Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals?

Great Man vs. Grassroots

Thomas Carlyle famously remarked, "The history of the world is but the biography of great men." The "great man" approach to analysis finds the greatest significance in the attributes, motivations, and achievements of the most prominent characters in a war, a philosophical school, a political campaign, or whatever.

I'm not a big fan of the "great man" methodology. I think it often fails to ask the proper questions about how this particular person rose to greatness. Often other people just as gifted, intelligent, articulate, passionate, or privileged never achieve greatness. I believe that trendsetting and conspicuous accomplishment often have less to do with the internal attributes of the person who is the "leader" and more to do with the attributes of the grassroots—of a broad swath of people. In other words, rather than asking "Why did this person lead as he did?" I think it is often more profitable to ask "Why did anyone follow him?" After all, at any given moment there are a rushing swarm of people who would fancy themselves leaders. The trick is convincing other people to come to that same conclusion.

One of my ambitions someday is to write a history of the Conservative Resurgence that makes virtually no mention of Dr. Patterson, Judge Pressler, Dr. Rogers, Dr. Vines, Dr. Criswell, etc.—to write a history of the Conservative Resurgence that explores the questions of why a groundswell of popular support arose behind these men and accomplished the unimaginable.

Perhaps a similar grassroots analysis of current happenings would also be valuable. Much speculation has occurred regarding the motives of Wade Burleson, Ben Cole, Dwight McKissic, as well as the motives of a whole host of people who agree with me, including myself. Such speculation and analysis is not so improper as some people suggest that it is. In some cases, there's some pretty clear support for the idea that personal factors play at least some role. Yet, even if there is a place for that kind of analysis, at some point one ought to ask what larger societal movements might be at work both to inspire the leadership of the various factions involved and to give traction to their labors.

In this post I hope to propose one possible candidate for the societal movement most causally related to our recent Southern Baptist fisticuffs: Evangelicalism.

What Is Evangelicalism?

If you've read this blog much at all, you know that I love to define things. Evangelicalism is a concept begging for such treatment, because the label Evangelical has meant so many different things during the past several centuries. In 1770 an "Evangelical Revival" was ongoing in the British Isles. As applied to that milieu, the phrase "Evangelical Revival" is probably a redundant one—"Evangelical" pretty much meant "Revivalistic" in its everyday use. At one point in the twentieth century, an Evangelical was basically a conservative who wished to distance himself from J.-Frank-Norris-style Fundamentalism. These days, the word receives as much attention as a (secular) political term than anything else.

Nevertheless, I suggest that, for the period from around 1970 through the present day, Evangelicalism is broadly conceivable as a primarily economic term. Evangelicalism is an industry containing Focus on the Family, Compassion International, Contemporary Christian Music, major Christian publishing houses, dating services like Equally Yoked, and myriad other business ventures. Larry Eskridge and Mark A. Noll's book More Money, More Ministry: Money and Evangelicals in Recent North American History shed much light on this phenomenon, I think.

As an economic market, Evangelicalism has done a lot of good. The variety of music, literature, film, and other media available to North American Christians is greater today than in days past largely because of Evangelicalism. For that I am thankful. Also, the likelihood of Christians obtaining justice for the unborn and others in our society is much greater because of the political influence that has come through the consolidation of Christian political influence under the banner of Evangelicalism.

Yet the cultivation of the Evangelical market has some interesting side effects, and for these I am less enthusiastic:

