Guest Post: Dr. Greg Welty, Will the Real Gnostic Please Step Forward

I had not intended to have guest posting on my blog during my vacation, but a special circumstance arose. Dr. Greg Welty attempted to post the content of this entry as a comment over at SBC Outpost in response to Alan Cross, "Is There a Gnostic Creedalism Creeping into the SBC?". Dr. Welty offered his comment at 11:47 am on July 4. For whatever reason, eight hours and eight comments later, his comment is still sitting in comment moderation over there at our new bastion of frank and open dialogue. [NOTE: Micah Fries has clarified that author Alan Cross did not have sufficient privileges to approve the comment.] So, I gladly volunteered to yield the unused floor to him over here at Praisegod Barebones. He writes better stuff than I do, anyway: =================== Begin Dr. Welty's Post =================== Alan, Here's why it's extremely difficult for many of us to take your cries of "Gnosticism" seriously. First, if your argument proves anything, then it proves too much. In particular, it proves that quite a few people in your camp are "Gnostics" as well. You *talk* about the BFM as a basis for cooperation, but in reality you don't really believe that. For you and others believe that trustees and entity employees can pick and choose *which* doctrines of the BFM they shall affirm. Wade speaks of dividing up the BFM into "essentials" and "non-essentials". But the BFM says in its own preamble that the doctrines contained within it "are doctrines we hold precious and as *essential* to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice" (emphasis mine). The preamble also states that these doctrines are "those articles of the Christian faith which are *most surely* held among us" (emphasis mine). But you reject all this. Instead of a "Clear Baptist Identity," your camp believes in a "Clear Set of Essentials" that is a *subset* of the doctrines in the BFM. But where has this set of essentials been stated and agreed upon by the convention as a whole? It hasn't. But apparently, you with your Gnostic insight can discern it where others can't. You say: "there are voices of substantial weight in SBC life who are telling us that there is a 'Clear Baptist Identity' beyond what is articulated in the BF&M." But there are voices in *your* camp of SBC life who are telling us that there is a "Clear Set of Essentials" which the BFM does not articulate for us. You accuse others of going Gnostic if they draw a line beyond the BFM. But you are equally Gnostic if you draw a line *within* the BFM. If one line is invisible, so is the other. If one line lacks consensus, so does the other. You say: "many do not want to give up the power to articulate and enforce a Clear Baptist Identity as they see fit." But apparently, many in your camp do not want to give up the power to articulate and enforce a Clear Set of Essentials as they see fit. Indeed, the irony of your side's looking for a canon-within-the-canon in the BFM is that you clearly reject the wisdom of the EC statement, on *your* interpretation of that statement. That statement says that the BFM is sufficient to provide guidance on doctrinal matters. Unfortunately, the BFM itself doesn't tell us which of its doctrines are negotiable for the purposes of cooperation. So in order to ascertain those non-essentials, it looks like you, as a Gnostic, are going to have to look elsewhere for guidance (contrary to what the EC statement says about sufficiency for doctrinal guidance). If you and others don't come clean about these palpable inconsistencies in your position, it's going to be hard to take your criticisms seriously. You want the BFM to be a maximal standard, beyond which no one can go, but you can't even manage to affirm it as a *minimal* standard! Which position shows less respect for the BFM? I'll let you make that call. These are difficult matters, to be sure. But to pretend that they don't even exist precludes meaningful dialogue. Second, historical precedent doesn't bode too well for your side. You or others might say: "But trustees and employees have always been able to opt out of these piddly little claims in the BFM. As long as they're honest about what they're doing, what's the harm?" But if you go down that road, then it defeats your larger argument. As you are no doubt well aware, for the past twenty years NAMB has had a policy of not hiring missionaries who speak in tongues. This is an issue that goes beyond the BFM doctrinally, and yet there was no hue and cry when the Convention met the year after the policy was enacted. (Cf. the first two sections of Emir Caner's paper for details.) That policy certainly excluded candidates who actually subscribe to the BFM, and yet it's been in place for twenty years. So why can't someone say, "Trustees have always been able to enforce doctrinal standards additional to but not contradictory to the BFM. As long as they're honest about what they're doing, what's the harm?" And, in fact, some have made this exact point. In short, neither in principle nor historically does your argument make any sense. Dr. Greg Welty