What Truly Befuddles Me

It is 2008. In America, we have churches within the SBC that affirm homosexuality (Broadway Baptist Church, Fort Worth, TX). We have a high divorce rate in our churches. Regenerate church membership, if we do not act and act soon, will be completely lost to us. Church discipline is a distant apparition of a forgotten day. The attire of many Christians differs not significantly from that of streetwalkers. Our pews are stacked with people enslaved to alcohol and prescription drugs. Biblical literacy is at an all-time low in Baptist history.

But some people seriously argue that the major problem we face in our day is legalism?

Wake up.

The BF&M: The Consensus Document?

Recently our blogging brother Les Puryear offered a piece of analysis at his blog entitled BFM2K: Not Minimal or Maximal but Consensus. In his post, Puryear strove to discard the language of "minimal" or "maximal" with regard to the application of The Baptist Faith and Message, preferring instead to refer to it as the "consensus" of the Southern Baptist Convention. The ultimate implication of Puryear's post was, contrary to the wording of the title, to make the BF&M both a maximal and a minimal document. Here's that conclusion expressed pretty plainly in the article:

For those who wish to reduce the doctrinal standards of the SBC, which are addressed by BFM2K, I submit that you are in violation of the consensus position of the SBC.

For those who wish to stipulate additional doctrinal standards which are not addressed by BFM2K, I also submit that you are in violation of the consensus position of the SBC.

Puryear buttresses his argument with language from the infamous Executive Committee statement proffered to the convention through the Garner Motion:

The Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible; nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention. (emphasis mine)

Puryear includes in his article a two-point definition of "consensus" that is helpful and from which I will draw in my counter-analysis. I think that much of Puryear's analysis is thoughtful, sincere, and potentially helpful. Certainly these are the most important questions of our time in the SBC, and we do well to clarify them. I am thankful for Les Puryear's efforts in that direction.

I agree with this article and with the EC statement (which I endorsed) that the BF&M represents a consensus of SBC doctrinal opinion. However, I think that it is important to note that, by the definition of "consensus" given in Puryear's article (and it is a good and accurate definition), every decision of the SBC is a consensus decision. Thus, I can accurately say that the current trustees of the International Mission Board, approved by the messengers to the SBC, are the only consensus decision makers regarding doctrinal policies at the IMB. The rest of us can all hold our own opinions about what ought to occur there or at any other entity, but our opinions do not enjoy the gravity that trustee opinions hold by consensus action of the convention.

The BF&M is a consensus document; it is not the only, total doctrinal consensus of Southern Baptists. As "statement[s] of doctrinal beliefs" go—formal documents containing a partial listing of articles of the faith for a group of people—The Baptist Faith and Message is indeed the only one of those endorsed by the consensus opinion of the convention. However, the convention has expressed consensus upon a large number of doctrinal issues not contained in any formal "statement of doctrinal beliefs." As I stated long ago (see here), the SBC now has a consensus opinion upon global warming. Of course, some folks have taken issue with the global warming resolution, but certainly no more than have objected to the latest revision of The Baptist Faith and Message (not even as many!).

So, the Southern Baptist Convention has put its consensus behind a great number of propositions. Puryear's article mentions (even if I would give the idea more attention) what does effectively differentiate The Baptist Faith and Message from other consensus actions of the convention: certainty and importance. Southern Baptists have nowhere hinted that we enjoy no more consensus than the boundaries of the BF&M, but we have stated that we have made an effort to identify critically important items by their inclusion in the BF&M. These thoughts we identify as "those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us," that is, the things about which have achieved a high level of certainty. Further in the preamble we read about the importance of these doctrines in verbiage that Puryear has quoted: "We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice."

Nevertheless, the convention itself has demonstrated by its own actions that it is entirely capable and willing to find consensus on other items of either lesser certainty or lesser importance than the doctrines enshrined in the BF&M. Indeed, should the people of the SBC make any plain statement about the desired role for The Baptist Faith and Message, that action in and of itself would be a consensus statement outside of our statement of faith.