1. It is in the interest of Evangelicalism to pretend that theological concepts that have been important for thousands of years are no longer important. Because no individual denominational market is big enough to sustain modern Evangelicalism, the movement must de-emphasize denominational distinctives. Yet, with a few notable exceptions, Christians have not tended to divide in the past over minutiae. The nature of salvation, baptism, the Lord's Supper, the Trinity, the church—Evangelicalism must relegate these things to relative unimportance in order for the market to coalesce. So, it emphasizes other things—things that are important themselves—to the exclusion of these "divisive" issues. The measure of a doctrine's importance becomes not its scriptural emphasis or theological gravity, but its ability to unite the core market. For example, consider the old argument that "new music" is not sufficiently "theological" vis-a-vis hymns. Actually, I find CCM to be quite theological (even more so as the movement continues to mature); however, it tends to emphasize different points of theology than hymnody—CCM is loathe to touch doctrinal issues that might alienate a constituency.
2. Evangelicalism must necessarily emphasize para-church over church. Para-church structures are able to sidestep the doctrinal and denominational issues that linger in churches. Para-church entities tend to be more entrepreneurial and market-oriented than churches are.
3. Evangelicalism therefore tends to make churches more para-church-ish. Ecclesiology is de-emphasized, as are denominational ties, while the church seeks to secure the benefits of full participation in the marketplace.
4. Evangelicalism, the more market-oriented it becomes, emphasizes ontological pragmatism (that which is true, right, etc., is that which works best). Pragmatism is part-and-parcel of market-orientation.

Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals?

Dr. James Leo Garrett and Dr. E. Glenn Hinson jousted over this question in a scholarly tome. Hinson argued that Southern Baptists are Baptists, not Evangelicals. Garrett countered that Southern Baptists are Evangelicals, albeit Denominational Evangelicals. I do not doubt that Garrett's analysis was true at the time, but I wonder whether the synthesis of Denominational Evangelicalism can withstand the powerful conforming pressures exerted by the broader Evangelical marketplace. Will the Evangelical part allow the Denominational (Baptist) part to endure long?

One can see how those pressures are at work. The Evangelical media industry is far more formative upon many Southern Baptist leaders than are distinctively Southern Baptist voices. Evangelical conferences draw an increasing number of Southern Baptist disciples when compared to denominational venues. An increasing number of churches are hard at work to conceal their denominational ties while emphasizing their membership in the broader Evangelical mainstream. And who can blame them, since the very agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention itself are stripping Baptist out of their names willy-nilly in a frantic race to attach the Southern Baptist bureaucratic gullet onto the enormous Evangelical teat—the more meaningless the name, the better the cross-market appeal.

Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals? The answer is increasingly clear: yes! The question is, are Southern Baptists still Southern Baptist?

The Present Controversy

This is the one uniting theme of the current dissent movement in the SBC: Evangelicalism. All of the hot-button issues—Private Prayer Langauge, baptism, gender roles, planting of non-Baptist churches—are issues that differentiate Southern Baptists from the broader stream of Evangelicalism, not by putting Southern Baptists at odds with any of the core beliefs of Evangelicalism, but by specifying additional things that pertain peculiarly to Southern Baptists. The current call for Christian unity is not precisely a call for Christian unity; it is a call for Evangelical uniformity. For some, it is not enough that Southern Baptists be Evangelicals. The Southern Baptist Convention must be nothing more than Evangelical. I think this is why Dr. Yarnell's excellent "Baptist Renaissance" article was so odious to so many: Any recovery of Baptistness necessarily threatens lowest-common-denominator Evangelicalism.

Yet I wonder why all this hue-and-cry to make of the SBC another Evangelical clone entitity. Aren't there enough of those already? Can we honestly contend that there is no homeland for mere Evangelicals in the landscape of American Christianity? Is it so evil for Baptists, while offering benediction to those who hold different views and pursue different methodologies, to hope for at least one group of entities that is distinctively Baptist? And indeed, if the SBC were merely Evangelical, why on earth would anyone choose to work through it rather than through one of the other merely Evangelical options available?

Yet so long as Evangelicalism remains the most successful form of Christian capitalism at work in the United States, the influence of Evangelicalism upon the Southern Baptist grassroots is only likely to grow. No denomination can compete with that market. The only hope for Baptist belief is for our denominational institutions to create another forum outside the marketplace (seminaries, for example) and employ the biblical model of a more personal discipleship to offset the Evangelical domination of mass-media. The goal here is not segregation from Evangelicalism. I myself am a voracious consumer in the Evangelical economy. The goal is to find a way to uphold Garrett's synthesis—to exist denominationally within Evangelicalism.

