplish that goal:The SBC has full and unabrogated freedom to state its beliefs and determine its policy. Although it ought to pursue free and full discussion, it need not remain paralyzed from action merely because somebody somewhere disagrees. In other words, my failure to agree with you and do what you want does not necessarily indicate my failure to listen to you. Perhaps we had a great discussion in which each of us communicated our positions perfectly, but we just hold different opinions. If my opinion happens to be a minority view, then the SBC has the obligation to implement the wishes of the majority without regard to my opinion. I do not speak hypothetically—this has happened to me in my lifetime. I just didn't get all bitter and go off somewhere to pout and compose declarations. To sum up: I'm not quite sure whether this complaint translates to "The SBC isn't ecumenical enough" or "The SBC isn't tolerant enough." It either of these is the point, I disagree for reasons already stated.

Condemning Without Loving?

Memphis Declaration

We publicly repent of having condemned those without Christ before we have loved them, and that we have acted as judge of those for whom Christ died by failing to live with a redemptive spirit toward them.

The Memphis Declaraion alleges that we have condemned sinners without loving them. Point well taken. We need to do better. So does everyone else. This is no worse a sin than abandoning biblical morality to "love" sinners without warning them that they are sinners and must repent or spend eternity in Hell. But, one point doesn't negate the other. By the way, did somebody in the SBC disagree with this, and I missed it? I mean, we all fall short, but do these thirty people think they are taking some kind of a bold stand against some sinister, unknown cabal of people who are secretly pursuing some sort of a deliberate agenda to refuse to love people?

Arrogance Hindering the SBC in the Spread of the Gospel?

Memphis Declaration

We publicly repent of an arrogant spirit that has infected our partnership with fellow Christians in the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, without the hearing of which men are incapable of conversion.

The Memphis Declaration alleges Southern Baptist arrogance. Arrogance is essentially the same attribute as Narcissism, or at least must be so with reference to an institution. Narcissism tends to imply an obsession with one's own appearance, but then, the SBC doesn't really have a physical appearance, does it? The delcaration employs the term metaphorically (or imprecisely, if you prefer), to imply simple arrogance. The apparent difference between the two paragraphs lies in effects, not causes. In the first paragraph, the declaration is alleging that Southern Baptist arrogance renders us incapable of evaluating our ministries. In the second paragraph, the declaration is alleging that Southern Baptist arrogance prevents us from spreading the gospel effectively enough, specifically by alienating us from the partnerships that we supposedly need to pursue more vigorously in order to accomplish this goal. So, what do we make of this allegation? I've got to say, I just don't know. My question is, "What partnerships?" Some folks we don't need to be in partnership with. Some folks, each of our local churches can partner with just fine without dragging the entire convention along with them. Are there partnerships out there that we ought to be pursuing but aren't because of our "arrogance"? Maybe. I don't know who they are, but I didn't write the declaration. With more data, I might be able to come to a conclusion. Burleson's comments offers a little more data—something of a hint as to what the declaration is trying to say. He highlights Wiley Drake's partnership with Pentecostals. So, I guess Burleson is suggesting that Southern Baptists could do a whole lot better spreading the gospel if we cooperated more with Pentecostals (perhaps among others). I disagree. First, Drake's behavior illustrates the flaw to this thinking: Drake is a Southern Baptist, but his affiliation with the SBC has in no way limited his freedom to cooperative with Pentecostals. Burleson is free to partner with Pentecostals or anyone else to any degree that he likes. At the church I pastor, we partner with churches of several denominations in our ministerial alliance. I think a lot of Southern Baptist churches are involved in local ministerial alliances (I am not drawing a conclusion from sound data, nor do I know that anyone has ever comprehensively surveyed this phenomenon). So, where's the problem? Second, and following from the first point, why do I need my missions partnership to enter me into further missions partnerships? I wonder whether Burleson's polity and ecclesiology are clear in his own mind. According to good Baptist ecclesiology, the SBC is only a quasi-denominational entity—it is secondary to the local churches. The convention is our missions partnership (among other things). Do we really need this missionary partnership to enter secondary partnerships, which maybe in turn enter into tertiary partnerships? Is that a sound organizational structure? Why not simply let each local church ally itself as it sees fit? I submit that local churches are already doing so, and the Memphis Declaration simply amounts to dissatisfaction with other local churches that have chosen a different set of partnerships than those chosen by the Memphis 30. Or, perhaps it reflects dissatisfaction for the way that other churches select their partnerships—a conviction that it is evil for churches to be more theological than pragmatic. Third, it is difficult enough to maintain a partnership among ourselves as Southern Baptists. If Burleson is proposing that the Southern Baptist Convention as an entity ought to entangle itself in some sort of official partnership with other denominations, then that has to be the worst idea I've heard in a long time. Different denominations exist because we have serious theological differences with Christians from other denominations. Those differences are going to matter to some people if a formal denominational partnership is in view—some of us aren't so sure that rampant pragmatism is a good foundation for churches. Why sow division in the SBC without any solid ideas about what we would accomplish thereby? Or, Burleson is not suggesting that sort of formal partnership, in which case I really don't know what this point of the Memphis Declaration is trying to accomplish. Perhaps someone will enlighten me.