In conclusion, those who lead our entities find themselves discharging their duties within a number of common-sense constraints. They dare not contradict The Baptist Faith and Message where it speaks, because Southern Baptists have demonstrated their consensus behind it as an "instrument of doctrinal accountability." As such an instrument, it is a minimal statement of doctrine (to reject any portion of it is to be in disagreement with the document and to be subject to convention accountability). They dare not ignore other consensus statements of the Southern Baptist Convention, although these lack the full force of the BF&M, since Southern Baptists have not generally declared these as thoughts "most surely held" or "essential." Nevertheless, to contradict the consensus opinion of the SBC as expressed in a resolution or motion is a serious thing indeed. Finally, they dare not oppose the trustees of the institution, because they are the only consensus group of people to make decisions for the institutions which they govern.

Write-Offs

The April 15 tax deadline is looming large on the calendar. Spending my formative years in a family business, one of the major tax decisions I recall being batted around in Dad's office each year was the subject of write-offs. For every custom job we would always manufacture a little more product than the customer ordered. That way, if something broke on the assembly line, or even if the customer broke a lamp in installation and wanted to order a replacement, we wouldn't be eight weeks away (or even longer for a single piece) from being able to deliver. But usually the products don't break, and those extras surely accumulate on the shelves over the course of a year. Then there's the problem of the occasional cancelled order or returned merchandise. For all of that inventory in the dusty parts of the warehouse, the question each year was what to write off.

The advantage of writing something off is that you can reduce the value of your inventory (and thereby your taxable income) by the entire cost of the product. But if you ever manage to sell it in the future, you have to declare the entire sales price as profit, without any allowance for the cost of the item (or the added difficulty in accounting). In the final analysis, writing off inventory is the same thing as abandoning all realistic hope of the merchandise ever being worth anything.

In the process of recovering biblical church discipline in churches, there is always the fear that a church will be perceived as unloving and intolerant if it exercises the Christ-commanded prerogative of disciplining its membership. The premise seems to be that churches have abandoned church discipline because we have grown to be more accepting of one another's faults—that a restoration of biblical church discipline is an abandonment of acceptance.

Perhaps a growing tolerance accounts for some small percentage of the causes for laxity in church discipline, but I think a far greater contributor is the growing ease with which we write off fellow members, not some growing acceptance of them. I have been guilty of blithely allowing members to wander into sin or abandon church fellowship with very little reaction on my part. God forgive me, but there have been times in my pastorate that I really didn't even notice until much later. And I've heard more than one dear brother in ministry say that there's nothing wrong with his church that a few funerals wouldn't correct. Do we so easily write off our brothers and abandon hope that "He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it"?

The right way to restore biblical church discipline, I am convinced, is to recover a sense of mourning over brothers and sisters in sin. An absence of mourning over a wandering brother is a sign of arrogance (1 Cor 5:2). Oh, Father, grant that we might have hearts that yearn for a fellowship of faithfulness with all of our fellow congregants in Christ!

To make my point more poignantly, I give you Michael W. Smith:

So Much for My Bracket

A friend invites me every year to complete a bracket for the NCAA March Madness tournament. And every year I complete my "Baptist Renaissance" bracket, picking teams based upon their religious heritage from a conservative Southern Baptist perspective.

Baylor's loss today hurts my bracket significantly, so this is already something you probably don't care about. Nevertheless, I present to you my Baptist Renaissance bracket breakdown.