Interesting Logic

Wade Burleson's latest post has some interesting and frightening logic in it.

First, Burleson exhibits a dismissive attitude toward religious exemptions from federal employment guidelines, offering only the bizarre and cryptic "every good principle that forms the basis for government protecting her citizens is a principle that can be found in the Word of God." Hmmm... Let's see... Seventeen states bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (including California, where we have a seminary), so I guess Burleson would be in favor of employment protection for lesbians on the faculty at Golden Gate, if he would be consistent. In the federal code quoted, religion is one of the criteria, so I guess if (heaven forbid!) Dr. Emir Caner returns to Islam, his job would be safe from Burleson, if he would consistently apply what he has written. I don't think that Burleson really believes this (or, so I hope!), but if his logic does not apply to those situations, then it does not apply to SWBTS's situation, either.

At a moment when religious exemption from such onerous federal legislation is already dangerously tenuous, for a Southern Baptist with Burleson's public exposure to undermine this important principle is wantonly reckless and competely at odds with historic Baptist convictions about religious liberty.

An off-line discussion with Bro. Burleson (I emailed him the text of this post) clarifies that, in at least some circumstances, Burleson believes that internal SBC decisions about employment policy ought to be beyond the bounds of federal employment law.

Second, Burleson draws a false parallel between criteria for receiving a degree at SWBTS and criteria for teaching at SWBTS. Does Burleson realize that SWBTS accepts students of a wide variety of denominational persuasions into all of the degree programs at SWBTS? I studied in Ph.D. seminars with several students who were not Baptist. By Burleson's logic, I suppose he would favor the employ of everyone from Pentecostals to Presbyterians on the faculty of our Southern Baptist seminaries (then again, given the discussions of the past year, he very well might).

Finally, Burleson's exegesis discussion regarding 1 Timothy 2:12 is beyond interesting. Because authentein "cannot be found in any place where Greek is used. It is not in the Septuagint, nor in classical Greek, nor any other literature of the day" (funny... the Liddell-Scott-Jones knows about nine appearances, but I digress), Burleson seems to suggest that we shouldn't bother to try to exegete the passage at all, except maybe to eisegete speculations about slang terms and Ephesian prostitutes (guess how many of the nine references listed in LSJ have anything at all to do with Ephesian prostitutes?). The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae database has revealed more than three hundred occurrances of this term and its cognates. Yes, there's a discussion to be had between liberals and conservatives on this issue, and there is more than enough linguistic evidence to fuel it. The possibility for this discussion to occur with civility is inversely proportionate to the number of times that folks like Bro. Burleson try to tie to Islamic fundamentalism those people who actually go ahead and exegete 1 Timothy 2:12.

In conclusion, an article in the latest Reader's Digest suggests that it takes at least twenty positive comments to undo a single slap in the face. Maybe Burleson ought to lengthen his obligatory sections of "now I want you to know how much I actually love <insert target of the week here> and appreciate all that they do for the convention" if he's doing that to actually try to establish some sense of balance in his blogging.

The Biblical Basis of Congregationalism

This post is part of a series on congregational church polity. It is the second installment. The first is here.

Speaking of congregationalism, pastor Shannon O'Dell was quoted this week in Baptist Press (see here) as saying, "If there is one thing I could say to the rural church it is: The reason they don’t grow is that they are structured un-biblically." Of course, O'Dell apparently equates congregationalism with its worst manifestation, "Families in power want all the power in the small local rural church with no responsibility—you’re so trapped you can’t move forward." O'Dell instead favors a system of church governance in which he is in charge. He makes his contrast pretty plainly: "Most churches are structured for it to be congregationally led or democratic. God’s order states: #1 God; #2 the pastor; then the elders, deacons and trustees."

