Category archive - Baptist Faith & Message

Who Said That?

“There are a multitude of issues that have to be dealt with within the trustee framework that go way beyond the Baptist Faith and Message. … There are many things that the Baptist Faith and Message just simply doesn’t deal with.”

.

.

Anyone care to guess?

On Church Membership and Baptism

It was my privilege to serve as chairman of the resolutions committee of the Frisco Baptist Association this year. We had our 114th annual meeting last night, and our committee presented five resolutions, all of which passed without opposition.

I have posted some commentary on our resolution on church membership and baptism, as well as the text of that resolution, on SBC Today. Stop by when you have a chance.

On an unrelated note, I understand there will be some homemaking news coming out of this blog sometime soon. Don’t miss it.

Honored

What do the following people/entities have in common?

• Joe Trull
• Alan Brehm
• Molly Marshall
• Sarah Francis Anders
• Carolyn Clampett
• Donna Forrester
• Dellana O’Brien
• Mary Alice Seals
• Nancy Hastings Sehested
• Lynn Williams
• Pat and Carolyn Anderson
• Joe and Carolyn Crumper
• Diana and David Garland
• Ron Hankins and Lydia Barrow-Hankins
• The Baptist World Alliance
• The Woman’s Missionary Union of Virginia
• Mary F. Lambert
• Wade Burleson

Give up? Each person or entity in the above list has, since 2001, been a recipient of the prestigious Priscilla and Aquila Award. The award, bestowed each year by the group Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), was developed to honor people who, like Priscilla and Aquila “risked their necks” (Romans 16:2) for the sake of the gospel. CBE’s Priscilla and Aquila award honors those who have “risked their necks” for the sake of biblical equality.

One of this year’s two recipients, Wade Burleson, had this to say:

I am honored to receive this CBE Priscilla and Aquila Award for ‘risking my neck’ for the sake of biblical equality. Even though I have been a conservative, evangelical Southern Baptist all my life, I had not been aware until recently that some people in my convention believe that women are not equal to men. My wife, who is smarter than I, has shown me the equality of women. I am a pastor and she is studying to be an anesthesiologist–we both put people to sleep. I made a vow to my wife two years ago that if I ever saw a women being mistreated in the Southern Baptist Convention because of her gender–I would not remain silent, but become a proactive agent for change. Dr. Klouda has been the most well known recipient of the fulfillment of that pledge–but sadly, there have been, and there will be others. I will do my part to be there for them.

A Dispute Between the Brothers

Baptist Press has published on its website a story about the lawsuit brought by former Southwestern Seminary Hebrew professor Sherri Klouda. In an online world of speculation, it is good to see a balanced story on what is, whatever your view on the issue, a sad story. Lawyers on both sides are quoted in the piece, written by Jerry Pierce of the Southern Baptist Texan.

Since most of the speculation I have seen has come from those whose primary desire appears to be that our seminary and its president should “get what’s coming to them,” I want to add some speculation in the form of a hypothetical scenario that I believe is consistent with the small amount of information that has been made public about this case, and that offers a conclusion that is different from many I have seen.

Many have concluded that there is no other possibility in this case than that Dr. Patterson lied to Dr. Klouda when he reportedly gave her assurance that her position was not “in jeopardy.” Isn’t it possible, and consistent with what we know, that the question asked was an immediate question, something along the lines of, “Am I going to be fired right now?”

After all, the conversation in which assurance was supposedly given is said to have happened quite soon after Dr. Patterson became president at Southwestern. In a news report on his hiring by the trustees, he was quoted as saying that there were “ample numbers of men” available to teach in the school of theology when responding to a question about women currently holding those positions. He went on to say the he planned to build the faculty of the School of Theology with “God-called men.” So it seems reasonable to assume that Dr. Klouda would have been concerned by these statements, and that she would wonder whether she should plan to be immediately unemployed.

But that is an entirely different question from the one that has been assumed, which would have been, “Can I assume that I am still on track to receive tenure, and to continue teaching in the School of Theology, in spite of the fact that you have been very clear in public statements that men should hold those professorships?”

I expect that the answer to that question would have been known without having to ask, so it seems silly to me to assume that this was, in fact, the question asked.

As I said, this is mere speculation on my part, and should be taken as such. But I thought it needful to add, in the midst of so much speculation that leans the other way, a differing perspective.

For what it’s worth.

