The Recurring Historical Threat to the SBC

David O. Moore's 1949 SBTS Th.D. thesis, "The Landmark Baptists and Their Attack upon the Southern Baptist Convention Historically Analyzed," deduced a similarity between the 1859 peril to which James Robinson Graves subjected the fledgling Southern Baptist Convention, the 1897 imbroglio of Samuel Augustus Hayden, and the 1901 schism inflicted upon the Arkansas Baptist State Convention (and eventually the Southern Baptist Convention) by Benjamin M. Bogard. What, according to Moore, did all of these turbulent occasions in SBC have in common? Criticisms of excessive "cost and control" among elected and employed leadership in Southern Baptist Convention agencies. Moore was not so honest and introspective as to admit that the 1845 missions schism that birthed the Southern Baptist Convention featured a good helping of the same criticisms. The SBC with some difficulty parried the thrusts that the nineteenth-century anti-missions movement made among the same rhetorical lines. Would-be Southern Baptist demagogues have ever resorted to this same tactic: Allege that the leaders of the SBC spend too much money and wield tyrannical power. Indeed, I can only think of two serious controversies in all of Southern Baptist history that do not amount to muckrakers reviving these same tired arguments. The Carnes scandal involved the criminal malfeasance of two key executives at SBC mission boards, and the Conservative Resurgence involved profound theological differences. Otherwise, virtually every crisis moment in our convention can be laid at the feet of populist demagogues. Fortunately, although these controversies have exacted a toll each time, the people of the Southern Baptist Convention have time and again had the good sense to see through the dirty politics and rally behind the convention and its proven leaders. Let us pray that the past will be a good predictor of our future.

Pecan Manor Pickiness

Re: Ben Cole's articles here and here.

So, the point is that somebody else (Dr. Patterson) convinced somebody else (Carliss Phillips) to donate a huge chunk of cash to renovate and expand a house that belongs to neither of them, but to me (and Ben Cole, and everyone else in the SBC). And this deal where the house we own together gets improved and expanded without us having to spend a nickel is a bad deal for us all exactly why?

When I went to the graduation reception at Pecan Manor, I recall the house seeming quite full, and that was with only the doctoral graduates there. I'm sure that the MDiv reception time was even crowded. I certainly didn't walk out thinking, "Man, I wish they would take away some of this square footage."

I live in a parsonage (1977 square feet, Ben. I'll save you the trip to the Collin County Tax Assessor's web site). Honestly, before Bro. Cole made this an issue, my feelings about Pecan Manor have amounted to conviction by comparison that I don't use the church's house nearly enough to show hospitality to the church. We (Tracy and I) need to do that more often.

With regard to the lists of houses over at Baptist Blogger, how many of those are private residences owned by the people listed? In each of those cases, the figures given represent the personal wealth of the owner. Good for them. Pecan Manor is in a different category. The figure given there represents a portion of the assets of SWBTS, which the Pattersons will leave to the next presidential family when they leave office. Good for us.

The Role of the BF&M

Thank you, everyone, for your prayers and support. Consider this little post the firstfruits of a larger harvest later.

There's a line-of-argumentation suggesting that the BF&M should be the be-all-end-all of theological qualifications in the Southern Baptist Convention and her agencies.

Might I suggest that humanity is not capable of drafting a single document to represent our theological expectations of everyone from a copy editor for the Scroll (the internal press organ of SWBTS) to the president of NAMB. The president of NAMB ought to be pretty theologically astute, IMHO. To draft a document detailing every theological stricture for such a person would be quite an undertaking. And then, if SWBTS had to apply the same standard to the blueshirt putting out zinnias in front of Barnard Hall—I ask you, does that make sense?

That's why each board of trustees has the governing authority over their respective entities. The BF&M did not become the governing document of any of these entities until each board adopted it. The trustees decide how to apply it. The trustees can set other theological guidelines. If the SBC doesn't like it, the SBC can choose to replace those trustees with other trustees who hold a different view.

The IMB Report

To tell you the truth, I know very little about the inner workings of the IMB. For the duration of my blogging, I have said precious little about IMB policies. I have opined at length about theological issues raised by the IMB. I have responded in detail to events that had anything to do with ecclesiology, SWBTS, or Texas, as these are matters of particular interest to me. But I've said very little about IMB policies.