Is it true? Is there no biblical basis for congregationalism? Did our spiritual forefathers just make it all up? I don't think so. There is a biblical case for congregationalism, and I find it compelling.

I must say first, there is no biblical basis for the "Families in power want all the power..." kind of system. But judging congregationalism based upon its worst exemplar is unfair. The equivalent would be for me to judge O'Dell's system by examining the history of the papacy. Maybe that's not the most helpful way to pursue the dialogue.

Even if I have no desire to defend the abuses of congregationalism, I submit that the Bible assigns certain governance duties not to the pastor or the deacons (did I miss the part about "trustees" in the Bible?), but directly to the gathered congregation. In an effort to present a comprehensive study, I admit that I am presenting points of varying weights. Some of these points are pretty much unavoidable. Others have more wiggle room for interpretation. Taken as a whole, I believe that they make a strong biblical case for congregationalism.

The very meaning of the word church

The word ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) was, prior to Jesus' appropriation of it at Cæsarea Philippi (Matthew 16:18), a political term. Ἐκκλησία conjured up for Hellenics the same thoughts that come to American minds at the mention of the phrase "town hall meeting."

The meaning of any word is a complex phenomenon, defined only by the idiosyncracies of the people who employ it. I am not saying that, because the Greeks used this word in such-and-such fashion, it necessarily defines a church as a local voting assembly. But there is no internal evidence favoring any other understanding of the word over this one. Since Jesus forewent terms like synagogue and deliberately borrowed this Greek political term, and since there is no evidence that any other meaning for the term is dominant, I find it reasonable to believe that the idea of a democratically voting local assembly of people constitutes at least some part of what Jesus meant when He chose to refer to the institution that He founded as an ἐκκλησία.

Matthew 18:15-20

¹⁵ If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. ¹⁶ But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. ¹⁷ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. ¹⁸ Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

¹⁹ Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.

(Matthew 18:15-20, NASB)

Church discipline is a function specifically reserved to the congregation by the very words of Jesus. The first individual mentioned in the passage has the right to bring an accusation. The two or three people of stage two have the right to serve as corroborating witnesses. But only the church has the authority to exclude. No matter the size of that congregation, even if it consists only of two or three people, Christ has promised that the authority of heaven lies behind congregational decisions about such matters.

I know that Jesus' statement opens a can of worms embodied in a thousand what-ifs. The impasse between J. R. Graves and R. B. C. Howell from 150 years ago gives us a situation to which it is difficult to apply Matthew 18:15-20. Certainly there is plenty of devil in some of the details. However, the point is that Jesus did not say "tell it to the elder" or "tell it to the apostle." Rather, He commanded to bring matters of church discipline to the assembly (ἐκκλησία, "church").

Thus, I believe that the New Testament requries that congregations regulate their own membership.

The Corinthian Scandal

What Jesus described in principle, Paul applied to a specific situation in the local church in Corinth:

³ For I, on my part, though absent in body yet present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. ⁴ In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, ⁵ I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus…

¹² …Do you not judge those who are within the church? ¹³ But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves. (1 Corinthians 5:3-5, 12b-13, NASB)

What makes this passage especially interesting to me is Paul's self-restraint when he deals with a subject that falls within the Christ-assigned jurisdiction of the congregation. Paul wants this guy kicked out, and not six months down the road, either. But Paul won't (can't?) just exclude this egregious sinner. Rather, he tells the church that they must do it "when [they] are assembled." The congregation has to meet. At the beginning of verse 5, the NASB makes the rather unfortunate insertion of the words "I have decided." These words do not appear in the Greek text. I think it makes more sense to take the infinitive translated by "to deliver" as giving the purpose of the meeting. Paul insists that the congregation assemble and handle this matter of church discipline as a congregation.