Welcoming and Affirming

Okay, so the title is just a ploy to generate traffic. For the record, I’m all for the “welcoming” part in the context in which that phrase is commonly used, but “affirming?” Not so much. But that’s not what this post is about.

Rather, it is about making a positive statement about our convention’s statement of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message. My friend, fellow pastor, and blogger nouveau, Scott Gordon, has started a new blog designed to give folks who are interested a place where they are welcome to come and affirm this statement. In light of recent attacks being made on the document and those who affirm it (see here and here), this is certainly a welcome development.

Wisdom from E. Y. Mullins

In doing some research for a study this afternoon, I ran across an article written sometime between 1920 and 1925. It was titled “The Baptist Denomination is not a Free Lance Club,” though I suspect that headline was written when Baptist Press published the article in 2002.

It was written by Edgar Young Mullins, fourth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and president of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1921-1924. Dr. Mullins was the primary architect of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message, and in this article he defends the right of Baptist groups to publish statements of faith. Interestingly, in the article, he uses the terms “statement of faith,” “confession,” and “creed” interchangeably. While I found some things in the article with which I do not readily agree, I believe the paragraph below contains much wisdom that can be applied to our contemporary situation:

“The group has liberties as a group. Two men or two million men have the right to unite for common ends on a common doctrinal platform, whether that platform be economic, political or religious. This is an inalienable right of the group. Free and voluntary association on a common platform for common ends is what made America an independent nation. A political party without a platform is unthinkable. A denomination controlled by a group who have no declared platform is heading for the rocks. The Baptist denomination has never allowed creeds to be imposed upon it by others. It has never compelled anyone in the denomination to accept the Baptist confessions of faith. But Baptists have always insisted upon their own right to declare their beliefs in a definite, formal way, and to protect themselves by refusing to support men in important places as teachers and preachers who do not agree with them. This group right of self-protection is a sacred as any individual right. If a group of men known as Baptists consider themselves trustees of certain great truths, they have an inalienable right to conserve and propagate those truths unmolested by others in the denomination who oppose those truths. The latter have an equal right to unite with another group agreeing with them. But they have no right to attempt to make of the Baptist denomination a free lance club.”

You can find the entire article here.

Lines in Sand

I’m fascinated to read today that those who seem threatened by a “narrowing of the parameters of cooperation™” in our convention are now claiming to have drawn a line in the sand with Rick Garner’s deceptively-presented motion in San Antonio.

There are a lot of folks who are twisting this motion to make it say what it so clearly does not, specifically that the Baptist Faith and Message is our maximum standard of cooperation and that entities may not address doctrinal matters not covered by it without convention approval. This patently absurd notion does violence to our trustee system, and it should be obvious to anyone that that is not a road we should be eager to travel.

But the folks who are doing the twisting here have had, from the beginning of all the blogging, one characteristic in common: They don’t want anyone drawing lines. This is why I found it almost humorous to read the claim that the Garner motion was a “line in the sand.” Those who support this twisted reading have been decrying the drawing of lines from the beginning, wrongly accusing convention leaders of drawing ever-tighter lines. The truth is, there has always been a line of clear Baptist identity, and I’m grateful for trustees and denominational employees who are willing to defend that line against those who would see it blurred beyond recognition or erased entirely.

It brought to mind the recent controversy when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome made the assertion that “ecclesial groups,” (they refuse to call them “churches”) that fail to recognize papal authority and priestly succession are “wounded” by that failure. I believe the Roman Catholic Church to be deeply flawed in much of their theology, but you have to admire their willingness to stand for their identity against a wave of voices saying that identity has no significance.

According to the Vatican’s official website, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith exists to “spread sound doctrine and defend those points of Christian tradition which seem in danger because of new and unacceptable doctrines (see here).” Their spokesman, Father Augustine Di Noia, said, “…it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be.”

It seems that in our present dialogues within the Southern Baptist Convention, one side has determined that the very reason for the dialogue is “to accommodate or soften what [we] actually understand [ourselves] to be.”

The problem with lines in the sand is that when the wind blows, the line can be blurred or obliterated. This is where some in our convention want to lead us. Will they succeed?

μη γενοιτο (You can choose your own translation here, but for sentimental reasons, I prefer the KJV: “God forbid.”)