Triumphalism and Narcissism in the SBC?

I've often said with regard to pastoral leadership that there are two common mistakes that we pastors make with regard to criticism. One mistake is to take to heart all of the criticism that comes our way. The other is to take to heart none of the criticism that comes our way. Regarding the recent "Memphis Declaration" offered by a group of Southern Baptist self-appointed gadflies, perhaps a semi-disinterested appraisal of the merits and failings of the criticism would be in order. I'm largely following and responding to the Thursday, May 4, 2006 post at Wade Burleson's blog entitled "The Memphis Declaration and Personal Repentance." I've decided to spend the next several days looking at the allegations one-by-one.

Memphis Declaration

We publicly repent of triumphalism about Southern Baptist causes and narcissism about Southern Baptist ministries which have corrupted our integrity in assessing our denomination bureaucracy, our churches, and our personal witness in light of the sobering exhortations of Scripture.

The Memphis Declaration alleges Southern Baptist triumphalism and narcissism. Do these two words describe Southern Baptist life? Triumphalism is "excessive exultation over one's success or achievements." As Southern Baptists, we do talk about our achievements—a practice that is probably necessary to keep millions of people motivated to complete a common task. The question is, do we exult over our achievements excessively? What, exactly, constitutes excess in this area? I suppose that exultation would be excessive if it took place over circumstances that really weren't successes or achievements. One of our students at the church recently had the misfortune while playing varsity basketball to score a basket in the opponent's goal. The student was guilty of triumphalism of a sort, celebrating his accomplishment for a moment before he realized what he had done. Are Southern Baptists guilty of this type of triumphalism? Maybe on occasion we are. We count and celebrate our baptism numbers, for example, when our own internal studies have revealed that a large percentage of our baptisms are not connected to actual conversion experiences. Nevertheless, this is not the kind of triumphalism that at least one of the Memphis drafters is alleging. Another way that exultation can be excessive is if, although it is celebrating something genuinely worthwhile, it expands out of proportion to what it is celebrating, becoming unseemly. But who decides the proper proportion, and what factors make exultation ( a very biblical concept) unseemly? From a broadly Christian perspective, I would suggest that exultation is excessive whenever it threatens to obscure God's glory or our sinfulness. Also, if we are too busy exulting when we ought to be working, our exultations might be excessive. This kind of triumphalism seems to be Burleson's target. He appears to believe that we have made more of our successes than we should, "as if God Himself were unable to save His people if were it not [sic] for our missionaries, our seminaries, and our work." The heart of this particular critique seems to be a perception that Southern Baptist preoccupation with our own successes have prevented us from being able to acknowledge the successes or achievements of others. Are Burleson's criticisms valid? Certainly I could not begin to prove that no Southern Baptist anywhere has been guilty of this level of excess. The question is whether triumphalism of this nature is characteristic of the SBC. I suggest that it is not. Southern Baptists have partnered with several other denominations on items of common interest. The list of non-Southern-Baptists whom I have personally heard speak at Southern Baptist meetings is impressive: James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Tony Evans, Charles Colson, Jim Cymbala, and John MacArthur all come immediately to mind. Southern Baptists are more than willing to acknowledge the achievements of those who are not Southern Baptist. Also, I think that Southern Baptists, including the leadership of our convention, are more than prepared to face the weaknesses of our own people. The "Memphis Declaration" alleges that our triumphalism and narcissism have "corrupted our integrity in assessing our denomination [sic] bureaucracy, our churches, and our personal witness." Yet, at this moment we are in the midst of a campaign to address the flagging evangelistic zeal of Southern Baptist