Bro. Marty Duren was first, I believe, to post the text of a draft IMB report on the Burleson motion (see here). I quote the text from his site, so if there are errors in the text, Marty, I'm blaming them on you <grin>. Some of the responses are written in internal IMB-ese, and I will have little to say about them. Others deal more with the structure of the SBC, and I'm full of opinion about that.

In general, I think it is a good report, as far as I can tell.

In response to the motion that “the Executive Committee appoint an ad hoc committee to determine sources of the controversies in the International Mission Board, and make findings and recommendations regarding these controversies, so that trustees of the IMB might effect recomciliation and effectively discharge their responsibilities to God and fellow Southern Baptists by cooperating together to accomplish evangelism and missions to the Glory of God,” the International Mission Board meeting in session on January 30, 2007, respectfully submits the following response:

The Board of Trustees of the IMB, which consists of 89 trustees elected by the Southern Baptist Convention, is convinced that it has, and will continue, to discharge its responsibilities and fiduciary accountability to the SBC in cooperation to accomplish the board’s ministry assignments of evangelism and missions. The diversity of personalities, backgrounds and churches represented invariably is reflected in different opinions in giving oversight to the work of the IMB. This diversity is necessary in arriving at consensus and determining the leadership of God in making decisions within the board’s assigned responsibilities. We contend that any controversies have been dealt with according to appropriate Biblical guidelines and in line with democratic processes and approved board polity.

This section articulates their judgment call on whether the board as a whole has dealt with controversy appropriately and whether controversy is hindering the accomplishment of their mission. Their answer is yes, they have dealt with controversy properly, and no, the controversy has not hindered their work.

I'm not sure that the controversy has been dealt with perfectly. First an overture toward having Burleson removed from the board, then a reversal. Their manner of dealing with the controversy has not been consistent; therefore, it cannot logically have been correct. But, I'm guessing that, when you show up as an IMB trustee, they haven't been giving you a manual for how to deal with situations like the past year!

So, I'm saying that they haven't dealt with the matter perfectly. But they aren't saying that the controversy has been dealt with perfectly—only that it has been dealt with biblically and democratically. I don't know enough details to adjudge the first criterion. As to the second one, they are 100% correct. Neither am I privy to any information that would make me a good analyst regarding the impact of the controversy upon board effectiveness, so I'll take their word for it.

Now, on to the specifics:

With the counsel and concurrence of the International Mission Board executive staff, the board of trustees responds to the five concerns expressed in the motion as follows:

(1) The manipulation of the nominating process of the Southern Baptist Convention during the appointment of trustees for the IMB.

The International Mission Board has no authority to speak to the work of the nominating committee elected by the Southern Baptist Convention or to investigate the process by which it does its work.

This is a perfectly accurate answer. These trustees are the nominees, not the nominators. The messengers to the convention vote on the nominations. Who are the trustees of the IMB to question the slates of nominees approved by the messengers? Any response by them to this question would be entirely inappropriate.

(2) Attempts to influence and/or coerce the IMB trustees, staff, and administration to take a particular course of action by one or more Southern Baptist agency heads other than the president of the IMB.

It is assumed that any and all heads of SBC entities are concerned about the effectiveness of all entities in order for the SBC to fulfill its kingdom task in the world. While the IMB may exercise authority over its own president and elected staff, we are not in a position to question or investigate the actions and motives of heads of other entities.

Again, this is a basic truth of our polity. The trustees of the IMB have no authority to investigate the actions of people outside the IMB. The IMB apparently has no interest in muzzling Dr. Iorg. :-)

All kidding aside, might I add that one of the great benefits of the convention method over the society method, IMHO, is the opportunity for the entities to communicate and coordinate with one another. Institutionally, none of the other agency heads have any authority over any other agency. That does not mean that they are constitutionally required not to have an opinion. I can't imagine that Marty, or any of us bloggers, would stand for anyone telling us to keep our opinions to ourselves.

(3) The appropriate and/or inappropriate use of forums and executive sessions of the IMB as compared to conducting business in full view of the Southern Baptist Convention and the corresponding propriety and/or impropriety of the chairman of the IMB excluding any individual trustee, without Southern Baptist Convention approval, from participating in meetings where the full IMB is convened.

The IMB does not allow formal business to be transacted in its closed Trustee Forums, but uses this time for prayer, personal testimonies and preliminary questions and discussions regarding issues of mutual concern between senior staff and trustees. Official executive sessions are limited to matters dealing with sensitive personnel actions related to staff, missionaries and/or trustees or those in which public exposure would result in detrimental consequences for personnel serving in sensitive and restricted locations around the world.