Why It Passed

If you’re reading this blog, you know all about Ben Cole’s Rick Garner’s motion to adopt a statement on the BF&M at the convention last week, including the fact that it passed with roughly 58% of the vote. Wade Burleson has devoted a deluge of text to the analysis of the debate of this vote, and even more electrons have been devoted to those who wish to make this statement say what it clearly does not, specifically that trustees of our entities must view the BF&M as the maximum standard for cooperation.

So I want in this post to offer my analysis of why this motion was agreed to by 58% of those voting.

This motion was presented to the convention in a manner that was intended to be deceptive. Should you doubt this assertion (though I know you do not), kindly click here. Some of those arguing for the motion were deceptive in their arguments, though I don’t believe intentionally so. That may seem like an incredible statement, but it is not. I believe that Dwight McKissic spoke for this motion from his heart, and with no intent whatever to deceive anyone, but simply to state his firm conviction on the matter at hand.

In addition to being in the hall when the debate took place, I have also read the transcript and watched the video. Bro. Dwight talks about the BF&M being circumvented, which is his view of what has happened at the IMB and at SWBTS. This was his perfect right to do, and I believe that his argument was made with the purest of motives and with no intention to deceive anyone. I further believe that his argument was, nonetheless, deceptive.

Most of the messengers in the hall that night do not live and breathe SBC politics. They are not regular readers of the blogs that make up the main source of information for so many of us. For the majority of the messengers, what they know about the events of the past year is what has been available in various state Baptist newspapers, and that is precious little.

If you are one of these messengers, and you hear someone making an argument that the BF&M is being circumvented, your response is very likely to be something akin to “Not by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin. We fought too hard for that statement, and I’m not about to see it ‘circumvented.’” You vote for the motion, because the one who made that heart-felt argument was in favor of it.

I am convinced that messengers in that cavernous hall in San Antonio last Tuesday evening who would be closely described by the above paragraphs would make up a good majority of the total number of messengers present. In fact, I would imagine that the percentage was somewhere around 58, give or take.

Dr. Chapman

I’m sure you will hear this morning’s address from Dr. Chapman spun in a number of different directions, so I thought I would offer my spin as well.

I heard two very significant things said by Dr. Chapman:

1. His recommendations apply only to the confessions of faith required of entity employees.
2. His recommendations would in no way hamper the ability of trustees to govern their entities.

I’m curious about the effect this recommendation would have on the Abstract of Principles, agreement with which is required of professors at SBTS and SEBTS.

A Large Day

Tomorrow (well, today) is a large day. It is the beginning of the actual business of the Southern Baptist Convention, and there is a lot that will happen. We will be called to order by our president at 8:15 AM, and at around 8:40 or so, the floor will be open for the offering of motions. Word is that there will be not a few.

That time will be followed by the first part of the report of the Executive Committee. I find it amusing that some have latched on to a statement made by the EC back in February, claiming that it will, if adopted by the convention, be the end of all policies at all entities which go beyond the BF&M. Here is what the statement says about the BF&M that seems to give rise to this notion:

“…it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form…”

Of course, it also quite clearly says that the BF&M is

“not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible…”

I can’t imagine how anyone could even entertain the notion that this statement somehow requires entities to refrain from having any doctrinal guidelines beyond the BF&M, nor can I imagine why they think that is  somehow a good idea. Ultimately, it comes down to a desire to subvert the trustee system which has served Southern Baptists so well for so many years. If this idea were taken to its logical conclusion, on what grounds could any entity refuse to employ a person who has been twice divorced and is regularly involved in snake-handling in worship services? There would be no grounds whatever, as the BF&M is silent on these issues.

Later in the day there is a “special event” on the program (anyone know the President’s travel schedule), then the reports from SWBTS and the International Mission Board. In between those reports will be more motions, the reelection of Frank Page for another term as president, and the election of the first vice-president.

The election for first vice-president presents a clear choice. Jim Richards has led the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention since its inception to be a confessional (churches must affirm the BF&M prior to membership), mission-oriented (54% of CP receipts directly to the SBC), church planting (over 300 in Texas) organization. David Rogers is doing the hard work of a missionary, for which I am grateful. But as has been pointed out, he has publicly disagreed with the BF&M. This does not make a heretic or even make him less Southern Baptist, but it does make him unfit for elected office within our convention.

So, as you can see, this will be, by any standard, a large day.

I plan to purchase internet access in the convention hall for the next two days, and I will update as time allows.