By the way, they did so by holding business meeting. I don't mean that they read minutes. I don't mean that the Corinthian church had a dusty copy of Robert's Rules of Order sitting nearby. But we do know that they voted, and we do know that a majority vote carried the day. How do we know? Because the remainder of the story appears in 2 Corinthians:

⁶ Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority. (2 Corinthians 2:6, NASB)

Thus, it seems clear to me that, in the New Testament church, the congregation and only the congregation—according to the specification of Christ Himself—had the authority to regulate the membership of the church, which it did by holding votes and following majority rule.

Of course, I direct you back to the first post in the series. Such a system is only biblical so long as the goal of the majority is to submit to the rule of the only One who is Head of the church.

I'm sleepy. More later. In our next installment, we'll look at the congregation's role in the selection of its leadership.

Lies and Baptist Statistics

Here's one effect of our utter lack of meaningful church membership: The vast majority of Baptist statistics are so tainted as to hardly be useful.

Consider, for example, the beaten-to-death assertion that American Christians divorce at a higher rate than American lost people. Oh, really? But who are these "American Christians"? Are we talking about the people who actually have some involvement in the life of the church, or are we talking about those millions of people whose names are on church rolls but who give absolutely no visible evidence of being saved? I've only been in ministry twenty years, but my experience so far is that divorce among actual faithful attenders occurs far below the 50% mark, and still rocks and scandalizes the church.

One might argue that people with commitment issues—a group very likely to divorce—are likely to be highly overrepresented in the group of people who dally with a temporary church affiliation and then disappear. Yet this is hardly an indictment of marital fidelity among real Christians.

This oft-cited statistic soldiers on as a case study in the irrelevance and ineptitude of the gospel (or at least of the church, depending upon who is wielding it). The sad thing is that we do it to ourselves. Every person we leave on the rolls of the church who is completely out of touch with the ministry of the church—every one of them—is a false and damaging advertisement for the idea that Christianity is just another ineffective religion.

Clinton & Carter

I have received requests from readers who want to know my opinion about the Clinton-Carter soiree that took place while I was tending to Grandpa Brady in Missouri (BTW, if you missed that story in the comment log on the previous post, it is worth reading). Knowing that I would be in complete disagreement with the direction that these former presidents would wish to take Baptist life, folks hunger to hear me hurl a little invective, I guess.

I'm sorry to disappoint, but personal reasons leave me with absolutely no desire to heap gratuitous public criticism upon President Clinton.

I will say this: Baptists are in desperate need of reform. The most obvious flaw of Bro. Duren's recent post about "Tories" and "Reformers" is that many of the people he would classify into the first category are very zealous for a real Baptist reformation. Certainly I know that I am.

Yet of all of the ways in which Baptists need change and reformation, I am prepared to say that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have absolutely nothing that we lack and need, as far as I can tell. That's not to deny that they have any good qualities—I'm merely saying that, whatever good points I see in them, the SBC abounds in those areas as well as in others.

Now, if you want me to be harsh and unkind, you could always ask me about her rather than him. Then I'll really be tempted! :-)

There Is...One Lord

The central grounding truth of biblical church governance is the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ alone is the one Lord and Head of the church.

Papal rule is wrong and unbiblical.

Episcopal rule is wrong and unbiblical.

Synodical rule is wrong and unbiblical.

Elder rule is wrong and unbiblical.

Deacon rule is wrong and unbiblical.

Pastoral rule is wrong and unbiblical.

Congregational rule is wrong and unbiblical.

Christ founded the church (Matthew 16:18). Christ is the Head of the church (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18). He and He alone is the Great Shepherd (Hebrews 13:20...i.e. "Senior Pastor") of the church. He has not abdicated or retired. Jesus is not an emeritus anything.

So, biblical church governance is about one and only one thing: What does Jesus want?

Facing the bewildering array of decisions that churches face today, our purpose for our polity is to determine the will of God. I believe that every form of polity is vulnerable to corruption by those who will not acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, yet I do not believe that every form of polity is equally vulnerable to that danger. Some forms of polity are better suited to discerning and following God's will than are others.