Any actions that may be taken to exclude any trustee from participating in closed board sessions by the chairman will have been made with support of the board as a last resort and in order to avoid disruption and distractions to the board fulfilling its assigned tasks with unity and appropriate decorum.

How much trouble has Wade Burleson made for the Board of Trustees? I don't know the answer to that question (I mean, apart from the public aspects that are apparent to everyone). I do agree that the trustees have the right obligation to keep one person from grinding the work of the board to a halt. With this response they are clearly claiming that Burleson's actions have posed an obstacle to the ongoing work of the board, in their opinion.

Burleson is appealing to the Southern Baptist people, as is his right. Until the situation is resolved, the trustees ought to proceed according to the will of the preponderant majority of trustees. If they have the procedural right to exclude Burleson from some sessions, if doing so does not preclude him from exercising his vote as a trustee on "formal business", and if such an action is necessary for the board to move forward, then I guess it might be the best thing to do.

Personally, I would keep him in the loop and continue to vote him down, assuming that he is in as drastic a minority as it appears. But such a course of action would presume that every scintilla of every meeting is not going to show up on the Internet that evening.

Knowing whether these actions were appropriate and necessary would require contextual knowledge of what all has transpired recently. I do not have such knowledge (other than one-sided accounts); therefore, I offer no firm opinion of this response.

I and several other readers of this report were apparently confused. Burleson has not been excluded from the forums. So, it appears that the report is simply reserving the right for the board to exclude a hypothetical someone in the hypothetical event that it found such action necessary.

(4) The legislation of new doctrinal requisites for eligibility to serve as employees or missionaries of the IMB beyond the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.

While the Baptist Faith and Message represents a general confession of Southern Baptist beliefs related to Biblical teachings on primary doctrinal and social issues, the IMB retains the prerogative and responsibility of further defining the parameters of doctrinal beliefs and practices of its missionaries who serve Southern Baptists with accountability to this board.

Precisely correct.

In fact, after the SBC adopted the BF&M, each institution had to adopt it separately. Why? Precisely because each board of trustees explicitly and exclusively has the authority to set the doctrinal parameters for that entity.

(5) The suppression of dissent by trustees in the minority through various means by those in the majority, and the propriety of any agency forbidding a trustee, by policy, from publicly criticizing a board approved action.

All board approved actions result from a process of committee, and sometimes multiple committees, consideration before they are brought to a plenary session for adoption. All trustees have opportunity in the committee process and plenary session to express and advocate minority opinions. As in any democratic body, once the majority has determined the action to be taken, the board feels that the action should receive the unified public support of all trustees for the sake of effectively moving forward to fulfill our mission task.

I do not entirely agree. I believe that individual trustees ought to be able publicly to express their opinions about board actions, so long as their statements have to do with general policy and do not compromise the security of board employees. Nevertheless, I do not believe that trustees ought to be able to express publicly the opinions, statements, votes, or blow-by-blow details of other people's service in connection with board activity.

I'm a free-expression kind of guy, and I want to see good reason before anyone is silenced. Providing a setting in which all trustees can express their opinions confidently without fear of public chastisement is a good reason, I think.

Final Note

I find very interesting the "concurrence of the. . . executive staff" line in the introduction to the specifics. Apparently staff and trustees are in agreement on this report.

Why This Matters So Much

This makes 19 entries I've posted in January, most of them devoted to the furor over the departure of Dr. Klouda from SWBTS. Why have I blogged so much about this? That's a great question considering the following facts:

1. I am the student of a female Church History professor at SWBTS, against whose dismissal I lobbied at SWBTS.
2. I do not know Dr. Klouda, and what I know by reputation I find admirable.
3. I do not have any problem with a woman teaching languages.
4. If Dr. Patterson explicitly promised tenure to Dr. Klouda, and then broke his personal promise, then I believe he is wrong.

So, what explains the vigor of my blogging about this subject lately?