churches. We are only eleven years away from a thoroughgoing reorganization designed to address our burgeoning bureaucracy. My state convention, the SBTC, has done a great job of addressing the problem of bureaucracy. Prominent Southern Baptist scholars have called for SBC churches to reinstate biblical church discipline and to pay renewed attention to ecclesiology. The spirit of reform and healthy dissent—the prophetic element—is alive and well within the SBC. Ironically, Burleson's own movement, while speaking of the alleged triumphalism of the SBC, builds a significant following by profiting from the absence of triumphalism in the SBC—the willigness of Southern Baptist to look realistically, even harshly, at our faults and failures. Burleson speaks admirably about his repentance from "being concerned about how [his] church compares in numbers and statistics with other churches." If by speaking about triumphalism in the SBC, the "Memphis Declaration" is actually trying to put into its crosshairs the egotism that sometimes possesses prominent leaders, then the document's point probably has some merit. The battle against runaway egos is an incessant one. We lose our share of battles with this foe. But I do not see how this is a convention problem, per se. It is a human problem. I suggest that Baptist polity, with its absence of supercongregational bishops, popes, and prelates, does more to keep egos in check than any other system of Christian belief. So, although I think that we might have a thing or two to learn from this notion of triumphalism in the SBC, overall I think that the allegation in the "Memphis Declaration" is unfounded. Narcissism has several defintions, but the "Memphis Declaration" probably employs the word in a sense most resembling "extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type." Is this who Southern Baptists are? Ask the victims of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita whether Southern Baptists are "extremely selfish." If Southern Baptists are craving admiration, I'd hate to see what we do when we are courting rebuke. We're regularly vilified and rebuked. I personally measure the health of the convention each year by looking to see whether we have a good crop of protesters at the meeting. Do we have a grandiose view of our own talents as a convention? Do we overpromote ourselves? Considering the fact that most Southern Baptists know very little about what the SBC does, I would say that we are guilty of underpromotion. Burleson himself is willing to suggest indirectly in another post that the SBC struggles to achive "good communication with the grass roots worker." I think he agrees with me, that the SBC needs to do a better job of communicating its objectives and successes to the Southern Baptist people. But when the SBC tries to do that, somehow it becomes guilty of "narcissism." What are they supposed to do? Get up on the platform and say, "Well, folks, we've got a lot of things that your convention is doing that you ought to know about. None of them are very good, but we'd like you to support them anyway"? Is that what Burleson and the others of the Memphis 30 are doing in their churches? If so, I'd really like to know how that is working for them. I'll admit that Southern Baptists have not signed up to compete in the Postmodern World Toleration Olympics, hoping to win the gold medal by seeing if we can be the loudest voice proclaiming that all religions, cultures, denominations, etc. are really the same—none better; none worse. As for me, I'm willing to say that Christianity is right and all other faiths are patently false (and I'm sure that Burleson agrees). I'm also willing to say that all denominations of Christianity are not equal. I don't think that Baptists are perfect, but I do believe that a properly organized and functioning Baptist church is the best and most biblical church...better and more biblical than other Christian churches. I believe this not from a desire to insult anyone, but as a part of a personal quest to practice biblical Christianity. I think that the Southern Baptist Convention represents a pretty good assemblage of Baptist churches, and I'm willing to be proud of who we have been and who we are. If thirty people in Memphis can't be comfortable with that heritage, then I hope that they can resolve those issues for themselves without pretending that their problems somehow constitute problems for me and the remainder of their Southern Baptist brethren.