Round One

• North Carolina v Mt Saint Mary: North Carolina is a state secular school, while Mount Saint Mary is the second-oldest Catholic school in the nation. I should have picked Mount Saint Mary, but I guess it was too late at night when I picked my bracket—I picked North Carolina! That mistake messed up my bracket for a couple of rounds, but...oh well!
• Indiana v Arkansas: Both are government schools. According to the latest Pew survey, Arkansas is one of the most Baptist states in the union. And, as we all know from "Hoosiers," Indiana worships basketball. The BR pick goes to Arkansas.
• Notre Dame v George Mason: This one is a tough pick. Both are private schools. Notre Dame is the more conscientiously religious of the two schools. Yet George Mason was one of the architects of the First Amendment. That earns major props from this Southern Baptist. George Mason is the pick.
• Washington State v Winthrop: Washington State is a government school. Winthrop University, of Rock Hill, South Carolina, is a private school with no discernable history of religious affiliation. Washington is a more secular state than South Carolina; therefore, the pick goes to Winthrop.
• Oklahoma v St. Joseph's: Our church has some fine Christian young people attending OU and serving through Trinity Baptist Church of Norman, but rules are rules. OU is a government school, and Saint Joseph's is a Jesuit school. The pick goes to St. Joseph's.
• Lousiville v Boise State: Both are secular schools. Lousiville is the home of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Boise is the home of potatoes. The pick goes to Louisville.
• Butler v South Alabama: South Alabama is a government school in Mobile, Alabama. Butler university was founded by Ovid Butler as (originally) North Western Christian University to educate young Christians from an antebellum abolitionist perspective. The pick goes to Butler.
• Tennessee v American: American University has enjoyed a lengthy relationship with American Methodists. Tennessee is a state school. The pick goes to American.
• Kansas v Portland State: Both are state schools. Oregon is among the least religious states in the union. The pick goes (weakly) to Kansas.
• UNLV v Kent State: This one was really difficult. On the one hand, Las Vegas represents everything reprehensible in human nature. On the other hand, Kent State was like the Alamo to the 60s generation, and the 60s movement represented almost everything reprehensible in human nature. Nevertheless, I cannot pick with Las Vegas, so the pick goes to Kent State.
• Clemson v Villanova: Clemson is a state school (although it was founded by private funds from the estate of Thomas Clemson). Villanova was founded by the Augustinian order of the Roman Catholic Church. The pick goes to Villanova.
• Vanderbilt v Siena: Siena College is Franciscan. Vanderbilt was initially a Methodist school, but it Baylored the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1914. The Methodists responded by founding SMU, by the way. So, since Siena is the only one of these schools that maintains a current religious connection, the Saints win the pick.
• USC v Kansas State: Southern California ranks right up there with Las Vegas. The pick goes to Kansas State.
• Wisconsin v Cal State-Fuller: In the aftermath of the recent anti-homeschooling ruling by a California court, I've pretty much decided to diss all things California. Wisconsin benefits from my ire.
• Gonzaga v Davidson: Gonzaga is a private Jesuit school. Davidson College was once Presbyterian, but apparently was not of the elect [smirk]. The school now "extends beyond the Christian community to the whole of humanity and necessarily includes openness to and respect for the world’s various religious traditions." Uh......huh. Gonzaga gets my pick.
• Georgetown v University of Maryland, Baltimore County: UMBC is a secular school. Georgetown is a Catholic school. Georgetown gets the pick (see, this system actually makes sense sometimes!).
• Memphis v UTA: Although the University of Texas at Arlington is a secular school, it has awarded degrees to some key folks advancing the Baptist Renaissance. For that fact alone, I accord UTA special status. Memphis was, at one time, the headquarters of the Brotherhood Commission, but that's not enough. I award the pick to UTA.
• Mississippi State v Oregon: Bulldogs are among the ugliest, frothiest creatures inhabiting the planet. The fact that they still exist is strong evidence against evolution. And strong evidence against evolution is a good thing to this Southern Baptist conservative. Oregon is a pretty dark place spiritually. Mississippi State gets the pick.
• Michigan State v Temple: Michigan State is a state school. Temple was founded by Russell "If You Love Jesus You'll Be A Millionaire" Conwell through his Baptist Temple ministry. Temple all the way.
• Pittsburgh v Oral Roberts: Part of me would like to dissociate Christianity from ORU, but Pittsburgh is a state school. The pick goes (reluctantly) to Oral Roberts. By the way, they can't burn functional CDs at Oral Roberts—the hole in the middle keeps healing up.
• Marquette v Kentucky: With a name like Marquette, you know it's going to be a Catholic school, right? Man, those Jesuits must know something about basketball! Kentucky is a state school. Marquette gets the pick.
• Stanford v Cornell: Please don't ever use in a sermon the story about the plain looking couple whom Harvard's president allegedly dismissed at their appearance, unwittingly forfeiting the fortune that founded Stanford. It's a lie. Leland Stanford had no apparent religious aims in founding the university, and it resides in California (see where this is headed?). Cornell University was founded as the first coeducational Ivy League school and a school open to people of all races. As an interesting side note, a large number of Stanford's early faculty came from Cornell. The pick goes to Cornell, although it is not a religious school, largely because it is not in California.
• Miami v Saint Mary's: Let's see....Cocaine running gang members or a Catholic College in the tradition of John Baptist de La Salle? I'll have to break my California rule here, especially since "Baptist" is in the name of the college's patron. St. Mary's gets the pick.
• Texas v Austin Peay: Both are state schools, but Austin Peay wins the pick for two reasons: First, the school is named after Tennessee Governor Austin Peay, who fought against evolution during the Scopes Trial. Second, the school sits on the former campus of Rhodes College, then called Southwestern Presbyterian College.
• UCLA v Mississippi Valley State: Mississippi: Home of B. H. Carroll. Los Angeles: Home of Paris Hilton. I'm picking Mississippi Valley State.
• Brigham Young v Texas A&M: I draw the line at heresies. BYU gets negative treatment for its religious status. May Judge Baylor forgive me for saying it, but Go Aggies.
• Drake v Western Kentucky: Drake was founded by a Disciples of Christ preacher, General George T. Carpenter. Western Kentucky is a state university. The pick goes to Drake.
• Connecticut v San Diego: Both are state schools. Connecticut gave us Isaac Backus. I pick U Conn.
• Purdue v Baylor: Baylor was founded as a Baptist school. Purdue is a state school. Although Baylor's Baptist status remains somewhat unclear after the school's trustees stole it away from the BGCT, canned Robert Sloan for daring to articulate a thoroughly Christian vision for the school, and hired a Presbyterian to preside over the school, we must also look at the bright side. Down through its history, Baylor has trained a number of great conservative Baptists. Shoot, even I went there. Sic 'em, Bears.
• Xavier v Georgia: By now you know how this works. Xavier is Catholic. Georgia is secular. Xavier.
• West Virginia v Arizona: West Virginia is more religious than Arizona. I pick West Virginia.
• Duke v Belmont: Neither school is exactly a model of Christian education. Belmont was, until recently, at least nominally Baptist. Duke was Methodist and has Satan for a mascot. I pick Belmont.

