On the Preservation of Freedom in the SBC

It is interesting how much of the blogging over the past few days has touched upon the question of freedom in the SBC. On the one hand, some analysts have taken Les Puryear's emails to constitute a threat to the "Academic Freedom" of professors within the SBC. On the other hand, people like me have suggested that the outcry over Les's actions constitute an unwarranted effort to curtail the freedom of pastors to complain about teachings with which they disagree.

Which is it?

I don't think that anyone benefits from a complete lack of accountability. Every sermon that I preach, I preach as someone who is accountable for his own words. On rare occasions, people object to something that I have said. Sometimes I believe that they have misunderstood me. Sometimes I see their point and apologize for my error. Sometimes I believe that they are simply wrong (and occasionally wrongheaded!) and I stand my ground. But even on those occasions, the challenge has brought me to refine my views, to examine my assumptions, and to hold my faith with greater fervor and sincerity.

I don't see any reason why denominational employees, including seminary professors, shouldn't live the same way. Now that I'm a trustee of a seminary, I get complaints about the seminary. I get them from buddies. I get them from people I've never met. I get them from people I love. I get them from people I'm trying to love better.

But I never, ever just dismiss one out-of-hand. Certainly it has never even entered my mind to throw the contents of one up on my blog and try to attack or belittle anyone authoring such a letter. Most of the time I take the time to write an actual reply and send it to the person who complained. Of course, since the seminary is governed by the trustees as a collective unit and not by any individual trustee, I never make promises about what I will or won't do, and I usually don't even express an opinion on the matter (since I ought only to make up my mind after hearing all of the data brought out by the deliberative process), but instead I promise to pay close attention during our trustee meetings and work hard to make prayerful, wise decisions. Those promises are sincere.

Oh, sometimes, at the end of a long day, I confess that I'm tempted to see another piece of mail as a nuisance. Sometimes, when conversing with a friend, I regret that the call is not about friendship, but about seminary business. But those are rare feelings that generally only occur when I'm fatigued, and even then I deliberately set those feelings aside. That's because I truly regard those complaints as something sacred. The represent individual Southern Baptists caring enough about the mission of their entities to become involved in them.

I may disagree with an individual Southern Baptist over the content of a complaint, but I usually try to include in my reply some statement of gratitude toward the individual for caring enough to comment. I believe that the Conservative Resurgence, although it was greatly about denominational employees not being able to ignore the truth of God's word, was also substantially about convention entities and employees not being able to ignore the sentiments of the Southern Baptist people. For years bullying tactics tried to shame or browbeat individual Southern Baptists who dared to question what the entities were doing. Sometimes and in some quarters today these things still happen. I want it to be clear to everyone that I stand against those sorts of tactics.

Most complaints will result in no action whatsoever. That's the way that it ought to be, for no entity can survive being whipped around in a new direction by a new letter every day. Read the letter, give it careful thought, and if it does not warrant action then move past it respectfully. It's OK to do nothing about a complaint made by a single individual. And yet every individual Southern Baptist ought to—must—be able to retain the right to stand up and disagree with what is going on at any entity without being tarred and feathered. Every once in a while, that letter from a concerned pastor or member somewhere is going to be right, and the entity is going to be wrong. And the great hope of our polity (as opposed to, for example, the Episcopalians) is that, when that situation occurs, the concerned pastor or member has a chance to state his case and maybe, with the Lord's help, make a difference.

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.

Important Things I Support

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

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

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

I Support Our Southern Baptist Convention Polity

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

I Support the Conservative Resurgence

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

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

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

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

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

McKissic: It's All Been Said

Concerning the situation with Dwight McKissic and his sermon at SWBTS, I've already given my opinion here. Although I have not much more to add, perhaps it is appropriate in the midst of the maelstrom to mention that I support the action of the seminary trustees. Furthermore, I want everyone to note that Dwight McKissic and only Dwight McKissic put this item on the seminary's agenda. If he didn't want a ruling on this, he should not have gone to such lengths to provoke one. There is no credible way that this week's events can be construed as a part of some sinister campaign to narrow participation in the SBC. The agenda was not Patterson's or the trustees'; it was McKissic's. When the SBC comes to a similar verdict, he will complain again, as will all the usual suspects. But when it happens, remember again that Dwight McKissic was the one who publicly demanded that the SBC vote on this issue.