I offer the following for your consideration:

1. Dr. Klouda is being used politically. I don't doubt that she would rather be used politically than be dismissed from a teaching position. Nevertheless, given the history of the past year, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that this uproar is simply about Dr. Klouda. It is clear what side her advocates' bread is buttered on.
2. The zealots who have taken up this cause are perfectly willing to wreck American religious liberty in her defence. Do you have a written employment policy at your church stipulating what ministry positions women can hold and what positions they cannot? This group of people would apparently argue in federal court that the federal government has the right to suspend your church's exemption from federal anti-discrimination laws if you cannot demonstrate that your actions are in line with internal policies. The implications of a federal lawsuit upon churches and other parachurch ministries are not being taken into consideration. Southern Baptists have perfectly good internal processes capable of addressing any problem at any institution, yet this modern-day Hyrcanus would appeal to the Romans for us all, and we know how well that worked out for Judea.
3. They are further perfectly willing to sacrifice the ministry preparation of every student at SWBTS. I do not believe that they will be successful in undoing SBWTS's accreditation, but that is certainly the objective of the letters being sent to accrediting agencies right now. Where will that leave the thousands of students whose degrees are in progress at SWBTS right now? Do our "radicals" care about them? Apparently not.
4. This is not simply a campaign to redress procedural issues or obtain due process for Dr. Klouda. The posts and comments on this subject make it clear that the design is to discredit the conservative interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12 and to change Southern Baptist theology at this point, labelling the historic practice of Baptist seminaries and universities as "strange" and demonstrating once again that Burleson will only accept labels and insults if they are applied rightward.
5. The ultimate design of it all is a revolution in the SBC in the vein of Saul Alinsky (see an interesting article about Alinsky, the father of liberal community organization, here. See a series of articles linking this insurgency to Alinsky here, here, here, and here. And, just for fun, see Alinsky's other prominent modern-day disciple here.) Alinsky's methodology is not hard to decipher—maniuplate the "ordinary people" to achieve the political goals of your elite cadre without becoming a true believer (see here for quotes to that effect). According to Alinsky, no cost is too high for victory. I disagree.

So, the stakes are pretty high for the SBC in 2007. Burleson and Cole are very well organized and focused. I think it very possible that they will carry the day in San Antonio, because they have quite the head start on conservatives. Your faithfulness to attend in San Antonio and bring your full slate of messengers could make all the difference.

Clearly, whether they win or lose in San Antonio, they intend to try to have their way through the federal courts and the accrediting institutions. That fact, in and of itself, is enough to mobilize me to write 19 posts in January and to do much more.

Some Strange Southern Baptists

Let's be clear who we're talking about. Let's identify all of these "strange" Southern Baptists who have built theology and religion faculties of men, so that they might all be pilloried equally.

1. Paige Patterson
2. Albert Mohler
3. Jeff Iorg
4. Chuck Kelley
5. Phil Roberts
6. Daniel Akin
7. James Petigru Boyce
8. John A. Broadus
9. William H. Whitsett
10. E. Y. Mullins
11. B. H. Carroll
12. Lee Rutland Scarborough
13. John T. Christian
14. ...should I keep going?

Let these "strange" people be stricken from the books, reprobates and chauvinists that they are!

Oh...I almost forgot all of the presidents of Baptist universities who have had all-male religion departments. But that list would be far too long for you to have the patience to read it. I'll just pick one at random to represent all the others:

1. Rufus Burleson, Baylor University

Denied Employment

I recently submitted an application to teach online for an educational institution. Midway through the process, I received an addendum to the statement of faith that I had already affirmed. The addendum included, in the final paragraph, a firm statement favoring one position regarding the chronology of the Great Tribulation in the end times.

I do not hold any firm position on the chronology of the Great Tribulation in the end times. I consider the position staked out in the document to be one valid option that might very well be true.

How am I coping? Here are a few points:

1. I will not sign the document with "caveats".
2. I will not perform mental and ethical gymnastics, pretending that, because I don't really disagree with the document, I could sign it even though I don't strictly agree with it either.
3. I will not pretend that this institution has violated my rights as a Christian.
4. I will not be suing anybody in any venue.
5. I will not bend my theology one iota to try to accommodate myself to this institution. My theology belongs to Christ and to the Bible.
6. I now respect this institution all the more for knowing what they believe and sticking to it.
7. I hope that they respect me all the more for dealing with them with integrity.
8. I will not be contacting their accrediting agencies to lodge any complaints.
9. I will not demean their theological position as "strange".
10. I will not accuse anybody of narrowing anything.

So that's OK, all you masked avengers out there. Don't bother to add me to your list. I'll be fine...really.