Round Two

• North Carolina v Arkansas: According to the Pew Study, Arkansas is more Baptist than North Carolina. And I came from Arkansas, too. I pick Arkansas.
• George Mason v Winthrop: Mason's status as a Father of the First Amendment trumps again.
• Saint Joseph's v Louisville: Sorry, SBTS...Louisville is not a religious school. I pick Saint Joseph's.
• Butler v American: American was specifically connected to the Methodist Church. American over Butler.
• Kansas v Kent State: Here's my chance to knock off the 60s hippie LSD school. Go Kansas.
• Villanova v Siena: Six one way; half a dozen the other. I think Villanova beats Siena.
• Kansas State v Wisconsin: Kansas is a more religious state to my liking. I'm going with Kansas State.
• Georgetown v Gonzaga: Again, I'm pretty much free to pick according to actual basketball here. I'm going with Georgetown.
• UTA v Mississippi State: UTA gave us Emir Caner. Mississippi State gave us John Grisham. I'm going with UTA.
• Temple v Oral Roberts: Whatever her founding, Temple's not religious any more. ORU is the pick.
• Marquette v Cornell: Marquette.
• Saint Mary's v Austin Peay: Saint Mary's.
• Mississippi Valley State v Texas A&M: Texas A&M is home to one of the largest BSUs in the world. I'm going with the Aggies.
• Drake v U Conn: Drake.
• Baylor v Xavier: Baylor.
• West Virginia v Belmont: Belmont.

Sweet Sixteen

• Arkansas v George Mason: George Mason.
• Saint Joseph's v American: Methodist beats Roman Catholic. American.
• Kansas v Villanova: Villanova
• Kansas State v Georgetown: Georgetown.
• UTA v Oral Roberts: UTA's honorary Baptist standing beats the ecstatic babblers.
• Marquette v Saint Mary's: I'll take sixth-seeded Marquette, thank you very much.
• Texas A&M v Drake: A&M, for reasons given above.
• Baylor v Belmont: Da Bears.

Elite Eight

• George Mason v American: George Mason (I'm pretty big on this Religious Liberty thing, and consequently pretty happy about a judicial ruling today).
• Villanova v Georgetown: Both Catholic. I'll take Georgetown.
• UTA v Marquette: UTA.
• A&M v Baylor: Now this game, I'd love to see. Baylor over A&M.

Final Four

• George Mason v Georgetown: George Mason.
• UTA v Baylor: Real Baptist school over honorary Baptist school: Baylor.

Championship

• George Mason v Baylor: Baylor University, congratulations on your first men's national basketball title!

Oh well, one can always dream.