Ask yourself the simple question, would speaking in tongues have been on the SWBTS trustee agenda at all if Dwight McKissic had not put it there?

The Thorny Problem of Texas Appointments

One of the issues that people will be watching as SBC 2007 approaches is the list of committee appointments from Texas. Much discussion has taken place asking what would be a fair delegation from Texas. Sometimes people act as though the answer to this question is an easy one. It isn't.

The structure of the Southern Baptist Convention simply doesn't anticipate the current situation in Texas. Right now in Texas there are two Southern Baptist state conventions, the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. BGCT's relationship with the SBC is less friendly than SBTC's relationship with the SBC. The SBC has a limited number of options available to it:

1. It can make some effort to distribute appointments evenly between BGCT-affiliated churches and SBTC-affiliated churches. The SBTC is a smaller convention than the BGCT, but it fowards 52% (it will be 53% by the time of SBC 2007) of its CP receipts to the SBC. The SBTC plans eventually to max-out at a 55%-45% split. The BGCT has a much larger budget, but it forwards only 21% of its CP recepts to the SBC (a number that may possibly decline further by the time of SBC 2007). The net effect is that each convention forwards about the same dollar amount to SBC—something in the neighborhood of $10 million. If one uses dollars forwarded in CP as the standard for apportionment of appointments, then an even split would seem to be appropriate. Several problems complicate this approach:
   1. What is a BGCT church? What is an SBTC church? A significant number of churches in Texas are dually-aligned with both the BGCT and the SBTC. If a member from such a church is appointed, does that count as a BGCT appointment or an SBTC appointment? People sympathetic to the BGCT tend to treat such appointments as SBTC appointments, but is that really accurate or fair?
   2. What about equity with other state conventions? The end result of this approach is that both BGCT and SBTC wind up with about half the number of appointments as that of other state conventions that forward fewer dollars to the SBC CP than either of these Texas state conventions. In the case of SBTC, it would have half the appointments of states that underperform it both in the measure of percentages and the measure of dollars. Is that fair? I think not.
   3. Do the BGCT's recent actions vis-a-vis the SBC not have some impact on what is fair? BGCT has locked SBC seminaries out of the exhibits at the BGCT annual meeting. BGCT has started a missions network to compete with the IMB, a literature publisher to compete with Lifeway, a Christian Life Commission to counter the ERLC (although the CLC's creation far predates the present controversy), and multiple seminaries to draw students away from the SBC seminaries. Why is the SBC bound to practice some overly restrictive notion of "fairness" toward the BGCT when the BGCT does not reciprocate with any goodwill toward the SBC?
2. It can ignore the BGCT and appoint people solely from the SBTC. Yet this is not particularly fair, either. Not everyone in the BGCT agrees with what BGCT leadership is doing. Some churches turn a blind eye toward convention politics. Although BGCT keeps all but a trickle of its CP money in Texas, some BGCT churches designate around the BGCT budget and continue to support faithfully the SBC. Some people would gladly join SBTC but are in the minority in their churches and therefore remain in BGCT. Also, the BGCT has not yet consummated its plan to leave the SBC. So, there are faithful Southern Baptists whom conservatives could support who are somehow still within the confines of the BGCT. It would not be fair for BGCT affiliation to be an ipso facto disqualification for appointment to an SBC committee.
3. It could completely re-evaluate the current system of state-by-state apportionment of nominees. This would give the opportunity for a new set of answers to address new questions posed by a new reality in Southern Baptist life, because Texas is not the only state either facing these problems now or soon to face them. Nevertheless, it is difficult to conceive of a solution that would be able to gain sufficient support to move forward. The SBC could apportion nominees to each participating state convention, but such an approach would encourage states to have as many state conventions as possible—not a desirable outcome. The SBC could apportion nominees proportionally either by membership or by contributions to SBC CP causes, but such an approach would kill any idea of meaningful membership reform and would be open to a whole host of abuses. Somebody may be brilliant enough to develop a panacea, but that person is not me.

In conclusion, I have to ask this question: Is the point of appointments and nominations really some sort of a "fair distribution"? Maybe we ought to be focusing on effectiveness rather than fairness. I think that we ought to select people to serve our convention who are in theological agreement with the messengers, are well equipped to serve in the area in question, and whose loyalties are not divided among the SBC and the CBF or other institutions. If we are putting into service people who meet these criteria, I am prepared not to care which state conventions may contain their home churches.