If the New Testament gives us any instruction about church polity (and I believe that it does), then it would be strange indeed to conclude that ignoring those instructions will improve our ability to find God's will for the church. Do we find God's will by ignoring God's word? I think not.

So, this upcoming series on church polity rests upon these premises: The purpose of polity is to acknowledge and follow the Lordship of Christ; Christ has given us instruction about church polity; and even in the choice of a system of church polity, we acknowledge that the choice is Christ's, and not our own, to make.

An Update from Drs. Yarnell and Caner

While I've been trying to convince ACS to close out the 2006 books for FBC Farmersville, the blogging vortex has apparently encircled Dr. Malcolm Yarnell and Dr. Emir Caner. Welcome to Oz, gentlemen. In conversation with them, I learn that they have no desire to drop houses on anyone's heads (deserved or undeserved). I was, however, able to obtain a joint statement from them:

In 2006, Drs. Emir Caner and Malcolm Yarnell agreed to address the issue of tongues in two papers which are now White Papers at www.BaptistTheology.org. These papers have garnered extensive analysis, for which we are both appreciative. However, some critics have perceived our papers as a defense of Cessationism, a topic rarely covered in either paper. The papers were intended to deal with Private Prayer Language (PPL) and whether it is defined as a spiritual gift in Scripture. Our conclusion from the Bible was and is that PPL is not biblical. Additionally, as can be seen within history, PPL is a recent development inherently connected with the Charismatic movement and thus is not found in Southern Baptist history until recently.

The papers assert that the biblical texts that the proponents of PPL had brought forward to support such a practice, a practice which in our opinion may really just be a religiously-neutral phenomenon, provide no indication that PPL was ever acknowledged in the Bible as a spiritual gift. In other words, we vehemently disagreed with the claim that PPL is a legitimate spiritual gift according to the definition of Scripture. By accusing us of advocating Cessationism (or the novel doctrine of semi-Cessationism), controversialists are not addressing what we perceive to be the primary issue. Furthermore, we are being represented as advocating a position which we have not defined. We do note that if the practice of tongues is to be biblical, it must be practiced corporately, in order, and with a known language. The term Cessationist has been used quite imprecisely and illogically with regard to our position given that we do not believe PPL has ceased since we do not believe it ever authentically existed. Indeed, the idea of unintelligible and private speech contradicts Paul’s whole argument in 1 Corinthians 14 for the church to be edified and the lost evangelized through the intelligible and public proclamation of the Gospel.

Finally, constantly stirring a controversy over a non-biblical practice seems to us to violate Scripture’s commands to seek unity among the brethren. Ultimately, we have defended the integrity of Scripture and the traditional position of Southern Baptists in our White Papers and we stand by them. We really would prefer not to be part of a continuing controversy over this issue; however, recent accusations that we are Cessationists seem to us to be another way that confusion and division might be introduced into the Southern Baptist Convention. This is something we do not desire. Instead, our prayer is that Southern Baptists will stand firm on the Word of God and adhere to the Great Commission by proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world for whom Christ died. May the peace of God reign over you. Truth is Immortal.

These learned men frame an important corrective note, I believe. The real issue facing the SBC today is not when or whether the biblical gift of tongues ceased or resumed or whatnot—the real issue regards what the gift of tongues essentially was (and is). Is the phenomenon that began its modern advent with Charles Fox Parham and continues with tongues-speakers and private-language-prayers today the same phenomenon as the biblical miracle of speaking in tongues? I've heard descriptions of "cessationism" from those who do not hold it, but I'm having trouble finding many people active in Southern Baptist life who actually hold such views (e.g., that the New Testament stipulates a post-apostolic cessation of miraculous gifts). I do, however, find well-populated ranks of Southern Baptists who, without daring to assert that God could not give the gift of tongues today, are more than willing to evaluate the Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third Wave practice as being a modern innovation completely unconnected with the New Testament.