Mohler Surgery Successful

Dr. Albert Mohler expects to enjoy a full recovery from his surgery earlier today. Here is the press release:

March 20, 2008
For immediate release

Mohler recovering from surgery

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has undergone successful surgery for the removal of a pre-cancerous tumor from his colon. The surgery was performed in Louisville on March 20. Results of pathological testing on the tumor are not yet available, but doctors expect Mohler, 48, to have a full recovery. The tumor was discovered during a routine colonoscopy in February.

The Mohler family has expressed appreciation for all concern, prayer and encouragement.

Interpreting the Bible, Part 1

The One and Only Interpretation

In many sectors of American religion, the worst accusation that one can level against an opponent is to allege that he believes his is "the one and only interpretation of the Bible." Such a person, the rhetoric goes, is the epitome of hubris, putting himself in the place of God. It's a great line of argumentation to play toward a people incredulous of metanarratives.

Unfortunately, it is an argument that reinforces a deadly evil in contemporary American thought rather than correcting it. The concept of "the one and only interpretation of the Bible" is itself soundly biblical:

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (II Peter 1:20-21, NASB)

So, to deny the existence of "the one and only interpretation of the Bible" or to run away from "the one and only interpretation of the Bible" is to contradict the Bible. Every passage of the Bible means precisely what God intended for it to mean—nothing more and nothing less. Although I believe that the "book" in view here is the Book of Revelation, surely the concluding words of the Bible give us some impression of how God feels about the addition to or subtraction from what God has spoken:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19, NASB)

From that passage I deduce at least this: God does care whether we subtract from His message or add to it. Does this apply only to manipulation of the words of the text, or does it not also apply to the denial that those words actually, objectively, mean anything?

In the task of biblical interpretation, "the one and only interpretation" of a passage is a foundational concept. Indeed, it is the mission. The ten-dollar seminary word for the task of interpreting the Bible is hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the quest for "the one and only interpretation" of the passage. Any time that it does not result in "the one and only interpretation" of a passage, hermeneutics has failed. The Bible is not about our diversity; it is about God's singular revealed truth.

"The one and only interpretation" of the Bible or of a biblical passage does not mean that every passage is monolithic. God is capable of metaphor, subtlety, and even double-entendre. It means not that any passage can have only one meaning (Isaiah 7:10-16, for example), but that there is one and only one right opinion, however complex it might be, as to what any given passage means—God's opinion of what He intended to say.

Next segment: Hermeneutics and the phrase "I don't know."

Perspective

I am returning early (two funerals) from FBC Deweyville, TX, where First Baptist Church of Farmersville wraps up its second mission trip of the year (of six planned this year) on Wednesday. Deweyville lies just across the Sabine River from Louisiana, out in the country. The nearest urban center is Orange, TX.

Upon arriving in Deweyville, I was a little dismayed to discover that my cell phone didn't work there. Also, there was no wi-fi in the church gymnasium where we were staying, and the office only had a dial-up Internet connection. Our entire team was a little bummed out to learn that we would be several days without cell phone service.

Then, late this morning, I spent a while visiting with the Associate Pastor of FBC Deweyville. After Hurricane Rita passed through the area, Deweyville was without ELECTRICITY for TWO MONTHS.

That little revelation put things into perspective for me.

Speaking of perspective, I hope that the victims of Hurricane Rita haven't dropped out of yours. FBC Farmersville's first mission trip of the year was to Waveland, MS, where we continue to fulfill our ongoing commitment to serving the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Members of FBC Farmersville were on the ground at Houston's Reliant Astrodome to serve Katrina victims just days after the storm, and these fine people whom I love continue to serve the victims of Katrina.

But don't forget about the victims of Hurricane Rita in Deep East Texas. Our crew is repairing a home near Kirbyville that was bisected by a fallen tree. Meanwhile, this afternoon, our children gathered fallen limbs into a burn pile near an elderly woman's mobile home in Deweyville. More than two years after the storms these residences remain uninhabitable, their residents stuck in limbo until someone will help them overcome the storm's havoc.

Don't stop a thing that you are doing to help Katrina victims, but do you think that your church might be able to add some volunteers or resources to assist the victims of Hurricane Rita as well? If so, I commend to you the fine folks at Nehemiah's Vision. Our church was able to be present at FBC Vidor last Sunday night as Nehemiah's Vision celebrated their 500^th residence repaired since Rita. FBCF has helped with six of those houses. Your church can help, too.